Jump to content

impeachment hearing play by play


Recommended Posts

Just now, Grrr... said:

You are attempting to indite her 33 year long body of work at 7 posts under 3 presidents confirmed by the senate by complaining that she allegedly didn't like a man who said he grabs women by the pussy.  Let that sink it for a minute.

What am I "inditing" her for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Republicans have firm grasp of legalese. Their ethics are perfectly suited to taking advantage of the situation. Their grasp of science allows them to deny basic laws of thermodynamics which in turn p

This is my 5,000th post.  That's a lot and, by the deal I made with myself, it will be my last one until tRump is driven away from the White House. I am using it to say, simply, that no matter ho

Posted Images

41 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Does Rudy Giuliani have a right to make foreign policy?

If the President has the right to summarily fire any ambassador for any reason at any time, why spend any time maligning an ambassador before Trump fires her?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amati said:

If the President has the right to summarily fire any ambassador for any reason at any time, why spend any time maligning an ambassador before Trump fires her?

Do you deny that the President has the power to fire any ambassador for any reason?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

So, Trumpaloos, would you be as supportive of the POTUS if he were running a shadow defence department fighting his own wars? 

Rhetorical question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amati said:

If the President has the right to summarily fire any ambassador for any reason at any time, why spend any time maligning an ambassador before Trump fires her?

they tried intimidation first - better to corrupt those already in post than to replace them....

a lot of people knew this was going on - a lot of people sat on their hands- career civil servants kept schtum

it shows how naughty orange man is

naughty men in control is never good

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Do you deny that the President has the power to fire any ambassador for any reason?

Oh Fuck you, you incautious blowhard, I just said it.  Is that really the best you can do?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jzk said:
44 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went tuned bad"

Without evidence of any kind, it's slanderous.  Are you even listening to the testimony?

That is not slander.  That is the President's opinion, and he has the absolute right to that opinion.  

US Ambassadors aren’t trying to win popularity contests, and they often enrage foreigners who run afoul of US policy.

A cornerstone of our Ukrainian policy was to combat corruption. Yovanovitch was a soldier in that fight, and had Lutsenko in her sights.

Along comes Giuliani with henchmen seeking Ukrainian/American petrodollars, running a shadow government to sideline official US policy as implemented by the State Department & offering Trump assistance with his re-election.

The result is disrupted US-Ukrainian relations, corruption of our foreign policy goals to personally benefit the president and his cronies, and the Ukrainian president is now seeking to meet with Putin.

When the President’s “opinion” leads to high crimes, then we do have a problem.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, phillysailor said:

US Ambassadors aren’t trying to win popularity contests, and they often enrage foreigners who run afoul of US policy.

A cornerstone of our Ukrainian policy was to combats corruption. Yovanovitch was a soldier in that fight, and had Lutsenko in her sights.

Along comes Giuliani with henchmen seeking Ukrainian/American petrodollars, running a shadow government to sideline official US policy as implemented by the State Department offering Trump assistance with his re-election.

The result is disrupted US-Ukrainian relations, corruption of our foreign policy goals to personally benefit the president and his cronies, and the Ukrainian president is now seeking to meet with Putin.

When the President’s “opinion” leads to high crimes, then we do have a problem.

What are the high crimes?  When do we get on with direct evidence of such.  Why did Zelensky also "slander" the ambassador?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

US Ambassadors aren’t trying to win popularity contests, and they often enrage foreigners who run afoul of US policy.

A cornerstone of our Ukrainian policy was to combat corruption. Yovanovitch was a soldier in that fight, and had Lutsenko in her sights.

Along comes Giuliani with henchmen seeking Ukrainian/American petrodollars, running a shadow government to sideline official US policy as implemented by the State Department & offering Trump assistance with his re-election.

The result is disrupted US-Ukrainian relations, corruption of our foreign policy goals to personally benefit the president and his cronies, and the Ukrainian president is now seeking to meet with Putin.

When the President’s “opinion” leads to high crimes, then we do have a problem.

