Trump attacks impeachment witness on Twitter, Democrats see intimidation

[sherwood]

I would like to see trump in a hole in the ground, nothing but a grub.

[jany123]

42 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So many flaws in what you wrote.

 

The impeachment sham regarding Trump's actions should be about getting to the truth rather than being driven by the presumption of guilt.  But again, you folks aren't interested in truth, only getting Trump.

 

Tampering with witnessess and, as you say, blah, blah, blah, is all contrived.  Remember, Schiff hates Trump.  He's out to get him.  And he'll use any hook or crook he can to do it.

 

Now in your own words, "as to the whistleblower blah blah.... his testimony has not been suppressed." that is a flat out lie.  He was on the Republicans witness list and Schiff denied their request.  That's suppression.  Of course the libs, lying and twisting reality to suit their pursuit of ousting Trump, will call it something else or invent some other twisted explanation to try and convince us of the "truth."

 

Regarding the whistle blower's safety that is a false concern endlessly amplified by Schiff and used in lieu of a truly valid reason.  No one truly believes he would be physically harmed, do they?  He would no doubt have an escort.

 

And lastly, the reason given, again by Schiff, that we no longer need the whistle blower's testimony because we now have the transcript and a star studded cast of witnesses obfuscates the real reason they will not allow him to testify.  He would be fatally damaging.  If it is indeed Eric Ciaramella then his background alone would be enough to sink the Schiff.

To address my flaws

 

the impeachment probe is getting at the truth by interviewing witnesses.... the trump has been impeding that by not letting more relevant witnesses appear. the trump is preventing the truth from coming out. 

 

Witness tampering by the trump is not contrived. Y’all keep referencing the fact that mueller did not make formal charges against the trump... but mueller did mention obstruction, right?

 

regards whistle blower testimony being suppressed. The man has made a written testimony. That has not been suppressed. It’s on the record. What you are discussing is further testimony... unsuppressed because it’s not been made.... testimony that the inquiry does not deem useful. That does not preclude senatorial actions in the opposite

 

whistleblower safety not a concern. Crikey! I saw a video of a republican man assaulting a kid because he didn’t remove his cap after the trump calling such things unpatriotic. The thug nearly ripped the kids ear off! Then there’s the whole pipe bomb thing.

that you can suggest that safety is a non issue, or worse, contrived, is pathetic

 

 

And lastly... if’s and buts. If it’s person A... if it’s person B. Sheesh.

anyway... once again, your seeking further testimony from someone guaranteed protection, when there’s plenty of others testifying to the same events in more detail. Y’all are looking for an out via lack of probable cause. Sorry... this ain’t a stop and frisk issue.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by jany123

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So many flaws in what you wrote.

 

The impeachment sham regarding Trump's actions should be about getting to the truth rather than being driven by the presumption of guilt.  But again, you folks aren't interested in truth, only getting Trump.

 

Tampering with witnessess and, as you say, blah, blah, blah, is all contrived.  Remember, Schiff hates Trump.  He's out to get him.  And he'll use any hook or crook he can to do it.

 

Now in your own words, "as to the whistleblower blah blah.... his testimony has not been suppressed." that is a flat out lie.  He was on the Republicans witness list and Schiff denied their request.  That's suppression.  Of course the libs, lying and twisting reality to suit their pursuit of ousting Trump, will call it something else or invent some other twisted explanation to try and convince us of the "truth."

 

Regarding the whistle blower's safety that is a false concern endlessly amplified by Schiff and used in lieu of a truly valid reason.  No one truly believes he would be physically harmed, do they?  He would no doubt have an escort.

 

And lastly, the reason given, again by Schiff, that we no longer need the whistle blower's testimony because we now have the transcript and a star studded cast of witnesses obfuscates the real reason they will not allow him to testify.  He would be fatally damaging.  If it is indeed Eric Ciaramella then his background alone would be enough to sink the Schiff.

1. The whistle blower does not want to be identified and it's protected by law.

2. Your allegations about Biden have been debunked already. You can have a try at twisting facts as often as you want, it will not change reality.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

3. As mentioned many times by other posters, the Biden have not witnessed anything about Trump, so they are not relevant.

