Sat Jan 11, 2020, 09:25 PM
grumpyduck (5,290 posts)
So Fuckface Hannity is threatening GOP senators
that he'll give out "the phone number" if they allow witnesses?
It's not clear what number he's babbling about, but how stupid does he think his viewers are? Somebody please put him out of our misery. He needs to go back under a rock.
|
20 replies, 2335 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
grumpyduck | Jan 2020 | OP |
Ohiogal | Jan 2020 | #1 | |
JustFiveMoreMinutes | Jan 2020 | #4 | |
milestogo | Jan 2020 | #2 | |
Wounded Bear | Jan 2020 | #10 | |
uponit7771 | Jan 2020 | #17 | |
smirkymonkey | Jan 2020 | #19 | |
kimbutgar | Jan 2020 | #3 | |
blogslut | Jan 2020 | #5 | |
grumpyduck | Jan 2020 | #6 | |
ChoppinBroccoli | Jan 2020 | #7 | |
smirkymonkey | Jan 2020 | #8 | |
Wounded Bear | Jan 2020 | #11 | |
smirkymonkey | Jan 2020 | #14 | |
Wounded Bear | Jan 2020 | #15 | |
Maru Kitteh | Jan 2020 | #20 | |
malaise | Jan 2020 | #9 | |
Hortensis | Jan 2020 | #12 | |
GoCubsGo | Jan 2020 | #13 | |
uponit7771 | Jan 2020 | #16 | |
grumpyduck | Jan 2020 | #18 |
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sat Jan 11, 2020, 09:35 PM
Ohiogal (27,022 posts)
1. Isn't that illegal?
Response to Ohiogal (Reply #1)
Sat Jan 11, 2020, 09:44 PM
JustFiveMoreMinutes (2,130 posts)
4. One would think. But then again............. it's 2020 and everything is weird!
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sat Jan 11, 2020, 09:43 PM
milestogo (14,471 posts)
2. Witness intimidation.
Response to milestogo (Reply #2)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 07:55 AM
Wounded Bear (55,351 posts)
10. Actually, it's jury tampering...
which might be worse.
![]() |
Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #10)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 11:28 AM
uponit7771 (88,610 posts)
17. +1, he'll be making death threats in a second
Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #10)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 12:48 PM
smirkymonkey (63,221 posts)
19. What is your beef with this?
Witness intimidation is enough of a crime. Why are you so hell bent on calling it jury tampering when there is no actual jury? Yes, technically the senate is the so called "jury" but this is not a typical court case and this is not a typical jury. Give it a rest.
|
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sat Jan 11, 2020, 09:43 PM
kimbutgar (18,393 posts)
3. I would call that a threat and the law enforcement needs to address that he is threatening US
Senators. He must be really emboldened since he sniffs MF45’s butt so much.
|
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sat Jan 11, 2020, 09:52 PM
blogslut (37,102 posts)
5. It's probably just the Senate switchboard number
Response to blogslut (Reply #5)
Sat Jan 11, 2020, 11:33 PM
grumpyduck (5,290 posts)
6. That's what I'm wild-ass guessing.
Which is why I made the crack about him thinking his viewers are dumb.
|
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 12:46 AM
ChoppinBroccoli (3,623 posts)
7. Aren't All Public Servants' Phone Numbers Public ANYWAY?
If I wanted to find out ANY member of Congress' phone number, it would take like 5 seconds on Google.
|
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 07:06 AM
smirkymonkey (63,221 posts)
8. Witness tampering. Which is a crime.
"In the United States, the federal crime of witness tampering is defined by statute at 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which is entitled "tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant."The statute is broad; the Justice Manual notes that it "proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers" and applies to tampering with witnesses in "proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings."
Witness tampering is a crime even if a proceeding is not actually pending, and even if the testimony sought to be influenced, delayed, or prevented would not be admissible in evidence. Section 1512 also provides that the federal government has extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute the offenses described by the section. Witness tampering is a criminal offense even if the attempt to tamper is unsuccessful. The offense also covers the intimidation of not only a witness himself or herself, but also intimidation of "another person" (i.e., a third party, such as a witness's spouse) in order to intimidate the witness." |
Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #8)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 07:56 AM
Wounded Bear (55,351 posts)
11. Actually it's jury tampering...nt
Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2020, 11:03 AM - Edit history (1) |
Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #11)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 10:10 AM
smirkymonkey (63,221 posts)
14. They haven't been impaneled yet, so it's not quite jury tampering.
It is still just witness tampering.
|
Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #14)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 11:04 AM
Wounded Bear (55,351 posts)
15. They're not going to screen them and pick 12 of them...
![]() The Senate is the jury. Sending them crap like that is jury tampering. |
Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #15)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 01:18 PM
Maru Kitteh (26,314 posts)
20. Except it's not a criminal proceeding, or even civil, it's a political one.
So he threatened to give out their publicly available number if they took a political action he doesn't want to see? I think they call that "free speech." I can't see where there is any real available redress in the absence of a threat against their person or some other actual crime.
|
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 07:09 AM
malaise (254,352 posts)
9. The really sad part of this is that not one ReTHUG
has the balls to tell him to STFU
|
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 08:01 AM
Hortensis (55,612 posts)
12. Wonder if most senators don't already hold a reserve number.
Publishing private numbers has been a means of attack for some time. Of course, it doesn't take long to get another number, getting it to those who need it would be where the disruption is.
![]() |
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 09:08 AM
GoCubsGo (31,088 posts)
13. He doesn't sound guilty at all.
![]() Another one in a sheer state of panic. I wonder what he's hiding. |
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 11:27 AM
uponit7771 (88,610 posts)
16. What for ?!?! They skeered ?!?! Yep, they skeered ... Moscow Mitch might not have the votes
Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
Sun Jan 12, 2020, 11:38 AM
grumpyduck (5,290 posts)
18. Not to reply to my own thread,
but reading some of your comments, I'm wondering if it's just a talking point to get his viewers to tell each other about how pissed he is and make him look more active and righteous. It's all about the ratings and the commercials.
I reiterate: he's playing them for idiots. |