Well, Trump did make this about himself.....:blink:.......again.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jzkThe “high crimes” are invisible to you, I get it. Threatening our ambassador, trying to personally profit by altering US foreign policy, extorting things of value from foreign governments... you cannot see them because you will not acknowledge them. 

As for direct knowledge, we have numerous individuals whose testimony is sufficient for Articles to be passed. Those with direct knowledge should comply with subpoenas. Failure to comply is obstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In what bizarro world could Trump's tweeting actions this morning be construed as Presidential.  I hope all Independents and Undecideds are watching his clown show and have the memory of his actions in mind when they vote a year from now.  ONLY, morally and intellectually deficient individuals could excuse this behavior from anyone let alone THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

@jzkThe “high crimes” are invisible to you, I get it. Threatening our ambassador, trying to personally profit by altering US foreign policy, extorting things of value from foreign governments... you cannot see them because you will not acknowledge them. 

As for direct knowledge, we have numerous individuals whose testimony is sufficient for Articles to be passed. Those with direct knowledge should comply with subpoenas. Failure to comply is obstruction.

What was the threat to the ambassador?

What was the personal profit gained by altering US foreign policy?

What was extorted from a foreign government?

When will someone testify with direct knowledge as to one of these alleged high crimes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

She was the one who was fucked over!  First hand info doesn't get any more firts hand than than that.  TRUMP is the corruption!  Fucking blind!

She was fired May. Is there a mew avenue of inquiry, her feelings got hurt?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jzk said:

No you didn't.  You asked a question as if there was some uncertainty about it.

It was a clause setting up a factual premise upon which to base a subsequent question.

Your fear makes you stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

What was the threat to the ambassador?

What was the personal profit gained by altering US foreign policy?

What was extorted from a foreign government?

When will someone testify with direct knowledge as to one of these alleged high crimes?

It's in the NYT,gotta be true

11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

@jzkThe “high crimes” are invisible to you, I get it. Threatening our ambassador, trying to personally profit by altering US foreign policy, extorting things of value from foreign governments... you cannot see them because you will not acknowledge them. 

As for direct knowledge, we have numerous individuals whose testimony is sufficient for Articles to be passed. Those with direct knowledge should comply with subpoenas. Failure to comply is obstruction.

Extorting things of value? Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

What was the threat to the ambassador?

What was the personal profit gained by altering US foreign policy?

What was extorted from a foreign government?

When will someone testify with direct knowledge as to one of these alleged high crimes?

The ambassador is currently testifying under oaths the threats.

Being elected is the personal profit.  The head of the FEC has already stated as much.

Slander of the Biden's was extorted.

Several people with direct knowledge have testified.  Fuck, Trump admitted to what he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most boggling thing in all of this is the moran Trump supporters nitpicking trivialities - like his corruption and lack of fitness is even a question.

Fucking incredible. :rolleyes:

One thing they are accomplishing is vividly illustrating how dictators can take over.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Swimsailor said:

The ambassador is currently testifying under oaths the threats.

Being elected is the personal profit.  The head of the FEC has already stated as much.

Slander of the Biden's was extorted.

Several people with direct knowledge have testified.  Fuck, Trump admitted to what he did.

What was the threat?  

Several people with direct knowledge of what have testified?  She has direct knowledge that she was fired, great.  She has direct knowledge of her feelings about being fired, true.  What direct evidence does she have of high crimes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Real-time witness intimidation. I’ve lost count, is that article 5 or 6?

No doubt.  Add that to the list of impeachable offenses. 

Repulshins don't give a shit though.  They live on Planet Trump  where reality is only what's in Trump's mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, warbird said:

She was fired May. Is there a mew avenue of inquiry, her feelings got hurt?

Anyone who has done business overseas in sketchy places knows what kind of fear accompanies the gig, especially if security concerns are involved.  If feelings involve fear of imprisonment, torture, injury, or death, they are a real thing, unless dead diplomats are ok with you.  Fear keeps people alive.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Swimsailor said:

And let's add witness intimidation to the list.  Jsmust because Trump breaks the law in broad daylight doesn't make it legal.

