Impeachment hearings

[_mikwut]

Gunnar,

For the love of God. He did not. He gave summaries of the statute that do not say anything different. Please read. There is not a portion of that statute that applies and this is utterly insane to think it does.

Give one portion of the statute that applies or stop you are both embarrassing yourselves. It is a very easy to read.

Stop.

mikwut

[_Jersey Girl]

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).

The methods of retaliation that your above address are clearly defined in 1513 a and b. mik already listed those for you. What does either of those two statements that you've posted here got to do with Vindman or his brother?

Here is 1513 a and b again.

(a) whoever kills or attempts to kill

(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,

How on earth does that apply in the Vindman/brother case? No attempts were made to kill or cause bodily injury or damage to property belong to either man.

So. Huh?

Am I missing something? What, I can't read?

Let me finish.

c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a 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.

(f) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those.

So yeah. None of things applies to Vindman and his brother. Not a single one of them. This was an impeachment trial facilitated by Congress. Information in the case was given to Congress. And, so far as I know no one conspired to take a life or damage property.

Wth.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

A quick refresher with regard to how things have evolved (which we noted would evolve this way in earlier threads):

- "The complaint doesn't exist."

- "It's not credible."

- "He didn't do that."

- "Okay, he did it on live TV again but it's not quid pro quo."

- "Okay, everyone involved says it's quid pro quo, but they aren't first-hand witnesses or evidence."

- "Okay, there are first hand witnesses and evidence, but.. ignore them and block everything else."

- "He was investigating corruption. It wasn't for personal gain."

- "Okay, he wasn't investigating corruption and it was for personal gain, but Democrats are conducting the inquiry wrong."

- "Okay, ball is in our court now for the trial and we actually have to defend the President."

- "Uhhh... A president can do anything he wants."

- "Congress can't issue subpoenas. It must occur through the courts. Also, the courts can't issue subpoenas. It must happen through Congress."

- "Welp, we can't defend him anymore. Instead of witnesses and evidence like every trial in history, we're going to rush the vote."

- "Okay, we couldn't rush it fast enough before Democrats proved their case. He did it, it was wrong, but it's not enough to convict. He won't do it again."

He will do it again. He just did it by retaliating against his 'enemies.' Despite the absolute degenerates posting here who lap this crap up, people who understand the real effects of this soft coup will continue to resist the smooth brains currently in power.

- Doc

[_Gunnar]

It's tragic that Republican integrity has degenerated to the point that even though they have, in effect, admitted that the case against Trump has been proven, they still refused to convict him. What a bunch of craven, corrupt cowards! And Trump systematically tries to avoid hiring anyone with both integrity and competence, and root out and eliminate anyone already in his administration willing to tell the truth because he perceives them as potential threats to himself and his power.

[_mikwut]

I'm so glad Jersey Girl Knows how to read a statute.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

The statute has been interpreted to mean more than economic retaliation for informing a "cop" because "law enforcement officer" has been given a broader interpretation. People have been punished for economic retaliation when the informing did not occur at the cop level. I made sure to look that up before posting it. It is true that it's never been used in this particular case, though this particular case is an unsettled area due to it not really coming up. You could see its scope narrowed outside of investigatory depositions during an impeachment inquiry concerning criminal conduct, but that isn't a given.

As for Mikwut's argument that "might makes right" as history goes to the victors when it comes to the moral principle of not retaliating against family members for truthful testimony, screw his moral rot.

[Guest]

Doc,

Before I respond to your post I am going to emphasize again that I am not a Trump sycophant. I am demonstrating how our media divides us further and further into cognitively blinded holes. It ramps up the issues and rhetoric negatively.

A quick refresher with regard to how things have evolved (which we noted would evolve this way in earlier threads):

- "The complaint doesn't exist."

- "It's not credible."

- "He didn't do that."

- "Okay, he did it on live TV again but it's not quid pro quo."

- "Okay, everyone involved says it's quid pro quo, but they aren't first-hand witnesses or evidence."

- "Okay, there are first hand witnesses and evidence, but.. ignore them and block everything else."

- "He was investigating corruption. It wasn't for personal gain."

- "Okay, he wasn't investigating corruption and it was for personal gain, but Democrats are conducting the inquiry wrong."

- "Okay, ball is in our court now for the trial and we actually have to defend the President."

- "Uhhh... A president can do anything he wants."

You present what seems to the reader as a linear in time progression of excuses. One who watches the media could easily get the impression you want to make. But, when you remove yourself from the noise, the reality is the President himself is what matters. The President himself stated, in his own words, back in September, right after the complaint, each and every one of the positions that his Defense team presented at trial. Not with one excuse, and and then later moving through a linear progression of further excuses. And an idea the prior excuse was debunked so the need to move to another, like you are saying. Just his same defense presented to the Senate but with more details. Here he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eltS0vjqGNU

- Burden sharing, overall corruption of Ukraine, Trust in the administration about fighting corruption, concern about what occurred with Hunter Biden, many concerns not Bidens in a vacuum - everything directly mirrored by his defense team.

