TTailedTiger
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:58 am

seb146 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

True, but how do you explain 45’s violations of 18 USC 1513 regarding Sondland and the Vindmans? Or are we in a new era now where law-breaking in the WH is fine so long as it’s your guy..? You’ll recall Reagan did no such thing with WH officials who testified on Iran-Contra. That’s called integrity.


Precious Presidents have fired military leaders who have openly disagreed them. Why is it only now that you have an issue with it?


Getting fired for disagreeing over policy is very different than getting fired for testifying. Surely you can see that.


So voicing your concern over a lousy military strategy is a firable offense but giving an opinion (which is all it was) to Congress isn't? An opinion can neither be honest or dishonest. It's just someone's perspective. We have no idea what kind of working relationship they had with Trump. The testimony could absolutely have been vengeful.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10553
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:12 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
seb146 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Precious Presidents have fired military leaders who have openly disagreed them. Why is it only now that you have an issue with it?


Getting fired for disagreeing over policy is very different than getting fired for testifying. Surely you can see that.


So voicing your concern over a lousy military strategy is a firable offense but giving an opinion (which is all it was) to Congress isn't? An opinion can neither be honest or dishonest. It's just someone's perspective. We have no idea what kind of working relationship they had with Trump. The testimony could absolutely have been vengeful.


POTUS said he didn't know Vindman and never met him, don't you take him at his word?

In any case, the law is the law:

18 USC 1512:

(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.


18 USC 1513:

(c)If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(d)There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(e)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 any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


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

Retaliation by government officials for lawful testimony is a federal crime, period.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21454
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:44 am

Aaron747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Getting fired for disagreeing over policy is very different than getting fired for testifying. Surely you can see that.


So voicing your concern over a lousy military strategy is a firable offense but giving an opinion (which is all it was) to Congress isn't? An opinion can neither be honest or dishonest. It's just someone's perspective. We have no idea what kind of working relationship they had with Trump. The testimony could absolutely have been vengeful.


POTUS said he didn't know Vindman and never met him, don't you take him at his word?

In any case, the law is the law:

18 USC 1512:

(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.


18 USC 1513:

(c)If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(d)There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(e)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 any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


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

Retaliation by government officials for lawful testimony is a federal crime, period.


Republicans do not care about the law. The Constitution. They made the crystal clear with their blind support of this leader of theirs. This point needs to be shouted at every opportunity. Republicans DO NOT CARE about law. DO NOT CARE about the Constitution. Republicans only care about profit. Not people. Not Americans. Republicans DO NOT CARE.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:45 am

Aaron747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Getting fired for disagreeing over policy is very different than getting fired for testifying. Surely you can see that.


So voicing your concern over a lousy military strategy is a firable offense but giving an opinion (which is all it was) to Congress isn't? An opinion can neither be honest or dishonest. It's just someone's perspective. We have no idea what kind of working relationship they had with Trump. The testimony could absolutely have been vengeful.


POTUS said he didn't know Vindman and never met him, don't you take him at his word?

In any case, the law is the law:

18 USC 1512:

(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.


18 USC 1513:

(c)If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(d)There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(e)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 any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


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

Retaliation by government officials for lawful testimony is a federal crime, period.



Well maybe Nancy will start another impeachment. Good luck proving retaliation.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10553
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:05 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

So voicing your concern over a lousy military strategy is a firable offense but giving an opinion (which is all it was) to Congress isn't? An opinion can neither be honest or dishonest. It's just someone's perspective. We have no idea what kind of working relationship they had with Trump. The testimony could absolutely have been vengeful.


POTUS said he didn't know Vindman and never met him, don't you take him at his word?

In any case, the law is the law:

18 USC 1512:

(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.


18 USC 1513:

(c)If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(d)There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(e)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 any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


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

Retaliation by government officials for lawful testimony is a federal crime, period.



Well maybe Nancy will start another impeachment. Good luck proving retaliation.


Not responding to the actual issue, again. So my statement about Reagan's handling of WH officials testifying in Iran-Contra stands. And you seem to forget he also issued a televised apology to the nation taking responsibility for the whole affair as POTUS, even though underlings conducted the affair without his knowledge.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Beardown91737
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:00 am

Tearing the papers was a petty act. It does not change my opinion of Pelosi or make me more likely to vote Republican or less likely to vote Democrat.

Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Also very interesting is the video of Pelosi, already preparing to rip the papers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR5Z6bKRp9A

She had planned this all along, from the moment Trump began speaking (the very least). Not going to be good for independents come November.


What evidence do you have independents care about this? We don’t.

As stated in the deleted Vindman thread, most of us are far more concerned with things like 45
violating 18 USC 1513 yesterday.


"Most of US"? Does this mean that Independents have meetings to decide what Independents care about? The only Independent Party I can remember involved George Wallace. After that, Independent has been a radioactive title. However, I don't think anyone who needs to say "45" instead of Trump can claim they are an independent.
135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21454
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:25 am

Beardown91737 wrote:
Tearing the papers was a petty act.


Screaming about "I DON'T KNOW THAT LOSER!!" and "I NEVER SAW THAT NOBODY BEFORE" after years of working side by side every day and being told "I ONLY HIRE THE BEST PEOPLE" and I ONLY HIRE PEOPLE LOYAL TO ME" and all the BS after he shredded the Constitution simply tearing some paper is what sets off Republicans. After all the petty school yard bullying and petty vindictive junk we have had to sit through for the past four years? THIS is what sets you off? A blatant display of First Amendment rights?

I will be as petty so your dear leader:

Pelosi is Christian. What do you Republicans have against Christianity? Why do you all hate Christians? You all constantly persecute Christians. You all hate women too. All this constant hatred of women and Christian proves you all hate America.

Just doing what your dear leader does. Don't like it? Go look at your leader and ask why I wrote that.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10553
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:22 am

Beardown91737 wrote:
However, I don't think anyone who needs to say "45" instead of Trump can claim they are an independent.


I can very easily make that claim since I last registered Dem in 2002. A lot of independents are far removed from a definitive registration - and at 38% of the electorate, we’re no longer ‘radioactive’.

And yes, the ripping was petty - few will honestly refute that. Even so, violating 18 CFR 1512 and 1513 is far more petty, not to mention improper use of the office. Someone said it would be difficult to prove...perhaps not, thanks to 45 Jr.

https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/stat ... 18720?s=21
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:51 am

If it's okay to censor Trump's speeches and advertisements, then it would have been okay for Republicans to censor Obama's speeches and ads also.

Do we really want Republicans censoring Obama's speeches? Do we really want to create a legal tool for Trump to censor Pelosi's political speech? Obviously she has First Amendment protections and so do other people.

The tradition of rancor, lies and insults in politics is as old as the Republic. I have zero problem with politicians saying anything they like, instead of dealing in violence. Censoring political speech is a quick road to hell.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15577
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:54 am

Aaron747 wrote:
the law is the law:

18 USC 1512:

(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.


18 USC 1513:

(c)If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(d)There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(e)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 any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


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

Retaliation by government officials for lawful testimony is a federal crime, period.


Can you tell me what retaliation took place as outlined under 18 USC 1513? Neither individual was presented from testifying, arrested, or prosecuted, and while LTC Vindman's duties have changed, he remains employed by the government. Also, the law doesn't prevent someone from being fired; it explicitly states "interference with the lawful employment or livelihood," and the President can absolutely fire an Ambassador, who serves at the pleasure of the President. The only way there'd be an issue here is if the President took steps to prevent Sondland from being employed elsewhere, which he has not.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10553
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:16 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
the law is the law:

18 USC 1512:

(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.


18 USC 1513:

(c)If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(d)There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(e)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 any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


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

Retaliation by government officials for lawful testimony is a federal crime, period.


Can you tell me what retaliation took place as outlined under 18 USC 1513? Neither individual was presented from testifying, arrested, or prosecuted, and while LTC Vindman's duties have changed, he remains employed by the government. Also, the law doesn't prevent someone from being fired; it explicitly states "interference with the lawful employment or livelihood," and the President can absolutely fire an Ambassador, who serves at the pleasure of the President. The only way there'd be an issue here is if the President took steps to prevent Sondland from being employed elsewhere, which he has not.


