The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[JohnT]

Weird how all these people close to Trump keep getting thrown in prison during the Trump administration.

[Gyrate]

That definitely could have happened to a nicer guy.

At least he already has a premade prison tat.

[Ravenman]

@steronz

If Trump met your own definition of intimidating witnesses, would you support impeachment?

I think that definition would have to include the words, “I, Donald J. Trump, am intimidating you, a witness in a Federal matter, in this communication!” before his supporters miiiiiight consider it to be actual intimidation. Leave any of those words out, and hey – it just might be a perfecto communication.

[Ike_Witt]

I wonder if the collars on Trumps shirts just got an inch or so smaller…

[Airbeck]

Roger Stone going down makes me so happy. As we Chicagoans say, what a jagoff. That ratfucker has had this coming for a long time.

[Sage_Rat]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Or… it’s codified in the Constitution that “The House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Yes, the House has the sole power of deciding which allegations they think need to be taken to trial, in the Senate. That is to say, they have the power to write up an “articles of impeachment”.

And then the Senate holds a trial, currently expected to take 6-8 weeks, with 6-day weeks of mostly trial.

Is that not exactly what I said?

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Ravenman

I think that definition would have to include the words, “I, Donald J. Trump, am intimidating you, a witness in a Federal matter, in this communication!” before his supporters miiiiiight consider it to be actual intimidation. Leave any of those words out, and hey – it just might be a perfecto communication.

“He was only joking.”

[QuickSilver]

@HurricaneDitka

Ok, so the argument is that he wasn’t intimidating Yovanovitch, but some other State Department bureaucrat?

The person whom Trump and Trump’s cronies harangued, undermined and intimidated out of a job was giving testimony before congress. The lead bully then took it upon himself to continue to harangue her and besmirch her reputation, in real time. Now, I’m not sure if you’ve ever experienced intimidation and harassment. But it leaves little doubt that this is exactly what Trump was doing WHILE Yovanovitch was giving testimony about his malfeasance.

Now if you don’t consider it intimidation, and I imagine you don’t, would you characterize it as witness harassment?

[Skywatcher]

Nunes’s opening remarks this morning:

Democrats have convened us once again to advance their operation to topple a duly elected president. I’ll note that five—five—Democrats on this committee had already voted to impeach this president before the Trump-Zelensky phone call occurred.

As if that absolves Trump of any and all wrongdoing. :rolleyes:

[Ike_Witt]

@QuickSilver

Now if you don’t consider it intimidation, and I imagine you don’t, would you characterize it as witness harassment?

Maybe it is more of an attempt to influence the jury (Senate)?

[QuickSilver]

@Defensive_Indifference

Stone is found guilty of obstructing Congress at the same time Trump is actively obstructing Congress.

Could not be more well deserved. Fuck that assclown.

[GIGObuster]

@HurricaneDitka

No, there’s nothing “clear” about that. How is it “witness intimidation” of Yovanovitch? He thinks Yovanovitch was bad at her job. That’s been pretty clear at least since he fired her back in May. Now she’s testifying and he publicly reiterated that he thinks she’s bad at her job. How is that supposed to be “intimidation”?

It looks like it because Trump should know better, but ignoring the context is what is silly here. NPR just reported on the background, and in essence, Trump is just there listening to foreign gangsters that are close to Rudy Giuliani and others, instead of our intelligence community. They were the ones that made a campaign of lies designed to dismiss the ambassador because they knew that she would likely… actually do her job and not to be a lackey of the President.

So much for being a nationalist…

And it shows how corrosive is to have a president that ignores good advice from Americans and continues to rely on international mobsters.

[HurricaneDitka]

@QuickSilver

The person whom Trump and Trump’s cronies harangued, undermined and intimidated out of a job was giving testimony before congress. The lead bully then took it upon himself to continue to harangue her and besmirch her reputation, in real time. Now, I’m not sure if you’ve ever experienced intimidation and harassment. But it leaves little doubt that this is exactly what Trump was doing WHILE Yovanovitch was giving testimony about his malfeasance.

Now if you don’t consider it intimidation, and I imagine you don’t, would you characterize it as witness harassment?

I don’t think “witness harassment” is a term of any use, legal or otherwise. It’s not like she was checking Trump’s twitter account on her phone while she was testifying. She wouldn’t have even been aware of the tweet until afterwards if Schiff hadn’t brought it up.

I’d characterize it as the President of the United States engaging in free speech of a mildly undignified nature. I certainly don’t see anything criminal / impeachment-worthy in his tweet.

[QuickSilver]

@Ike_Witt

Maybe it is more of an attempt to influence the jury (Senate)?

Trump is a fucking child without an ounce of self control. There is no long term strategy to his temper tantrums. He lashed out because of narcissistic rage that someone dare criticize him.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ike_Witt

Maybe it is more of an attempt to influence the jury (Senate)?

This whole “impeachment inquiry” is an attempt to influence the Senate. That’s what happens in politics.

[GIGObuster]

@HurricaneDitka

I don’t think “witness harassment” is a term of any use, legal or otherwise. It’s not like she was checking Trump’s twitter account on her phone while she was testifying. She wouldn’t have even been aware of the tweet until afterwards if Schiff hadn’t brought it up.

I’d characterize it as the President of the United States engaging in free speech of a mildly undignified nature. I certainly don’t see anything criminal / impeachment-worthy in his tweet.

Again that is only possible by ignoring the context.

[HurricaneDitka]

oops

[Lance_Turbo]

@HurricaneDitka

I don’t understand how Trump tweeting that he thinks Yovanovitch was bad at her job is supposed to amount to “witness intimidation”.

Throw another thing on the pile of things that you don’t understand.

[Airbeck]

I think we all know how you feel HD. Your feelings about this impeachment are becoming the driving force in this discussion and it keeps getting the conversation bogged down. It would be nice if we could focus on what is happening in the hearings, which is the purpose of this thread, rather than what you HD would accept as impeachment worthy. You should maybe start a new thread on that. Now that you’ve made it clear how you feel I propose we accept that is how you feel and that it is how you will continue to feel and just move on. I don’t think it needs to be constantly reiterated.

I am not attempting to junior mod, I’m asking as an individual poster if we can all try to keep this discussion on track. If the answer is no, then so be it.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Airbeck

I think we all know how you feel HD. Your feelings about this impeachment are becoming the driving force in this discussion and it keeps getting the conversation bogged down. It would be nice if we could focus on what is happening in the hearings, which is the purpose of this thread, rather than what you HD would accept as impeachment worthy. You should maybe start a new thread on that. Now that you’ve made it clear how you feel I propose we accept that is how you feel and that it is how you will continue to feel and just move on. I don’t think it needs to be constantly reiterated.

I am not attempting to junior mod, I’m asking as an individual poster if we can all try to keep this discussion on track. If the answer is no, then so be it.

steronz asked me a question and I gave a one-word answer. Is that what you’re referring to?