- "Congress can't issue subpoenas. It must occur through the courts. Also, the courts can't issue subpoenas. It must happen through Congress."

This is weird. I have never heard anyone on the right say Congress can't issue subpoenas? The subpoenas don't go through the Court - the issue of compliance with the subpoena goes through the Court. If one side believes the law allows that side to fight the subpoena. And you guys need to get over this issue. Complaining it will take too long is just crying about the rules of the game that have existed for hundreds of years. It is what the left does with the popular vote. Who damned cares if the entire popular vote was more. We live in a Republic with an electoral college. You can say you would prefer that to change, but you can't just cry about the rules that every one knows about and are living under, and have been around forever, just because you don't like an outcome. Rules are the law!

- "Welp, we can't defend him anymore. Instead of witnesses and evidence like every trial in history, we're going to rush the vote."

I really don't get this rhetoric. In every trial I know of civilly and criminally there is pre-trial procedure. Witnesses (in my jurisdiction) have to be disclosed at least 30 days prior to trial. Any documents being used at trial must be disclosed after discovery at minimum 30 days prior to trial. That's hard and fast and that is in every jurisdiction I am aware of in this country. So if you are analogizing an impeachment to a criminal or civil trial why does the impeachment get to show up at trial and with no notice or pretrial work and get to say we want more pretrial work? It is NOT analogous to every trial in history. One of my early mistakes in trial practice was we had an alibi witness to produce at trial. I endorsed the witness with our other witnesses but I failed to file whats called a Notice of Alibi. That is a procedural necessity in Colorado. At trial in what are called motions in limine my alibi was struck. It is not a legal argument, or a good argument to say, "welp, we can't defend him anymore. Instead of alibi witnesses at every trial in history where they exist...." NO, that isn't how it works each side follows the rules, which you know what those rules are? The damned Law!

You would be more persuasive if you argued that the impeachment IS different from every trial and the Senate simply gets to vote on its rules and procedures; and that what you are arguing for (although different from all trials) is pragmatically important in impeachment trials because of the nature of impeachments being so different. That isn't as sexy in the media.

- "Okay, we couldn't rush it fast enough before Democrats proved their case. He did it, it was wrong, but it's not enough to convict. He won't do it again."

Given the reality that impeachment is a very high bar. Given the aid was lifted and received. Given the harm was not existent. Given the broader arguments of mixed motive because the Biden issue didn't happen in a vacuum, it is not an unreasonable position to take. It just doesn't fit your cognitive blinders and senses of the matter.

He will do it again. He just did it by retaliating against his 'enemies.'

He has every right to surround himself with loyalists to him and his policies. I really don't know why this is so shocking.

Despite the absolute degenerates posting here who lap this ____ up, people who understand the real effects of this soft coup will continue to resist the smooth brains currently in power.

I guess from one of those degenerates posting here I can only say - you are being misled. The level and height of division the media peddles is insanely corrupt for our society. It is harmful. It is not one sided. There are more than one state media outlets in the mainstream media. Fox is one side of that, but pretending the mainstream media is not a mirror of the same to divide us is really immature. And those problems or issues with either side don't have to add up to equal for this to be as harmful to our society as it is.

Just look above, E himself was totally mislead by the media about the illegality of what Trump did. It was a crappy thing to do, especially to the brother. But it was NOT illegal. E, himself from the media, posts a statute that an 8th grader can read. The statute was presented, I have seen it in a couple media outlets, as an example of Trump breaking the law in regards to what Trump did with Vindman. That is an example of the hyped up bullship the media does. It takes something kinda crappy and ramps it up even worse and divides even worse. Illegal brings us into the realm of tyrant and authoritarian that the left is peddling. It is dishonesty on both sides of this bullship theatre.

mikwut

[Guest]

E,

The statute has been interpreted to mean more than economic retaliation for informing a "cop" because "law enforcement officer" has been given a broader interpretation.

Then provide the case law with that extreme altering of the plain reading of a statute. None of your commentary end notes issue any citation for that or even are relevant towards that. Particularly your bolded portions which are stretch if even a stretch. And what is your source for that? That burden lies completely on the party making the legal argument your making. Particularly on a discussion board. You should apologize. Gunnar fell for your misapplication and presentation hook line and sinker. He did on credibility alone. You don't get a trust me on something like that. You would initially have provided the broader legal context with, you know, that small thing called the law.