I don’t think Sondland or Vindman’s attorneys would focus on the ‘livelihood’ aspect, rather ‘interference with lawful employment’. Their positions can be changed by the WH at any time, yes, but the factual record suggests they are targeted personnel changes in relation to testimony. Don Jr’s stupidly brazen tweet almost celebrates that narrative. The WH would need to show other NSC staff and ambassadors were changed in the same timeframe for whatever reasons were given regarding these two individuals.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
N583JB
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:07 am

seb146 wrote:
Beardown91737 wrote:
Tearing the papers was a petty act.


Screaming about "I DON'T KNOW THAT LOSER!!" and "I NEVER SAW THAT NOBODY BEFORE" after years of working side by side every day and being told "I ONLY HIRE THE BEST PEOPLE" and I ONLY HIRE PEOPLE LOYAL TO ME" and all the BS after he shredded the Constitution simply tearing some paper is what sets off Republicans. After all the petty school yard bullying and petty vindictive junk we have had to sit through for the past four years? THIS is what sets you off? A blatant display of First Amendment rights?

I will be as petty so your dear leader:

Pelosi is Christian. What do you Republicans have against Christianity? Why do you all hate Christians? You all constantly persecute Christians. You all hate women too. All this constant hatred of women and Christian proves you all hate America.

Just doing what your dear leader does. Don't like it? Go look at your leader and ask why I wrote that.


Are you OK?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15577
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:15 am

Aaron747 wrote:
I don’t think Sondland or Vindman’s attorneys would focus on the ‘livelihood’ aspect, rather ‘interference with lawful employment’.


And they're free to pursue that in the form of a civil suit if they choose, but they don't get to determine whether or not a crime was committed under 18 USC 1512 or 1513. I believe even they would have a hard time convincing someone that Sondland - who was already wealthy - had his employment interfered with, as he essentially paid his way into an Ambassadorship, and provided LTC Vindman continues to be employed in the military and progresses up the ranks as any other soldier, they'd have a hard time proving that as well.
Last edited by EA CO AS on Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:34 am

Beardown91737 wrote:
It does not change my opinion of Pelosi or make me more likely to vote Republican or less likely to vote Democrat.


This is because that was not for you.


Beardown9137 wrote:
However, I don't think anyone who needs to say "45" instead of Trump can claim they are an independent.


Nor can anyone objecting to self-same.

AirWorthy99 wrote:
This is what democrats are best at doing, playing the victim card.


I wish you knew how humorous that is, coming from a guy who believes there is a war on x-mass...



DeltaMD90 wrote:
Honestly, what was the point of her doing it? What could it possibly accomplish? Nothing, it's just the petty BS Americans far and wide are tired of.

Where is the inspiration and leadership coming from her? All I hear is "Orange man bad" drivel coming from most of the Democrat leadership. I know Orange man bad, thanks, I knew that 5 years ago. What is our plan going forward? How are we going to rally Americans for change?


There will come a time when you will be very glad other people did not take that opinion, and instead addressed the very real problems being created here.


blueflyer wrote:
Most voters will say this, that they want adults in charge, yadi yada, and they are lying to their friends and themselves. There is a long history of polls, surveys, and election results to show that the negative attacks, the lies, the disinformation work better than the high road. This will end when the reaction to a video such as this one is not "oh Nancy had it coming" but "it is unacceptable of Trump to re-tweet a falsehood and it will be a significant part of my decision process."


I think I agree. I am naturally distrustful of anyone who says things like that. I do not believe anyone who claims to 'above' that is either being honest or taking an intellectually defensible look at the situation. Sure as hell, I do not trust those types to actually roll up their sleeves and vote when the time comes. . .

blueflyer wrote:
Unfortunately the Democrats have realized/accepted this a lot later than the Republicans. When Michelle Obama made her famous speech where she said "when they go low we go high" I wanted to scream at the television and say "no get in the damn gutter and dig lower, under the Republicans, and take the floor away from below them." Some Dems have finally realized that taking the high road and losing makes you useless in politics, and are starting to fight back at a level that makes a difference with voters, Sanders being a perfect example (getting close to being the Trump of the left).


This is right on and I have nothing to add to it. It is high time we stopped make nice with these fools and to start acting like we care about our future. Because people do respond to that.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10553
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:39 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
I don’t think Sondland or Vindman’s attorneys would focus on the ‘livelihood’ aspect, rather ‘interference with lawful employment’.


