Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

Patraeus was forced to submit his resignation because he was having a secret affair with a journalist/his biographer and giving her classified information. He eventually pleaded guilty to criminal charges over this.

Subgenius, ever incapable of defending behavior he wants to defend on the merits, reaches to his favorite technique and tries to create a false equivalence between this and targeting family members of whistleblowers.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

1) Why would LTC Vindman want to look into the Bidens with regard to national security?

Subgenius) His job, and the players involved merit an interest.

In what way would the Bidens' dealing in Ukraine have meritied LTC Vindman, an Army officer, linking them to national security interests?

- Doc

[_mikwut]

Hi E,

Mikwut probably would react to this by inventing a flimsy pretextual reason for the President's behavior, point out that you can't literally read the President's mind to know with Cartesian certainty this isn't what he was thinking, then claim this precludes from finding the President guilty of any illegal or wrongful behavior.

I like that subs just skips right past this to ask, "Isn't Trump a God-King whose actions are above question?! Can't he fire anyone he wants for any reason he wants?"

Nah. I would just say PP-19 doesn't cover testifying to congress. And history goes to the victors.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Nah. I would just say PP-19 doesn't cover testifying to congress.

Wrong legal basis and wrong person.

You should be looking the law concerning retaliation against witnesses, victims, and informants. People go to prison for this Mikwut, which I'm sure you are aware of.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1513

And history goes to the victors.

mikwut

Just going with straight-up Nazi apologia now. Good deal.

[_mikwut]

Hi E,

I've tried telling you the media can lead you astray really easily. It's not like you to fail to read what you post. Every element of a statute must be met E, so let's see what you got.

Under 18-1513:

(a) whoever kills or attempts to kill --- Vindman was not killed or attempted to be killed so that doesn't cover.

(b) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, --- Vindman had no bodily injury or damage to tangible property or threatened thereby so that doesn't cover.

(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, --- No attendance at criminal case.

(d) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer ----- no cops involved.

(f) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those --- no conspiracy when none of the offenses apply.

Sorry. Doesn't apply.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Hi E,

I've tried telling you the media can lead you astray really easily. It's not like you to fail to read what you post. Every element of a statute must be met E, so let's see what you got.

Under 18-1513:

(a) whoever kills or attempts to kill --- Vindman was not killed or attempted to be killed so that doesn't cover.

(b) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, --- Vindman had no bodily injury or damage to tangible property or threatened thereby so that doesn't cover.

(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, --- No attendance at criminal case.

(d) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer ----- no cops involved.

(f) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those --- no conspiracy when none of the offenses apply.

Sorry. Doesn't apply.

mikwut

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/cri ... 8-usc-1513

Section 1513 of Title 18 embraces two types of conduct heretofore beyond the purview of Federal law. First, the statute reaches threats of retaliation. Second, it reaches attempts to retaliate. Section 1513 complements 18 U.S.C. § 1512 by proscribing conduct amounting to retaliation for participation in Federal legislative, administrative, or judicial proceedings or for the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. With the exception of the omnibus clauses of §§ 1503 and 1505, the express prohibitions against retaliating against witnesses, parties, and informants contained in former 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, and 1510 are now in 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a) and (b).

The structure of 18 U.S.C. § 1513 is similar to that of 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Section 1513, like § 1512, eliminates ambiguity about the class of people protected. Although the former law protected witnesses and parties, it was unclear whether that law reached retaliation against third parties (for example, the spouse of a witness) in response to the participation of the principal party in a Federal proceeding. Section 1513 plainly covers such conduct even though the caption of the provision may indicate otherwise. See 128 Cong. Rec. H8204 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1982). Section 1513, like 18 U.S.C. § 1512, expands the class of informants protected by Federal law. It also confers extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses cited in the provision. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g).

[_mikwut]

E,,

Stop. Just stop. Read the f-ucking statute. You are embarrassing yourself.

mikwut

[Guest]

E,,

Stop. Just stop. Read the f-ucking statute. You are embarrassing yourself.

mikwut

It appears to me that that is exactly what he did! Why are you so persistent in apologizing for and defending Trump's misbehavior and hateful, vindictive treatment of people who point it out and rightfully testify against it? Do you honestly believe that Trump is anywhere close to being beyond reproach or undeserving of criticism?

[_mikwut]

Gunnar,

I am not going to tolerate this like it is opinion. This is about a statute and just reading it. I am not defending Trump by reading a damn statute. This is ridiculous you guys can read 7 lines of a statute for heaven's sake.

Show the portion of the statute that applies or just stop.

mikwut

[_Gunnar]

Gunnar,

I am not going to tolerate this like it is opinion. This is about a statute and just reading it. I am not defending Trump by reading a damn statute. This is ridiculous you guys can read 7 lines of a statute for heaven's sake.

Show the portion of the statute that applies or just stop.

mikwut

As far as I can tell, that is precisely what EA showed you!