4. Even in the case you are right that Schiff hates Trump, and that questions by Dem members may be biased, it would have little impact:

- Republican members are there to ask Trump-friendly questions

- people like Pompeo, Giuliani, etc... are not weak newbies and are perfectly able to resist pressure and avoid traps.

So there is no valid reason to prevent those people from testifying, unless Trump does not want them to tell the truth.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't have an issue with any witness giving testimony.  But you do.

 

You did say in a recent post: "And what evidence could they give relating to trump bribing ukraine."

 

That statement is proof that you are not interested in getting at the truth but only interested in getting Trump.  You have already convicted him.  So please don't pander.

 

Yes you want the impeachment to consider anything and everything so long as it doesn’t focus on Trump’s high crimes, misdemeanors, Bribery or treason.

 

We get that.

 

What you don’t get is, it is Trump who is being impeached.

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

They don't want to go there.  Remember, the idea is to get Trump.  You can't have Biden corruption messing that up.  Are you crazy!

 

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/breaking-leaked-documents-show-tens-millions-ukraine-paid-kerry-biden-jr-fund

nor what bidens did or didnt do remotely relevant to the impeachment investigation.

 

Biden could have shot someone on 5th avenue. Not relevant to what trump did. Just deflection.

[jany123]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

They don't want to go there.  Remember, the idea is to get Trump.  You can't have Biden corruption messing that up.  Are you crazy!

 

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/breaking-leaked-documents-show-tens-millions-ukraine-paid-kerry-biden-jr-fund

Lmao... your certainly allowed to pick your links. No denying that. But an opinion piece based on tweets by a right wing campaigner? Lol... why not just give us a link to hannity? ????????????

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

I disagree.  The truth is POTUS is pleading innocence by ignorance.  POTUS sees nothing wrong in having personal favors given to him by foreign governments.  Just the fact that POTUS had Guliani "helping" him, shows his disregard of ethics.  Giuliani is a "personal" lawyer, not a government employee

The fact is: Our Joint Chiefs of Staff certified military aide to the Ukraine and POTUS "held" up that aide for personal gain which is a bribe. Hey, you want anti-tank missiles?  Give me dirt on Joe Biden first.  

This is what the impeachment proceedings is about, nothing more, nothing less.

The idea that Schiff or any Dem congressman is out to get him is moot.  They are not testifying, they did not work with the Ukraine or work for POTUS in any dealings with the Ukraine...so moot points

Excellent example of "presumption of guilt," Skallywag.  Shows you understood nothing of my post but you did manage to prove my post's point.  You folks aren't at all interested in truth.  You've already convicted Trump.  So to you he's already guilty and you're only interested in getting the proof of it.

 

Geezus, I ain't an American but I always thought Americans had this thing about "guilty until proven innocent."  I assume you're an American, Skallywag, and correct me if I'm wrong, but what the h_e_l_l has happened over there?  This seems to me to be no different than mob action.

 

Check out the 1947 movie called Boomerang.  The true story of a prosecutor's fight to prove the innocence of a man accused of a notorious murder back in 1924.  Under pressure by the political party to convict to appease the mob-like public the prosecutor proved the accused's innocence.  Let me repeat that, the prosecutor proved the accused's innocence.  The prosecutor's real name was Homer Stille Cummings.  He went on to become the 55th U.S. Attorney General under Franklin Roosevelt.

 

What happened to that America?  The bloodthirsty mob here doesn't deserve the Republic for which their forefathers shed their blood to bequeath them.

 

Fortunately there are still real Americans, a lot of them on these threads.  And they will make damn sure that the Republic regains it's previous glory and honour.  You lot certainly won't.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Excellent example of "presumption of guilt," Skallywag.  Shows you understood nothing of my post but you did manage to prove my post's point.  You folks aren't at all interested in truth.  You've already convicted Trump.  So to you he's already guilty and you're only interested in getting the proof of it.