And they're free to pursue that in the form of a civil suit if they choose, but they don't get to determine whether or not a crime was committed under 18 USC 1512 or 1513. I believe even they would have a hard time convincing someone that Sondland - who was already wealthy - had his employment interfered with, as he essentially paid his way into an Ambassadorship, and provided LTC Vindman continues to be employed in the military and progresses up the ranks as any other soldier, they'd have a hard time proving that as well.


True enough, but it's also my understanding members of Congress are looking into whether or not we're seeing a violation of 18 USC 1512/13. Perhaps if 45 can't get his sons off Twitter, it won't remain an open question.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15577
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:47 am

Aaron747 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
I don’t think Sondland or Vindman’s attorneys would focus on the ‘livelihood’ aspect, rather ‘interference with lawful employment’.


And they're free to pursue that in the form of a civil suit if they choose, but they don't get to determine whether or not a crime was committed under 18 USC 1512 or 1513. I believe even they would have a hard time convincing someone that Sondland - who was already wealthy - had his employment interfered with, as he essentially paid his way into an Ambassadorship, and provided LTC Vindman continues to be employed in the military and progresses up the ranks as any other soldier, they'd have a hard time proving that as well.


True enough, but it's also my understanding members of Congress are looking into whether or not we're seeing a violation of 18 USC 1512/13. Perhaps if 45 can't get his sons off Twitter, it won't remain an open question.


The only members of Congress who would be interested are ones who have already made their party a laughingstock with the impeachment circus, further jeopardizing their chances of not only losing the White House again in 2020, but losing control of the House itself. Nancy got burned once by what she was assured was a "slam-dunk" by Schiff - she won't be talked into going headfirst down another vote-losing rabbit hole that makes the Democrats look like sore losers.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10553
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:17 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:

And they're free to pursue that in the form of a civil suit if they choose, but they don't get to determine whether or not a crime was committed under 18 USC 1512 or 1513. I believe even they would have a hard time convincing someone that Sondland - who was already wealthy - had his employment interfered with, as he essentially paid his way into an Ambassadorship, and provided LTC Vindman continues to be employed in the military and progresses up the ranks as any other soldier, they'd have a hard time proving that as well.


True enough, but it's also my understanding members of Congress are looking into whether or not we're seeing a violation of 18 USC 1512/13. Perhaps if 45 can't get his sons off Twitter, it won't remain an open question.


The only members of Congress who would be interested are ones who have already made their party a laughingstock with the impeachment circus, further jeopardizing their chances of not only losing the White House again in 2020, but losing control of the House itself. Nancy got burned once by what she was assured was a "slam-dunk" by Schiff - she won't be talked into going headfirst down another vote-losing rabbit hole that makes the Democrats look like sore losers.


Perhaps your read of Pelosi is correct, but the remainder is an emotionally-charged hyperpartisan take considering independents supported impeachment at a 54-58% clip depending on which poll was read.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8718
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:40 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Honestly, what was the point of her doing it? What could it possibly accomplish? Nothing, it's just the petty BS Americans far and wide are tired of.

Where is the inspiration and leadership coming from her? All I hear is "Orange man bad" drivel coming from most of the Democrat leadership. I know Orange man bad, thanks, I knew that 5 years ago. What is our plan going forward? How are we going to rally Americans for change?


There will come a time when you will be very glad other people did not take that opinion, and instead addressed the very real problems being created here.

Very real problems my ass.

Enlighten me, I honestly do not see it. What good was this? Why am I going to be glad one day?

I'll be glad if the Democrats don't blow another election, I don't think this whole strategy of "enough is enough! Let's fight Trump at his own game and act petty too!" is gonna help much. Truth be told, what she did isn't the worst thing in the world, but whining to Twitter and FB? Give it a rest and govern, please
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11849
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:07 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
I'll be glad if the Democrats don't blow another election, I don't think this whole strategy of "enough is enough! Let's fight Trump at his own game and act petty too!" is gonna help much. Truth be told, what she did isn't the worst thing in the world, but whining to Twitter and FB? Give it a rest and govern, please


cutting a trillion US$ from healthcare will do the trick..... and Democrats talk plenty about it, and other policy issues. That doesn´t mean you have to take Twitter and Facebook aiding libel lying down though.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21454
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:28 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Honestly, what was the point of her doing it? What could it possibly accomplish? Nothing, it's just the petty BS Americans far and wide are tired of.