How is this witness intimidation?

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jules said:

No doubt.  Add that to the list of impeachable offenses. 

Repulshins don't give a shit though.  They live on Planet Trump  where reality is only what's in Trump's mind.

He keeps them giggling.  It’s so naughty!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The most boggling thing in all of this is the moran Trump supporters nitpicking trivialities - like his corruption and lack of fitness is even a question.

Fucking incredible. :rolleyes:

One thing they are accomplishing is vividly illustrating how dictators can take over.

If it is not even a question, certainly someone could come forward with direct evidence of it.  Anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

In what bizarro world could Trump's tweeting actions this morning be construed as Presidential.  I hope all Independents and Undecideds are watching his clown show and have the memory of his actions in mind when they vote a year from now.  ONLY, morally and intellectually deficient individuals could excuse this behavior from anyone let alone THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!

North Korea?  Turkey?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

That is what you are leading with for impeachment?

 

15 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

like his corruption and lack of fitness is even a question.

Guess I should have included the quote you were responding to.  Didn't know you have memory issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Amati said:
28 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

In what bizarro world could Trump's tweeting actions this morning be construed as Presidential.  I hope all Independents and Undecideds are watching his clown show and have the memory of his actions in mind when they vote a year from now.  ONLY, morally and intellectually deficient individuals could excuse this behavior from anyone let alone THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!

North Korea?  Turkey?  

Just wait until Trump orders the FCC to immediately revoke the licenses of all TV stations broadcasting the hearing.

The only defense the Trumpublicans have is to deny, lie, deflect, and obstruct. Rep Nunes spent most of his speech time this morning, which went over his alloted, talking about Hillary & Biden.

Where is the evidence of Trump's innocence?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, learningJ24 said:

Did anyone else listen to the explaination during the break on NPR about the connections from Russia to Parnas, Pete Sessions, Giuliani and Trump? Draws a direct line to the firing of Yovanivich because of her anti-corruption effectiveness.

And that's the real purpose of her testimony.  The phone call is only the result of all of the shit happening before hand.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

How was she "fucked over?"  Does she have a right to remain as ambassador?

Does the President have the right to fire her if such act was carried out with corrupt intent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:

Yes, I know. But that doesn’t address my question. 

Jiblet explained it.  He can fire her for any reason, doesn't like her hair, wouldn't let him grab her pussy, etc.  He can also be impeached for wrongful actions including corrupt intents.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

That comment should garner you a shitload of votes in SJB's poll!  Are you campaigning or just business as usual?

The cretinage seems to be increasing.

On a side note, it is apparently not possible to post in that thread. It seems that others have also discovered you can vote for more than one. Six members, ten votes so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Jiblet explained it.  He can fire her for any reason, doesn't like her hair, wouldn't let him grab her pussy, etc.  He can also be impeached for wrongful actions including corrupt intents.  

In the same vein, Trump can be impeached for just about anything.  That's up to congress to decide 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The cretinage seems to be increasing.

On a side note, it is apparently not possible to post in that thread. It seems that others have also discovered you can vote for more than one. Six members, ten votes so far.

Warbird is ahead by almost a length though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

She was fired May. Is there a mew avenue of inquiry, her feelings got hurt?

Witness intimidation. We got to watch it real time. Best ratings ever!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

In the same vein, Trump can be impeached for just about anything.  That's up to congress to decide 

What little I've seen or heard from snippets of car radio or evening tube, demonstrates why there are judges in courts--to keep attorneys (congresspersons here) from asking long long long leading and argumentative questions for the witness to answer in no more than say five words.  Then repeat, repeat...

And why the ratings appear to be pretty low outside of wonks with time for daytime TV.

And why the present group of legislators in love with the sound of their own voices (all of them) are not my choice as to who should decide whether the president should get the hook, as opposed to the voters who will get that chance soon enough. 

