WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Yovanovich)

Yes and impeached him and voted to remove him because they had prima facie evidence of his crimes in the 8 charges Starr brought them. The Democrats said it was not impeachable so why are they trying to impeach Trump for unproved unalleged, uncharged obstruction of justice when justice was not even obstructed.

 

She felt threatened; point to any statute or case law where dumb shits like Bonespurs have to make a specific threat for it to constitute witness tampering.

hint: Roger Stone

 

You'll have to point to what it is in his statement to determine how it applies to the law. What did he say that tampered with her testimony? What was the threat in his statement, it doesn't matter what she "felt". You're talking legal, what was the threat in his opinion of her that influenced her testimony, testimony she has already given behind closed doors in her deposition?

Here's the statute

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

 

You think that Bill Clinton’s behavior is the same as Bonespurs’ behavior?

when you claim that something is or isn’t impeachable behavior, you’re not just looking at the legal claim, you’re looking more at the conduct, and Bonespurs’ conduct is far far worse than lying about a blowjob in a civil case.

I hope you understand nuance, You don’t seem to.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...h-testified-was-it-witness-tampering-n1084176

Here's a decent enough analysis.

BTW, you're OK with that orange dimwit harassing our career professionals who testify truthfully?

 

I think I have been quite clear, Clinton walked into a federal court and then a federal grand jury and committed multiple felonies for which he was CHARGE and those CHARGES taken to the House for impeachment and removal. Do you think that is the same as Trump? O hope you know the difference which is not just a nuance but a material difference.

Of course I am looking at the legal matter as Bribery, Treason and High Crimes are legal matters, even Misdemeanors by some constitutional authorities must have some criminal aspect. It certainly is not a you disagree with his policies or don't like him thing.

 

How was a witness who was recalling already given testimony tampered with? What exactly did he say that was statutory tampering with a witness in a federal proceeding?

 

Yes, we all know the left is still butt hurt that he got elected.

 

That's fake

 

More fake

 

How was she threatened? By Schiff for brains telling her about it during her testimony?

 

You also dont know whether she limited her testimony explicitly because she felt threatened.

As the witness being attacked, her "feelings" are exceptionally relevant.

 

When you say "The Democrats," you are referencing those Democrats that were in the House and Senate roughly 20 years ago, right? How many of those are still in office?

You don't hold Republicans to what they said 6 weeks ago and yet you demand consistency from Democrats 20 years apart.

 

That is not a requirement for "new" testimony. She was sworn under oath friday and then gave 5 hours of new testimony. Full stop.

Find a different talking point.

 

Because he is the President whom holds a great deal of authority and is the target of an investigation.

Consider the scenario where a mob boss "gives his opinion" of a witness while they are testifying. If he is attacking that witness and that witness feels intimidation that is rational according to a reasonable person standard, then he intimidated the witness.

 

First, she wasn't attacked.

Second, she didn't know about the tweet until the liar Schiff read part of it.

Third, your speculations about her testimony are valueless.

Fourth, her feelings are irrelevant.

 

"Consider the scenario where a mob boss "gives his opinion" of a witness while they are testifying. "

No thanks.

 

First, she was attacked.

Two, how she learned about the tweet is absolutely irrelevant in light of the fact that trump placed the attack in a public realm where it was very likely to reach her. For all you know, her lawyers had already told her about that tweet.

Third, my speculations on whether she altered her testimony is relevant insofar as they reveal an inherent limitation to your speculation.

Fourth, her feelings are infinitely more relevant than yours or mine.

 

And being the target of an investigation mean you 1st amendment rights are put on hold. He has every right to comment on the witnesses and their statements and it was not witness tampering the committee already had her testimony in her previous testimony.

 

Has Trump been attacked?

 

Interesting question... luckily, the good people at Business Insider did that leg work for us... 71 (D's and R's - Feel free to break it down by party if you like)

If this isn't an argument for term limits, you'll never find one

https://www.businessinsider.com/mem...eachment-proceedings-think-about-trump-2019-8

 

Sure, every time he's testified to Congress as President, he's been attacked without mercy.....

 

Yes it is he House that impeaches and the Senate that removes so I think it quite apparent to whom I am referring and yes there are members who where there for the Clinton impeachment include Nadler who now chairs the House Judiciary which is supposed to write the Articles, what's your point?

The Republicans want to run it like they did Clinton what's your beef with that?

 

Has he been attacked in the current proceedings before the House?

 

"First, she was attacked"

She was not attacked.

"Two, how she learned about the tweet is absolutely irrelevant in light of the fact that trump placed the attack in a public realm where it was very likely to reach her. For all you know, her lawyers had already told her about that tweet."

Schiff made sure she knew; your speculation aside. Of course, she would have eventually found out; after her testimony.

Still... not an attack.

"Third, my speculations on whether she altered her testimony is relevant insofar as they reveal an inherent limitation to your speculation."

Your speculations only reveal your lack of evidence.

"Fourth, her feelings are infinitely more relevant than yours or mine."

No one's feelings are relevant. No one's opinions are relevant.

This latest hoax is based on feelings and opinions. It's the most bizarre thing that I've ever seen. My opinion is that anyone who promotes this hoax is a traitor to the country. How about that? Are you willing to submit to the authority of my opinion?