 

Geezus, I ain't an American but I always thought Americans had this thing about "guilty until proven innocent."  I assume you're an American, Skallywag, and correct me if I'm wrong, but what the h_e_l_l has happened over there?  This seems to me to be no different than mob action.

 

Check out the 1947 movie called Boomerang.  The true story of a prosecutor's fight to prove the innocence of a man accused of a notorious murder back in 1924.  Under pressure by the political party to convict to appease the mob-like public the prosecutor proved the accused's innocence.  Let me repeat that, the prosecutor proved the accused's innocence.  The prosecutor's real name was Homer Stille Cummings.  He went on to become the 55th U.S. Attorney General under Franklin Roosevelt.

 

What happened to that America?  The bloodthirsty mob here doesn't deserve the Republic for which their forefathers shed their blood to bequeath them.

 

Fortunately there are still real Americans, a lot of them on these threads.  And they will make damn sure that the Republic regains it's previous glory and honour.  You lot certainly won't.

‘Presumption of guilt’.

 

Again, impeachment is not a criminal justice process.

 

‘Geezus, I ain't an American’ which perhaps explains your lack of understanding of the Constitution, US governance and US law.

 

‘Check out the 1947 movie called Boomerang.  The true story of a prosecutor's fight to prove the innocence of a man accused of a notorious murder back in 1924’

 

Once again, impeachment is not a criminal justice process, and it ain’t no movie plot either.(Though I suspect it will make a great movie).

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[roobaa01]

32 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

 "You cant handle the truth" .  POTUS sees nothing wrong in having personal favors given to him by foreign governments.  Just the fact that POTUS had Giuliani "helping" him, shows his disregard of government procedure and ethics.  Giuliani is a "personal" lawyer, not a government employee

The truth is: Our Joint Chiefs of Staff certified military aide to the Ukraine and POTUS "held" up that aide for personal gain which is a bribe. The bribe? POTUS, "Hey, you want anti-tank missiles?  Give me dirt on Joe Biden first."  am summarizing here  

This is what the impeachment proceedings is about, nothing more, nothing less.

The idea that Schiff or any Dem congressman is out to get him is moot.  They are not testifying, they did not work with the Ukraine or work for POTUS in any dealings with the Ukraine...so moot points.  

nonsense, the summary was extracted from yovanowitch in 30 sec by gop chris steward

asking her if she knew of potus bribe taking and dot criminal activities, she replied NO. hence the whole dem circus is a waste of time. thereto support for the impeachment will fall rapidly.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

nonsense, the summary was extracted from yovanowitch in 30 sec by gop chris steward

asking her if she knew of potus bribe taking and dot criminal activities, she replied NO. hence the whole dem circus is a waste of time. thereto support for the impeachment will fall rapidly.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Nothing for Trump and his supporters to worry about then.

[rabas]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

12 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

As far as I know she wasn't aware of the tweet until it was read to her today.

As trump’s intimidation tactics happened while she was giving testimony how could she have known about it earlier?

You mean the only reason she was intimidated as a witness was because the Democrats read the Tweet to her before she could finish her testimony?

 

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

You mean the only reason she was intimidated as a witness was because the Democrats read the Tweet to her before she could finish her testimony?

 

No, I don’t mean that at all. 
 

maga

[jany123]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Check out the 1947 movie called Boomerang.  The true story of a prosecutor's fight to prove the innocence of a man accused of a notorious murder back in 1924.  Under pressure by the political party to convict to appease the mob-like public the prosecutor proved the accused's innocence.  Let me repeat that, the prosecutor proved the accused's innocence.  The prosecutor's real name was Homer Stille Cummings.  He went on to become the 55th U.S. Attorney General under Franklin Roosevelt.

 

What happened to that America?  The bloodthirsty mob here doesn't deserve the Republic for which their forefathers shed their blood to bequeath them.

Check out the controversial execution of the arguably innocent Sacco and Vanzetti (1920-1927).... same time period... same US judicial system.

 

those incompetent and biased judicial officials didn’t deserve the republic their forefathers shed blood to establish.

 

so... nothing new under the sun... not much has changed really. That America still exists.