 

I know I'm a broken record on this theme, and hence sort of a unicorn in this crowd, but there I said it again anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Witness intimidation. We got to watch it real time. Best ratings ever!

This tweet is "witness intimidation" only in clownland, such as right here on this forum.

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:
2 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went tuned bad"

Without evidence of any kind, it's slanderous.  Are you even listening to the testimony?

That is not slander.  That is the President's opinion, and he has the absolute right to that opinion.  

If it is factually incorrect, it is slander.

Especially from a public figure.

I expect you to be ignorant, and I expect you to blindly support Trump, but this is kinda low even for that standard.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nolatom said:

What little I've seen or heard from snippets of car radio or evening tube, demonstrates why there are judges in courts--to keep attorneys (congresspersons here) from asking long long long leading and argumentative questions for the witness to answer in no more than say five words.  Then repeat, repeat...

And why the ratings appear to be pretty low outside of wonks with time for daytime TV.

And why the present group of legislators in love with the sound of their own voices (all of them) are not my choice as to who should decide whether the president should get the hook, as opposed to the voters who will get that chance soon enough. 

 

I know I'm a broken record on this theme, and hence sort of a unicorn in this crowd, but there I said it again anyway.

I apologize for being a retired guy with time for day TV. FWIW I agree with you above many (possibly all, when they get the chance) Congresscritters being in love with their own voices.

That aside, who -should- hold the power of impeachment? Congress is popularly elected. They are 1 of the 3 main branches of gov't. Obviously a President will not impeach himself, and the President holds the power of appointment over Supreme Court Justices.

That pretty much leaves Congress.

What the Founders and authors of the Constitution did not envision was a nationwide faction of politicians who put blind personal loyalty above their own interest... Trump is in the process of cutting the balls off Congress, and Republican Congressmen should want NO part of that whatever.

Is it going to come apart before Trump and his minions (some of whom are smart enough to plan it... sort of) get a firm grip on all power? I dunno. But I do know that the Constitution isn't going to enforce itself, and right now the enforcers are all chowing down on hamberders and covfefe with mushroom sauce.

- DSK

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

Anyone who has done business overseas in sketchy places knows what kind of fear accompanies the gig, especially if security concerns are involved.  If feelings involve fear of imprisonment, torture, injury, or death, they are a real thing, unless dead diplomats are ok with you.  Fear keeps people alive.  

The foreign service lives in a constant state of alert that is palpable when you visit.  I visited a friend who was Charge d'Affairs in the US Embassy in Tunisia.  They had a 24 hour guard at their house, every morning their car was swept for bombs before they got in it and swept again when they arrived at the Embassy.  As guests, we were searched as was our baggage at their home and at the Embassy.  The ambassador personally hired three loaded dump trucks to form a tight chicane at the embassy entrance and additional private guards because State Department security funds had been cut and the normal force of US Marines working Embassy security was halved. (This was done by the Republican president at the time.  They were subsequently restored by Obama and Clinton.)  This was at a time when Tunisia was at peace and was a solid US ally.

Hearing "She will be going through some things." from the US president while stationed in a country at war with Russia would have to be terrifying and shocking.  

Fuck tRump.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

What was the threat?  

Several people with direct knowledge of what have testified?  She has direct knowledge that she was fired, great.  She has direct knowledge of her feelings about being fired, true.  What direct evidence does she have of high crimes?

You make be (almost) miss Dog’s more sophisticated Bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If it is factually incorrect, it is slander.

Especially from a public figure.

I expect you to be ignorant, and I expect you to blindly support Trump, but this is kinda low even for that standard.

- DSK

You really are a clown.  What does "bad" mean?  Bad for whom?  If Trump can find one thing that turned bad while she was there, he wins.  He is allowed to have an opinion about people in his staff and state that opinion.  

Do you even know the relevance of a "public figure" in slander/defamation cases?  It doesn't relate to public figures making statements, but others making statements about public figures.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:
1 hour ago, jzk said:

What was the threat?  