People have been punished for economic retaliation when the informing did not occur at the cop level. I made sure to look that up before posting it.

Then post what you looked up!! But even if there is some broadening legally there is not a specific case for Vindman. I challenge you to provide that. And you presented the statute as the statute. It isn't appropriate for you to assume the reader just knows there is background that would clear up the small fact that every line of the statute you provided does NOT apply to the issue you were attempting for it to apply to. That is bad form, if further case law is needed to properly interpret it, and you had looked that up, provide it for heavens sake. And the media you got it from should as well.

It is true that it's never been used in this particular case, though this particular case is an unsettled area due to it not really coming up.

You are damn right about that! And do you know what no precedent means? No law! It isn't illegal. But you presented otherwise. So you know what an honest conversation should have sounded like? Its you saying well although there isn't a specific statute that fits Trump's specific situation, arguments could possibly be made for this crappy thing he did. And you could make your suggestion. You would say, although this statute doesn't apply on its face maybe it could be argued to be expanded to include Trump's issue. That would be honest. Not telling me I have the wrong law and you got the goods. And then flim flamming the board like an audience would just know your background knowledge you didn't care to share.

You could see its scope narrowed outside of investigatory depositions during an impeachment inquiry concerning criminal conduct, but that isn't a given.

Your damn right its not a given. It isn't there. You presented it as otherwise and that's bad form.

As for Mikwut's argument that "might makes right" as history goes to the victors when it comes to the moral principle of not retaliating against family members for truthful testimony, screw his moral rot.

Screw your naïveté. Me stating reality isn't the same as stating my moral compass and position. It was descriptive in nature not a laudable opinion. I think you know that. And nice slippery attempt at recovery on the legal side of it. I would have respected much more for you to just say, you know what, that is misleading of the media and I fell for it. Because it is obvious you found it in the left media, you trusted it and posted it. You then were shown specifically how not one line of it applies and so instead of a my bad, you posted simple end notes and commentary that also don't apply at all. Gunnar then even defended you so you stayed silent. Then Jersey called you on the, what the hell's up, she can read unlike Gunnar. And so you attempted a silly story to still try to seem credible. The reality is the media you so defend mislead you in the way I have been arguing for.

mikwut

[_Markk]

People's exhibit # fifty flipping thousand in the case of "Markk can't answer a simple question.":

Okay so Trump didn't order the DOJ to investigate because you stated your reasons in 5 different ways. Right. Got it.

People's exhibit # oh, twenty flipping thousand in the case of "Markk tries to cover his inadequacies by attempting to shift focus to another poster."

HUh...LOL, what are you eve talking about...this is exactly why I wrote you would not be able to have a real conversation about this.

Whats funny is that after all the going back and forth...canpakes conceded that the answer that you guys were fishing for was "given the lack of any real evidence indicating corruption.." Yet my answer was always, because he did not need as President, and that he did indeed feel their was ample evidence.

Point being, it is not that I did not answer the question, it was just you did not accept my answer.


So know that we have come to the end of the "why didn't Trump ask the DOJ" circle...maybe you can actually defend your cancakes position ( I am assuming it is your answer also)...I have asked you questions which you ducked...and I don't really anticipate you being able to answer them, so just tell me why the evidence out there about the Biden's, Archer, Heinz, and all the others I have mentioned... does not raise a concern worthy of an investigation?


viewtopic.php?p=1215137#p1215137 read the evidence, and the last sentence to you Jersey Girl

So there is no misunderstanding...according to cancakes the "real" answer to the mystery question is...drum roll

Cancake wrote...Great question. The answer is that Trump apparently perceived no need to do so, given the lack of any real evidence indicating corruption.

So after all this, it was not that I did not answer the question, I just did not answer it the way you folks wanted me to answer it...LOL

So now that we clearly disagree as to why Trump did not go to Barr...lets go though the evidence? Is that fair?

[_Markk]

On the one hand, I'm cool with there being investigations across the board into nepotism and grift across party lines. On the other hand, it smacks of the French revolution and I can't imagine it happening in our current political climate in a way that avoids becoming a form of the reign of terror. For Markk, it's almost guaranteed to not happen under a Trump because he isn't going to the guillotine or watch his kids go so don't expect him to kick that off in a meaningful way. Nor would it happen under most Democrats. I suspect it would take a true non billionaire populist or social Democrat to see it happen, and likely as a result of massive civil unrest brought on by inequality.

I have no problem getting them all oath...that would have been the only "fair trial " scenario, but both side would avoid that to no end in that their are so many lies flying around being under oath would be suicide for these folks.

Do you honestly believe that there is not enough evidence against the Biden's to raise a concern, have you hnestly looked at all the evidence?