 

sorry... there’s reading required as I don’t believe they made a filum for you to watch

Edited November 16, 2019 by jany123

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I wanted to add that in the movie, Boomerang, there was a scene showing Dana Andrews, the actor playing Cummings, holding open a book showing the text of the book's inset.  Inscribed were the words:

 

The primary duty of a lawyer exercising the office of prosecutor is not to convict but to see that justice is done. - The Lawyer's Code Of Ethics

 

Contrast with Schiff.  Contrast with the TV mob.

We did, and sadly.

trump is still president. Not for long I hope but  where is the justice?? 

[candide]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I wanted to add that in the movie, Boomerang, there was a scene showing Dana Andrews, the actor playing Cummings, holding open a book showing the text of the book's inset.  Inscribed were the words:

 

The primary duty of a lawyer exercising the office of prosecutor is not to convict but to see that justice is done. - The Lawyer's Code Of Ethics

 

Contrast with Schiff.  Contrast with the TV mob.

Apart from the fact that Schiff is not a prosecutor, what contrast is there?

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

 

Continue to post in an uncivil manner and suspensions will be given. 

[Slip]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

Stone is not looking at 20 years lmao. Non violent first offense is a wrist slap. 

Multiple wrist slaps.  Sadly he probably won't do more than 10.  

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Check out the controversial execution of the arguably innocent Sacco and Vanzetti (1920-1927).... same time period... same US judicial system.

 

those incompetent and biased judicial officials didn’t deserve the republic their forefathers shed blood to establish.

 

so... nothing new under the sun... not much has changed really. That America still exists.

 

sorry... there’s reading required as I don’t believe they made a filum for you to watch

No nation of men is perfect and never will be.  But the current slide is undeniable.  I've lived through it.

 

At one time I had a personal library of over 1,000 volumes.  A good portion was devoted to classic literature.  From the mid 70's until the mid 80's I did not own a TV.  I do not bring this up to suggest I am smarter or better than anyone else.  After all, I subscribe to someone's definition of true humbleness:  no one is better than I and I am no better than anyone else.  I mention it merely to counter your subtle slight that I don't read.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Skallywag]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You folks aren't at all interested in truth.  You've already convicted Trump.  So to you he's already guilty and you're only interested in getting the proof of it.

 

Geezus, I ain't an American but I always thought Americans had this thing about "guilty until proven innocent."

Yes I am American.  The impeachment hearings are not like normal courts of Law as you know. House cannot remove POTUS from his office.  They can only vote to send it to the Senate for the trial. No "conviction" involved, only a chance that he is removed from office.

As most Dems concur, even if impeached in the House, POTUS will not likely to be removed from office in the Senate trial. 

Yes, what happened to America? people divided, politics all polarized, some say a civil war coming.   

Hard to fathom for me .... 

Many think removing our current POTUS or electing a Dem next year is the answer.  Yet reality seems to be that our 2 party system is filled with corrupt and greedy politicians on both sides.  

 

[quandow]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

<snip>

Geezus, I ain't an American but I always thought Americans had this thing about "guilty until proven innocent."  I assume you're an American, Skallywag, and correct me if I'm wrong, but what the h_e_l_l has happened over there?  This seems to me to be no different than mob action.

<snip>

And how many wonderful, honorable, decorated career civil servants has trump discredited because they put him in a sour mood by not kissing his a$$?  He is asking for everything he's going to get.

 

[Eric Loh]

Looking forward to the 2nd week of  hearing and what Trump die hard fans will spin and conjure when Sondland confirm publicly what David Holmes heard. Roger Stone conviction give him lots to ponder and discomfort. 

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, candide said:

Apart from the fact that Schiff is not a prosecutor, what contrast is there?

He sure acts like a prosecutor.  A prosecutor who takes liberty to lead witnesses as well.  He acts as a judge, too, instructing witness not to answer questions.  And as jury.  He's convicted Trump already.  Schiff is devoid of all principle.