Several people with direct knowledge of what have testified?  She has direct knowledge that she was fired, great.  She has direct knowledge of her feelings about being fired, true.  What direct evidence does she have of high crimes?

You make be (almost) miss Dog’s more sophisticated Bullshit.

Dog was losing it years ago. He gave up his sense of humor and it was all down hill. I don't wish him ill but I don't wish for his return either. He's probably busy spewing all over some other forum.

JZK obviously missed the part where Yovanovich testified about the fatal acid attack on the Ukrainian anti-corruption activist

Does anybody think Trump would have the slightest interest in preventing such an attack on a State Dept foreign service person who was preventing him from making a crooked deal in their assigned country?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how our fearless leader is GREAT at picking on woman , from the squad to porn stars and now,: Trump Witness Intimidation In Real Time!

A major development at the impeachment hearings.
BUT the dictators of the world have him wrapped around his little hands, Putin, XI , Kim , leader of Turkey and the list goes on .
He is such a DICK! 
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

... If Trump can find one thing that turned bad while she was there, he wins.  He is allowed to have an opinion about people in his staff and state that opinion.  ...

Incorrect

You can try to turn this into a "Depends on the definition of IS" moment but that is wrong several ways. Trump is the chief executive of the United States, not a private citizen. He is either held to a standard, or is not.

We see which you prefer. There are a lot countries run on that basis ("not"), I suggest you move to one of them and stop trying to fuck up the USA.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Incorrect

You can try to turn this into a "Depends on the definition of IS" moment but that is wrong several ways. Trump is the chief executive of the United States, not a private citizen. He is either held to a standard, or is not.

We see which you prefer. There are a lot countries run on that basis ("not"), I suggest you move to one of them and stop trying to fuck up the USA.

- DSK

Actually, moron, if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States, he has absolute immunity to any case of slander.

You really are stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Actually, moron, if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States, he has absolute immunity to any case of slander.

You really are stupid.

Ok, you feel challenged by Warbird's efforts on the dumbest poll.  Trump is not immune from charges of slander.  The DOJ has simply ruled that a sitting President cannot be indicted.  Fuck, you calling someone a moron is a badge of honor as you always get things wrong.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

Actually, moron, if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States, he has absolute immunity to any case of slander.

You really are stupid.

Oh yeah? Why don't you point to some case law on the subject

Sounds like he could shoot somebody on 5th Ave and be declared innocent

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

Actually, moron, if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States, he has absolute immunity to any case of slander.

You really are stupid.

What the actual fuck?  This is why the COTUS outlines the impeachment process.  Why do you like dictators so much?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Ok, you feel challenged by Warbird's efforts on the dumbest poll.  Trump is not immune from charges of slander.  The DOJ has simply ruled that a sitting President cannot be indicted.  Fuck, you calling someone a moron is a badge of honor as you always get things wrong.  

Being indicted on a criminal charge is different from being sued for the civil tort of defamation.   This immunity is not even controversial and is just a google search away.  Are people on this forum really this stupid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

What the actual fuck?  This is why the COTUS outlines the impeachment process.  Why do you like dictators so much?

Here is the cite from the US Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Under what theory of law is slander treason, bribery, a high crime or misdemeanor?  It is not even a crime at all.  It is a civil wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Here is the cite from the US Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Under what theory of law is slander treason, bribery, a high crime or misdemeanor?  It is not even a crime at all.  It is a civil wrong.

 

Classic, thanks.

This is definitely the answer to:

21 minutes ago, jzk said:

Actually, moron, if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States, he has absolute immunity to any case of slander.

You really are stupid.

Having spent about two minutes on googling the topic, I did find some interesting case law on this very topic.

You obviously have not

But thanks for the entertainment, I needed a good belly laugh after a nice lunch.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jzk said:

Actually, moron, if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States, he has absolute immunity to any case of slander.

You really are stupid.

 

9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Being indicted on a criminal charge is different from being sued for the civil tort of defamation.   This immunity is not even controversial and is just a google search away.  Are people on this forum really this stupid?

