If Witness Intimidation Occurred -

The assassination of the character has been a ubiquitous tactic when trump believes someone is disloyal. It is effective when you and the other the trumpanzees echo his attacks, which become BIG LIES.

Those of us with open eyes read your posts which are nothing more than idiot-grams, an echo of each other and/or trump&companies propaganda. All of which can be read in many of the posts above.
Character Assassination and Lies?

You mean like Russian Collusion? Imaginary Bribery? Streel Dossier? Like that?

Back to the point. Trumps tweet cannot logically be called intimidation. Period. If it were, you and the rest of the haters would pe posting it instead of mischaracterizing it.

Here it is. Please point out how an adult professional diplomat could possibly be intimidated by it.

View attachment 290124

You're not very bright if you believe character assassination isn't intimidation, esp. when someone in power initiates the assassination, and biddable fools echo it.
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired
 
You're not very bright if you believe character assassination isn't intimidation.
Funny how partisan hacks like you think it's always a one-way street.

Democrats started this tactic against Trump well before he took office. They did the same throughout W's 8 years. Trump ain't W.

W just smiled. Trump is a counter puncher. Democrats hate that.
 
191115_abcnl_impeachment_tweet_hpmain_16x9_992-jpg.290124

This wouldn't intimidate a 3 year old girl.

The former Ambassador that said she was intimidated by this just proved that Trump's only mistake in firing her was not doing it soon enough.
 
If any witness intimidation occurred (which it did not), it was when Schiff told her she was being attacked by the president and read her the tweet. She would not have known of it otherwise.

You can't think outside of the box. The Intimidation was general and in effect may have caused future witnesses to rely on the Reagan Defense: "I don't recall".

Damn, you're really dumb.
Bullshit do you think a judge would allow a real-time tweet be used in the Courtroom?
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired

Yep, the testimony thus far has proved trump&co. needed to fire the Ambassador, so they could remove an impediment and thus orchestrate the bribery and extortion from the new president of Ukraine.
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired

Yep, the testimony thus far has proved trump&co. needed to fire the Ambassador, so they could remove an impediment and thus orchestrate the bribery and extortion from the new president of Ukraine.

I guess you missed the part about who replaced her..........idiot!
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired

Yep, the testimony thus far has proved trump&co. needed to fire the Ambassador, so they could remove an impediment and thus orchestrate the bribery and extortion from the new president of Ukraine.
Except for the fact that you're a bald faced liar, you've got a good point.

So far all evidence is 100% in exoneration of Trump.

Zelensky has stated several times that there was no pressure of quid pro quo, or bribery, or whatever else your next lie will be.

But Democrats do have someone that spoke to someone that felt like Orange Man Bad.
 
If any witness intimidation occurred (which it did not), it was when Schiff told her she was being attacked by the president and read her the tweet. She would not have known of it otherwise.

You can't think outside of the box. The Intimidation was general and in effect may have caused future witnesses to rely on the Reagan Defense: "I don't recall".


:auiqs.jpg:

You mean of course the "Hillary Defense".
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired

Yep, the testimony thus far has proved trump&co. needed to fire the Ambassador, so they could remove an impediment and thus orchestrate the bribery and extortion from the new president of Ukraine.

I guess you missed the part about who replaced her..........idiot!

I see, so the Three Amigos, Rudy and trump's Chief of Staff have nothing to do with Ukraine - that you don't see is composed in one cartoon:

images


You and other's who support DJT are in denial, because you refuse to see.
 
If any witness intimidation occurred (which it did not), it was when Schiff told her she was being attacked by the president and read her the tweet. She would not have known of it otherwise.

You can't think outside of the box. The Intimidation was general and in effect may have caused future witnesses to rely on the Reagan Defense: "I don't recall".


:auiqs.jpg:

You mean of course the "Hillary Defense".

I write what I mean.
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired

Yep, the testimony thus far has proved trump&co. needed to fire the Ambassador, so they could remove an impediment and thus orchestrate the bribery and extortion from the new president of Ukraine.

I guess you missed the part about who replaced her..........idiot!

I see, so the Three Amigos, Rudy and trump's Chief of Staff have nothing to do with Ukraine - that you don't see is composed in one cartoon:

images


You and other's who support DJT are in denial, because you refuse to see.

Yer trippin'. :auiqs.jpg:

giphy.gif
 
If any witness intimidation occurred (which it did not), it was when Schiff told her she was being attacked by the president and read her the tweet. She would not have known of it otherwise.

You can't think outside of the box. The Intimidation was general and in effect may have caused future witnesses to rely on the Reagan Defense: "I don't recall".


:auiqs.jpg:

You mean of course the "Hillary Defense".

I write what I mean.

Yes. That's your problem.
 
If any witness intimidation occurred (which it did not), it was when Schiff told her she was being attacked by the president and read her the tweet. She would not have known of it otherwise.
You’re one of the stupidest motherfuckers on this site, which is saying a lot.

the intimidation is toward the witnesses still to testify. They see this, and now know that trump is going to try to ruin their lives, and endanger their families.
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired

Yep, the testimony thus far has proved trump&co. needed to fire the Ambassador, so they could remove an impediment and thus orchestrate the bribery and extortion from the new president of Ukraine.
Except for the fact that you're a bald faced liar, you've got a good point.

So far all evidence is 100% in exoneration of Trump.

Zelensky has stated several times that there was no pressure of quid pro quo, or bribery, or whatever else your next lie will be.

But Democrats do have someone that spoke to someone that felt like Orange Man Bad.

What evidence do you have that any evidence has been exculpatory?

Do you believe President trump's direction to ignore subpoenas is a legal

The testimony under oath is evidence, is it probative? That is the question, something that will be evaluated by the jury (The Committee of We the People).

White House Reportedly Replaced Ukraine Policy Staff With '3 Amigos'

How many witnesses will it take before you begin to realize President trump is corrupt?
 
She was assigned to violent shit-hole countries, claimed to have ducked bullets, and then tells Schiff she is intimidated by Trump's public tweet?
Too fuckin' funny......:blowpop:
Idiot Democrats are probably just now figuring out that they proved she needed to be fired

Yep, the testimony thus far has proved trump&co. needed to fire the Ambassador, so they could remove an impediment and thus orchestrate the bribery and extortion from the new president of Ukraine.

I guess you missed the part about who replaced her..........idiot!

I see, so the Three Amigos, Rudy and trump's Chief of Staff have nothing to do with Ukraine - that you don't see is composed in one cartoon:

images


You and other's who support DJT are in denial, because you refuse to see.

Yer trippin'. :auiqs.jpg:

giphy.gif

Idiot-gram ^^^
 
If any witness intimidation occurred (which it did not), it was when Schiff told her she was being attacked by the president and read her the tweet. She would not have known of it otherwise.
You’re one of the stupidest motherfuckers on this site, which is saying a lot.

the intimidation is toward the witnesses still to testify. They see this, and now know that trump is going to try to ruin their lives, and endanger their families.

:auiqs.jpg:
 

Forum List

Back
Top