[bristolboy]

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I wanted to add that in the movie, Boomerang, there was a scene showing Dana Andrews, the actor playing Cummings, holding open a book showing the text of the book's inset.  Inscribed were the words:

 

The primary duty of a lawyer exercising the office of prosecutor is not to convict but to see that justice is done. - The Lawyer's Code Of Ethics

 

Contrast with Schiff.  Contrast with the TV mob.

Contrast that with the person who wields authority over all the Depts. of the Federal Government, including the Dept. of Justice:

 

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No nation of men is perfect and never will be.  But the current slide is undeniable.  I've lived through it.

 

At one time I had a personal library of over 1,000 volumes.  A good portion was devoted to classic literature.  From the mid 70's until the mid 80's I did not own a TV.  I do not bring this up to suggest I am smarter or better than anyone else.  After all, I subscribe to someone's definition of true humbleness:  no one is better than I and I am no better than anyone else.  I mention it merely to counter your subtle slight that I don't read.

 

Whatever your level of literacy might actually be, do you get that you're an anonymous poster on thaivisa.com and the rest of us have no independent way of confirming what you attest to about yourself?

[candide]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

He sure acts like a prosecutor.  A prosecutor who takes liberty to lead witnesses as well.  He acts as a judge, too, instructing witness not to answer questions.  And as jury.  He's convicted Trump already.  Schiff is devoid of all principle.

He tries to make sure that the case is well investigated and does it in a quite ethical manner.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, boys, you need to update your talking points.  It is no longer quid pro quo.  Per your leader, Pelosi has changed it to bribery so that the language conveniently squares up with the language in the Constitution.

 

 

If you had bothered to actually read about the meaning of bribery as the Founding Fathers understood it. you'll discover that quid pro quo is exactly what it's about: extortion.

[metisdead]

Some more troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Yes I am American.  The impeachment hearings are not like normal courts of Law as you know. House cannot remove POTUS from his office.  They can only vote to send it to the Senate for the trial. No "conviction" involved, only a chance that he is removed from office.

As most Dems concur, even if impeached in the House, POTUS will not likely to be removed from office in the Senate trial. 

Yes, what happened to America? people divided, politics all polarized, some say a civil war coming.   

Hard to fathom for me .... 

Many think removing our current POTUS or electing a Dem next year is the answer.  Yet reality seems to be that our 2 party system is filled with corrupt and greedy politicians on both sides.  

 

I'm fond of saying that there is a reality that exists which is utterly consistent, makes no exceptions, and operates as it does despite anyone's beliefs about it.  Throughout time men, through their visions, have glimpsed the truth of that reality.  As, I believe, many of America's forefathers have, shown by the wisdom they exercised in order to create the United States of America.  All men are created equal is one such foundational truth of all realities.  Of all of the great quotes perhaps my favourite is one by Samuel Adams.  Because to me this quote frames the drama of these current times perfectly.

 

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

 

Reality's truths have been the basis for what man calls morals.  And too many, in my opinion, are separating further and further from those truths.  I believe that separation is what Adams meant by corrupt.  Truth has become so twisted that what is left is a corruption of truth.  People who, for instance, now deny even their own biological heritage.

 

I don't believe in leaders nor do I seek them.  My life is my own to lead and I look to no other to do that for me.  I only support Trump insofar as I believe he will fight corruption.  And yes, on both sides.  Isn't it evident that those who fight him are those who are the most corrupt and have much to lose (including their heads in some cases)?  It is to me.

[Sujo]

47 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

He sure acts like a prosecutor.  A prosecutor who takes liberty to lead witnesses as well.  He acts as a judge, too, instructing witness not to answer questions.  And as jury.  He's convicted Trump already.  Schiff is devoid of all principle.

Its obvious you dont understand this is not a trial. It is an investigation.

[JHolmesJr]

5 hours ago, Opl said:

She was heard for the context and her testimony helps to understand what happened after she was removed.

She did not provide évidences of what she could not not witness -  it does not automatically means nothing happened after she left.   

 

None of these witnesses have witnessed anything, they are only privy to hearsay....I heard my colleague etc etc.

They have not met Trump. What a joke