Where is the inspiration and leadership coming from her? All I hear is "Orange man bad" drivel coming from most of the Democrat leadership. I know Orange man bad, thanks, I knew that 5 years ago. What is our plan going forward? How are we going to rally Americans for change?


There will come a time when you will be very glad other people did not take that opinion, and instead addressed the very real problems being created here.

Very real problems my ass.

Enlighten me, I honestly do not see it. What good was this? Why am I going to be glad one day?

I'll be glad if the Democrats don't blow another election, I don't think this whole strategy of "enough is enough! Let's fight Trump at his own game and act petty too!" is gonna help much. Truth be told, what she did isn't the worst thing in the world, but whining to Twitter and FB? Give it a rest and govern, please


Democrats have been governing. In addition to showing the world of the law breaking the head of the Republican administration has done, they have been passing bills out of the House and on to the Senate. However, McConnell, the REPUBLICAN leader, has refused to take those bills up for even so much as a debate in committee. Instead, McConnell LIES to the American people and says "the House does nothing". But, yeah, go on and believe the LIES from Republicans.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:00 pm

N583JB wrote:
art wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:


Chronology in video has been altered for effect, Simply dishonest distortion. Third Reich stuff.

If the people running the social media platforms concerned refuse to remove this sort of blatent falsificationwhen requested so to do, they are sanctioning the same.


No one honestly believes that Pelosi ripped up 9 copies of the speech at different points during the SOTU. This is called satire.


This would be like the Rs demanding take downs of most Alex Baldwin/President Trump SNL exaggerations.

Who would not know that what SNL is doing is satire, albeit mean spirited satire?
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21454
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:32 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
N583JB wrote:
art wrote:

Chronology in video has been altered for effect, Simply dishonest distortion. Third Reich stuff.

If the people running the social media platforms concerned refuse to remove this sort of blatent falsificationwhen requested so to do, they are sanctioning the same.


No one honestly believes that Pelosi ripped up 9 copies of the speech at different points during the SOTU. This is called satire.


This would be like the Rs demanding take downs of most Alex Baldwin/President Trump SNL exaggerations.

Who would not know that what SNL is doing is satire, albeit mean spirited satire?


Comedians have been satirizing and making fun of political leaders since the beginning of time. IIRC, the current Republican leader was so offended that he DEMANDED!!! Alec Baldwin be fired. I hardly think "hey, could you take that video down because there are low information voters who believe that is real" is even close to the same thing.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
N583JB
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:50 pm

seb146 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
N583JB wrote:

No one honestly believes that Pelosi ripped up 9 copies of the speech at different points during the SOTU. This is called satire.


This would be like the Rs demanding take downs of most Alex Baldwin/President Trump SNL exaggerations.

Who would not know that what SNL is doing is satire, albeit mean spirited satire?


Comedians have been satirizing and making fun of political leaders since the beginning of time. IIRC, the current Republican leader was so offended that he DEMANDED!!! Alec Baldwin be fired. I hardly think "hey, could you take that video down because there are low information voters who believe that is real" is even close to the same thing.


It doesn't hurt to ask, and in this particular case, Facebook and Twitter were right to tell Pelosi's people to get lost.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21454
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:17 pm

N583JB wrote:
seb146 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

This would be like the Rs demanding take downs of most Alex Baldwin/President Trump SNL exaggerations.

Who would not know that what SNL is doing is satire, albeit mean spirited satire?


Comedians have been satirizing and making fun of political leaders since the beginning of time. IIRC, the current Republican leader was so offended that he DEMANDED!!! Alec Baldwin be fired. I hardly think "hey, could you take that video down because there are low information voters who believe that is real" is even close to the same thing.


It doesn't hurt to ask, and in this particular case, Facebook and Twitter were right to tell Pelosi's people to get lost.


Facebook ant Twitter are where people get their information, unfortunately. SNL? Nope. See the difference?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:09 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Enlighten me, I honestly do not see it. What good was this? Why am I going to be glad one day?