I believe you are confused.  A President is only immune from charges of slander if they occur as a result of him doing his job as President.  Fuck are you dumb.  

If the President said he gave me a BJ last night at 6pm and I can bring 20 witnesses that will testify that I was 600 miles away, could I charge him with slander?  You say no, I say yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Ok, you feel challenged by Warbird's efforts on the dumbest poll.  Trump is not immune from charges of slander.  The DOJ has simply ruled that a sitting President cannot be indicted.  Fuck, you calling someone a moron is a badge of honor as you always get things wrong.  

Technically, the DOJ did not "rule" that a sitting President cannot be indicted, they published an opinion letter as guidance to prosecutors.  That opinion has never been tested in court, but it did guide Mueller's report and decision not to pursue the 10 or so clear instances of obstruction of justice he found, but to leave it up to Congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww.  Poor JZK.  The president just got called out in the hearing for literally defaming the witness.

And while you are at it, please show us the LAW that gives him absolutely immunity.  In point of fact - there isn't one.  Just a justice department policy.

You should have stayed gone.  You're circling the drain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

 

I believe you are confused.  A President is only immune from charges of slander if they occur as part of him doing his job as President.  Fuck are you dumb.  

It is you that is confused, my pea brained friend, I clearly stated "if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Technically, the DOJ did not "rule" that a sitting President cannot be indicted, they published an opinion letter as guidance to prosecutors.  That opinion has never been tested in court, but it did guide Mueller's report and decision not to pursue the 10 or so clear instances of obstruction of justice he found, but to leave it up to Congress.

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Awww.  Poor JZK.  The president just got called out in the hearing for literally defaming the witness.

And while you are at it, please show us the LAW that gives him absolutely immunity.  In point of fact - there isn't one.  Just a justice department policy.

When you say "law," do you mean the "The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988?"  A "law" like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Technically, the DOJ did not "rule" that a sitting President cannot be indicted, they published an opinion letter as guidance to prosecutors.  That opinion has never been tested in court, but it did guide Mueller's report and decision not to pursue the 10 or so clear instances of obstruction of justice he found, but to leave it up to Congress.

So then do you think it is possible for the President or anyone else to be "indicted" of slander?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the point of all this unanimous consent bullshit about the whistleblower?  What are the republicans trying to do?  Are they just trying to keep the former ambassador from talking?  Are the republicans out of real questions to ask?  So unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is you that is confused, my pea brained friend, I clearly stated "if he is tweeting as the Chief Executive of the United States..."

No, it's you that is confused.

It's either his personal opinion, under which he as liable as you or I, or he's tweeting as Chief Executive in which case he is not subject to civil damages for slander and this one particular instance does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Does this particular Twitter account belong to Donald J. Trump or to the office of the Presidency?

Whatever, it's certainly not a good way to defend against what he IS being impeached for, though. Slandering the witness is generally frowned on... well it -USED- to be, before gentlemen became Trumpublicans.

I wonder, if we brought back dueling, would politicians learn to be polite again?

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

So what is the point of all this unanimous consent bullshit about the whistleblower?  What are the republicans trying to do?  Are they just trying to keep the former ambassador from talking?  Are the republicans out of real questions to ask?  So unfair.

When the witness has the goods and the prosecutor is piling up the evidence and has you by the gonads, the best thing you can do is stop them from talking by getting the witness off the stand.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, it's you that is confused.

It's either his personal opinion, under which he as liable as you or I, or he's tweeting as Chief Executive in which case he is not subject to civil damages for slander and this one particular instance does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Does this particular Twitter account belong to Donald J. Trump or to the office of the Presidency?

Whatever, it's certainly not a good way to defend against what he IS being impeached for, though. Slandering the witness is generally frowned on... well it -USED- to be, before gentlemen became Trumpublicans.

I wonder, if we brought back dueling, would politicians learn to be polite again?

- DSK

 

Now you are just floundering.  As President, he is allowed to have an opinion about the ambassador and state it.  That opinion is protected with complete immunity.  

Link to post
Share on other sites