intimidation?

[OldLady]

For just a second let's assume Schiff is correct (I know....I know......what are the odds).........if what Trump tweeted could be construed as witness intimidation there would be no way to intimidate the witness with the tweet unless Schifferbrains read part of it during her testimony. Otherwise, she would have no clue what Trump tweeted until she was done being a "witness".

So, wouldn't that make Schifferbrains the one who intimidated the witness?

The point, and Yovanovich replied to it this way, was that hearing the President say such nasty negative things about a witness testifying against him, would be intimidating to FUTURE WITNESSES, not her. He'd already shit all over her in public. What else could he say.

I agree Schiff should have played this differently, perhaps ignored it until his wrap up arguments and left her out of it. Because anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the past three years knows EXACTLY what they'll have coming to them if they criticize the President. It's not like this was some kind of startling behavior on Trump's part. The "intimidating" has been done for three years.

But it did get her a lot of nice compliments from all present, as they tried to pedal backward from Trump as fast as they could.

 

[JGalt]

Is Schiff serious?
Pelosi On Trump's Yovanovitch Attack: He Knows He's In Over His Head

"House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) described Trump’s tweet, below, as “witness intimidation in real time by the president of the United States.”

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrumpNov 15


Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.






"

And is it his right to bribe the Ukraine president to investigate the bidens to help him in the election? Or is that impeachable?

Why are the Biden's not welcoming an investigation? Remember the democrats standard of if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear in being investigated.

Why do they have to? Why, if this is all a real concern and not simply political campaign bull crap, wouldn't Trump simply follow the law and have the DOJ under Barr, look in to it? Why Giuliani, and Igor and Lev?

Do you think it is ok or legal for any President to run around to foreign countries and ask the foreign country to investigate ANY American citizen, without the DOJ being involved to protect the American citizen's rights?

Investigating foreign corruption doesn't fall under the DOJ. That's what the State Department and Department of the Treasury is there for.