The thrust of your postings in this matter suggest strongly that you believe there is even the option not to engage. This is obviously and patently false.

If you find her ripping some papers to be over the top, that is your prerogative. But you should understand that she cannot, in any reality, be seen to be supportive of that guy's abject villainy. Not if she wants to be re-elected. How ever you feel about that, it was the smartest thing to do.

The thing that will make you glad is the fact there were enough people not to take this problem lying down. Being the 'Better Party' makes for a nice soundbite, but that really is the end of it. 'Better' people are also better at losing elections.

So there is a lot of heavy lifting to be done, and yes, a lot of that will get dirty. I understand that you only wish to focus on 'governing', but that is a level of wishful thinking that approaches willful fantasy. If that is your wish, so be it; it is certainly not my job to fix that for you. But to be clear, cloaking cowardice and intellectual laziness in principal will not solve a thing.

I do not intend to be disrespectful, but you should be made aware that is the message you are sending.

DeltaMD90 wrote:
I'll be glad if the Democrats don't blow another election, I don't think this whole strategy of "enough is enough! Let's fight Trump at his own game and act petty too!" is gonna help much. Truth be told, what she did isn't the worst thing in the world, but whining to Twitter and FB? Give it a rest and govern, please


You are conflating the concepts of petty and dirty. While there is a small overlap, that Venn Diagram is largely exclusive WRT those two items. Relating to this, it was well known that FB & Twitter will not remove these things. But if she were to take a lazier path, that does nothing to inspire voters. Now she has done this, she can make the appeal that she is doing something, and return the negative focus where it belongs.

It is important to remember that in Politics, success is not required for success. You will understand this.

As for the election, buckle up. After the primaries, there will be a lot of Anti-trump being put out as a message. Especially if we end with Bloomberg or Biden, who are fairly illiberal as Democrats go, anyway. This is an important function for three reasons.

A. People respond very well to negative advertising. While that is a somewhat unique characteristic where political products are concerned, it would be foolish to the point of Naivete to deny this or attempt to wish it away.

B. The independent/non-affiliated market is overwhelmingly anti-trump at this point. While it is likely to stay that way, a consistent message stream displaying how atypically poor and effectively non-professional our President has been is helpful to maintain this. I would wager that this is where the bulk of campaign funding will wind up.

C. It will take focus away from the more controversial elements of campaign platforms. You want good things to happen? Do not give reactionary and easily frightened voters time to dwell on them. Just remind them how awful the other guy is instead. Especially when he is giving you a lot to work with.

As I mentioned, I do not expect to change your mind. But these particular parameters will not change to suit our opinions either.



seb146 wrote:
Democrats have been governing. In addition to showing the world of the law breaking the head of the Republican administration has done, they have been passing bills out of the House and on to the Senate. However, McConnell, the REPUBLICAN leader, has refused to take those bills up for even so much as a debate in committee.


I think this is why the Impeachment was so important. It very effectively removed any trace of legitimacy the MAGA crowd may have had in that Legislative Body. November will obviously reflect that and I think that when we look at the cost involved, what was spent was a pittance compared to how many of those guys are about to be cleared out. It was effort well spent.

tommy1808 wrote:
cutting a trillion US$ from healthcare will do the trick..... and Democrats talk plenty about it, and other policy issues. That doesn´t mean you have to take Twitter and Facebook aiding libel lying down though.

best regards
Thomas


Very true. It is not as though we can only do one thing at a time.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
N583JB
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Facebook and Twitter decline Pelosi request to delete Trump video

Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:39 am

seb146 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Comedians have been satirizing and making fun of political leaders since the beginning of time. IIRC, the current Republican leader was so offended that he DEMANDED!!! Alec Baldwin be fired. I hardly think "hey, could you take that video down because there are low information voters who believe that is real" is even close to the same thing.


It doesn't hurt to ask, and in this particular case, Facebook and Twitter were right to tell Pelosi's people to get lost.


Facebook ant Twitter are where people get their information, unfortunately. SNL? Nope. See the difference?


Satire is satire. Trying to censor satire because it offends you is peak "woke". Facebook and Twitter don't play that game.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cedarjet, OceanATC, ShanghaiNoon and 82 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos