If Witness Intimidation Occurred -

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
32,553
Reaction score
4,223
Points
1,140
All you tRumplings look alike.
So, out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on where the intimidation IS? Or do you agree that Schiff's accusation, at least in this one instance, is ri-God-damn-diculous?
I'm betting you're one of the apologists who thinks that if it isn't something like "I will kill you if you..." It's not a threat And it isn't racist unless the "N" word is there.
It's not a threat when no one has been threatened, moron.
"She's gonna go through some things."
Lol! That's all you've got? I wish the democrats luck nailing that one down if/when it comes to trial. Your suspicions of the meaning of ambiguous wording might fly as a way to rally the base, but, luckily we have a legal system that's generally exercises enough sanity to refrain from punishing people based on politically charged suspicions.

I don't blame you for blowing up that ambiguous suspicion, though. I've been watching these hearings, and suspicion of ambiguous conversations is about as close as the deep staters are getting to even the SCENT of legally admissible evidence.
Politically charged suspicions?

I got one word for ya kiddo:

Benghazi
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
It's not the tweet which intimated the Ambassador during her testimony under oath, it was the entire efforts by the Rudy and the Three Amigos + Mick Mulvaney to destroy her. They most likely did so at the direction of The President.
Well well.. We agree Shiffft and all the Democrats saying the tweet was intimidation lied.
Absurd ^^^ and dishonest:

You're not very bright if you believe character assassination isn't intimidation, esp. when someone in power initiates the assassination, and biddable fools like you echo it.
Lol! So dramatic. A Donald Trump tweet blasting someone's job performance is hardly character assassination. Seriously, can you draw me some example of someone Donald Trump trash talked publicly actually having measurable damage done to them?

It blows my mind that so many people are SERIOUSLY buying into the argument that a mean tweet is witness tampering. You pathetic marshmallows!
LOL, so foolish. "You're fired" being done publicly has harmed many of trump's once and no more loyal subjects. The Civil Law, defamation (libel and slander) were both used as weapons to justify the unjust and unreasonable firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch.

I would hope that Ms. Yovanovitch files a suit in Civil Court against trump in the District Court of DC.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
25,876
Reaction score
4,383
Points
290
Oh, that makes it just fine then. You should really be wishing the president would just shut the fuck up. He is not helping himself at all.
nothing he does or doesn't do will stop the left from attackimg anything at all.

like 2 scoops of ice cream, fast food and the like.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
All you tRumplings look alike.
So, out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on where the intimidation IS? Or do you agree that Schiff's accusation, at least in this one instance, is ri-God-damn-diculous?
I'm betting you're one of the apologists who thinks that if it isn't something like "I will kill you if you..." It's not a threat And it isn't racist unless the "N" word is there.
It's not a threat when no one has been threatened, moron.
"She's gonna go through some things."
Lol! That's all you've got? I wish the democrats luck nailing that one down if/when it comes to trial. Your suspicions of the meaning of ambiguous wording might fly as a way to rally the base, but, luckily we have a legal system that's generally exercises enough sanity to refrain from punishing people based on politically charged suspicions.

I don't blame you for blowing up that ambiguous suspicion, though. I've been watching these hearings, and suspicion of ambiguous conversations is about as close as the deep staters are getting to even the SCENT of legally admissible evidence.
LOL, so ignorant ^^^:

Michael Cohen, trump's once and no more attorney testified that trump uses code to get what he wants done. See and listen to this:

 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
25,876
Reaction score
4,383
Points
290
So, out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on where the intimidation IS? Or do you agree that Schiff's accusation, at least in this one instance, is ri-God-damn-diculous?
I'm betting you're one of the apologists who thinks that if it isn't something like "I will kill you if you..." It's not a threat And it isn't racist unless the "N" word is there.
It's not a threat when no one has been threatened, moron.
"She's gonna go through some things."
Lol! That's all you've got? I wish the democrats luck nailing that one down if/when it comes to trial. Your suspicions of the meaning of ambiguous wording might fly as a way to rally the base, but, luckily we have a legal system that's generally exercises enough sanity to refrain from punishing people based on politically charged suspicions.

I don't blame you for blowing up that ambiguous suspicion, though. I've been watching these hearings, and suspicion of ambiguous conversations is about as close as the deep staters are getting to even the SCENT of legally admissible evidence.
Politically charged suspicions?

I got one word for ya kiddo:

Benghazi
so you admit this is revenge not a search for truth and justice.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
32,553
Reaction score
4,223
Points
1,140
I'm betting you're one of the apologists who thinks that if it isn't something like "I will kill you if you..." It's not a threat And it isn't racist unless the "N" word is there.
It's not a threat when no one has been threatened, moron.
"She's gonna go through some things."
Lol! That's all you've got? I wish the democrats luck nailing that one down if/when it comes to trial. Your suspicions of the meaning of ambiguous wording might fly as a way to rally the base, but, luckily we have a legal system that's generally exercises enough sanity to refrain from punishing people based on politically charged suspicions.

I don't blame you for blowing up that ambiguous suspicion, though. I've been watching these hearings, and suspicion of ambiguous conversations is about as close as the deep staters are getting to even the SCENT of legally admissible evidence.
Politically charged suspicions?

I got one word for ya kiddo:

Benghazi
so you admit this is revenge not a search for truth and justice.
Wow, you read an awful lot into one word.

You have a very active imagination.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
465
Points
130
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
It's not the tweet which intimated the Ambassador during her testimony under oath, it was the entire efforts by the Rudy and the Three Amigos + Mick Mulvaney to destroy her. They most likely did so at the direction of The President.
Well well.. We agree Shiffft and all the Democrats saying the tweet was intimidation lied.
Absurd ^^^ and dishonest:

You're not very bright if you believe character assassination isn't intimidation, esp. when someone in power initiates the assassination, and biddable fools like you echo it.
Lol! So dramatic. A Donald Trump tweet blasting someone's job performance is hardly character assassination. Seriously, can you draw me some example of someone Donald Trump trash talked publicly actually having measurable damage done to them?

It blows my mind that so many people are SERIOUSLY buying into the argument that a mean tweet is witness tampering. You pathetic marshmallows!
LOL, so foolish. "You're fired" being done publicly has harmed many of trump's once and no more loyal subjects. The Civil Law, defamation (libel and slander) were both used as weapons to justify the unjust and unreasonable firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch.

I would hope that Ms. Yovanovitch files a suit in Civil Court against trump in the District Court of DC.
Who did it harm and how? Also, how directly do you have to be able to tie the harm back to the statement itself before you can legally justify prosecuting someone for publicly trash-talking someone who happens to be a witness in a trial?

Defamation? Libel AND slander?! On top of witness intimidation, witness tampering. . . You do understand that these words, when used as legal terms, have actual definitions, criteria used to determine if an action actually measures up to such a thing? The progressive guilt by loose, obscure association game doesn't work with legal terms in an actual trial setting.
 

MAGAman

Pro-American Patriot
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
6,701
Reaction score
1,304
Points
290
Location
Realville, USA
Politically charged suspicions?

I got one word for ya kiddo:

Benghazi
Derp,

Benghazi was about a real event.

Real Americans, including a real Ambassador were killed and dragged through the streets.

There was a real coverup by real liars because of an election.

Real Terrorists killed Americans and Real lies were spoken about a video being the cause of it.

And we only know of this because REAL hearings told us the truths that Democrats and their MSM allies hid from us.
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,206
Points
290
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.
Thats the same strategy liberals have been using against trump since he took office

If they can savage and criminalize his inital appointments it will serve as a warning to others in washington not to serve under him

Then libs can attack trump by claiming he cannot find quality people for his administration
 
OP
Billy_Kinetta

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
46,904
Reaction score
11,533
Points
2,060
It's not the tweet which intimated the Ambassador during her testimony under oath, it was the entire efforts by the Rudy and the Three Amigos + Mick Mulvaney to destroy her. They most likely did so at the direction of The President.
Well well.. We agree Shiffft and all the Democrats saying the tweet was intimidation lied.
Absurd ^^^ and dishonest:

You're not very bright if you believe character assassination isn't intimidation, esp. when someone in power initiates the assassination, and biddable fools like you echo it.
Lol! So dramatic. A Donald Trump tweet blasting someone's job performance is hardly character assassination. Seriously, can you draw me some example of someone Donald Trump trash talked publicly actually having measurable damage done to them?

It blows my mind that so many people are SERIOUSLY buying into the argument that a mean tweet is witness tampering. You pathetic marshmallows!
LOL, so foolish. "You're fired" being done publicly has harmed many of trump's once and no more loyal subjects. The Civil Law, defamation (libel and slander) were both used as weapons to justify the unjust and unreasonable firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch.

I would hope that Ms. Yovanovitch files a suit in Civil Court against trump in the District Court of DC.
There are no grounds for such a suit. Trump has full authority in the matter.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
32,553
Reaction score
4,223
Points
1,140
Politically charged suspicions?

I got one word for ya kiddo:

Benghazi
Derp,

Benghazi was about a real event.

Real Americans, including a real Ambassador were killed and dragged through the streets.

There was a real coverup by real liars because of an election.

Real Terrorists killed Americans and Real lies were spoken about a video being the cause of it.

And we only know of this because REAL hearings told us the truths that Democrats and their MSM allies hid from us.
And apparently REAL stupid people still can't let it go even after investigation #7 (or is it #8?) Failed to find any wrongdoing.
 

edward37

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,263
Points
290
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.
The intimidation didn't start off with her UNREASONABLE outing from Ukraine ? A women more honored than the trump family couldn't achieve in a lifetime And not even given a reason why ,,,while the state depts Pompei {sp} couldn't stick up for her ?/ What slime you attach yourself to BK
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
122,964
Reaction score
17,601
Points
2,180
It's not the tweet which intimated the Ambassador during her testimony under oath, it was the entire efforts by the Rudy and the Three Amigos + Mick Mulvaney to destroy her. They most likely did so at the direction of The President.
Well well.. We agree Shiffft and all the Democrats saying the tweet was intimidation lied.
Absurd ^^^ and dishonest:

You're not very bright if you believe character assassination isn't intimidation, esp. when someone in power initiates the assassination, and biddable fools like you echo it.
Lol! So dramatic. A Donald Trump tweet blasting someone's job performance is hardly character assassination. Seriously, can you draw me some example of someone Donald Trump trash talked publicly actually having measurable damage done to them?

It blows my mind that so many people are SERIOUSLY buying into the argument that a mean tweet is witness tampering. You pathetic marshmallows!
LOL, so foolish. "You're fired" being done publicly has harmed many of trump's once and no more loyal subjects. The Civil Law, defamation (libel and slander) were both used as weapons to justify the unjust and unreasonable firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch.

I would hope that Ms. Yovanovitch files a suit in Civil Court against trump in the District Court of DC.
What part of "servers at the pleasure of the President" don't you understand?
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I'm betting you're one of the apologists who thinks that if it isn't something like "I will kill you if you..." It's not a threat And it isn't racist unless the "N" word is there.
It's not a threat when no one has been threatened, moron.
"She's gonna go through some things."
Lol! That's all you've got? I wish the democrats luck nailing that one down if/when it comes to trial. Your suspicions of the meaning of ambiguous wording might fly as a way to rally the base, but, luckily we have a legal system that's generally exercises enough sanity to refrain from punishing people based on politically charged suspicions.

I don't blame you for blowing up that ambiguous suspicion, though. I've been watching these hearings, and suspicion of ambiguous conversations is about as close as the deep staters are getting to even the SCENT of legally admissible evidence.
Politically charged suspicions?

I got one word for ya kiddo:

Benghazi
so you admit this is revenge not a search for truth and justice.
Beghazi was the real witch hunt and a partisan attack on the Democrats and HRC. It was dishonest, expensive and a complete failure.

Much like the GOP's war on Truth, Justice and the American Way (the latter which existed before trump and his narcissistic megalomania entered the White House).
 

MAGAman

Pro-American Patriot
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
6,701
Reaction score
1,304
Points
290
Location
Realville, USA
And apparently REAL stupid people still can't let it go even after investigation #7 (or is it #8?) Failed to find any wrongdoing.
Wrong hate-boy. Many wrongdoings were found. You did know 4 people died, didn't you? That would have been your first clue that something went wrong if you thought more and hated less.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
465
Points
130
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
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.
The intimidation didn't start off with her UNREASONABLE outing from Ukraine ? A women more honored than the trump family couldn't achieve in a lifetime And not even given a reason why ,,,while the state depts Pompei {sp} couldn't stick up for her ?/ What slime you attach yourself to BK
Edward, please try to keep up with the conversation, buddy. We're talking about witness intimidation in the context of the impeachment inquiry hearings. Those began on September 24. Yovanovitch was fired back in May. Pretty difficult to make the argument that an action taken 3 months before any inquiry was announced is witness tampering. Even the more conspiratorial minded ambassadors only think she was removed so that the ambassadorship could be used to establish back channels with Ukrainian leadership.

Also, it doesn't matter how honored she was. The president sets foreign policy. Not the ambassador. Not the state department. The president. He has precisely ZERO obligation to justify his agenda to her or the state department. To the contrary, THEY are obligated to carry out HIS agenda.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
465
Points
130
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
So, out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on where the intimidation IS? Or do you agree that Schiff's accusation, at least in this one instance, is ri-God-damn-diculous?
I'm betting you're one of the apologists who thinks that if it isn't something like "I will kill you if you..." It's not a threat And it isn't racist unless the "N" word is there.
It's not a threat when no one has been threatened, moron.
"She's gonna go through some things."
Lol! That's all you've got? I wish the democrats luck nailing that one down if/when it comes to trial. Your suspicions of the meaning of ambiguous wording might fly as a way to rally the base, but, luckily we have a legal system that's generally exercises enough sanity to refrain from punishing people based on politically charged suspicions.

I don't blame you for blowing up that ambiguous suspicion, though. I've been watching these hearings, and suspicion of ambiguous conversations is about as close as the deep staters are getting to even the SCENT of legally admissible evidence.
LOL, so ignorant ^^^:

Michael Cohen, trump's once and no more attorney testified that trump uses code to get what he wants done. See and listen to this:

Great. That testimony doesn't make your personal interpretation of what he said accurate. Keep trying.

Also, that quote, "she's gonna go through some things", is something Trump said in a private conversation with the Ukrainian president back in July, a full month before any inquiry was announced.

In order to make this one fly in court, you're going to have to explain why your interpretation of what Trump said is the only reasonable explanation, you're going to have to explain how Trump is responsible for Yovanovitch being given a copy of that conversation's transcript, AND you're going to have to argue against the human perception of time as linear. Again, I wish the democrats luck if they're gonna make that case.
 
Last edited:

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
32,553
Reaction score
4,223
Points
1,140
It's not a threat when no one has been threatened, moron.
"She's gonna go through some things."
Lol! That's all you've got? I wish the democrats luck nailing that one down if/when it comes to trial. Your suspicions of the meaning of ambiguous wording might fly as a way to rally the base, but, luckily we have a legal system that's generally exercises enough sanity to refrain from punishing people based on politically charged suspicions.

I don't blame you for blowing up that ambiguous suspicion, though. I've been watching these hearings, and suspicion of ambiguous conversations is about as close as the deep staters are getting to even the SCENT of legally admissible evidence.
Politically charged suspicions?

I got one word for ya kiddo:

Benghazi
so you admit this is revenge not a search for truth and justice.
Beghazi was the real witch hunt and a partisan attack on the Democrats and HRC. It was dishonest, expensive and a complete failure.

Much like the GOP's war on Truth, Justice and the American Way (the latter which existed before trump and his narcissistic megalomania entered the White House).
Don't forget the emails.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
32,553
Reaction score
4,223
Points
1,140
And apparently REAL stupid people still can't let it go even after investigation #7 (or is it #8?) Failed to find any wrongdoing.
Wrong hate-boy. Many wrongdoings were found. You did know 4 people died, didn't you? That would have been your first clue that something went wrong if you thought more and hated less.
What wrongdoings were found? Who was charged? Who went to jail?

Back that shit up or admit you're making it up.
 

toobfreak

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
25,205
Reaction score
7,178
Points
290
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.
I'm surprised he was able to read her the tweet with his tongue so far up her ass! Isn't it amazing how the democrats just FALL all over various witnesses with praise then they come forth with very supportive testimony! :disbelief:

I can't wait until the next ambassador or dedicated government worker is up there to give testimony that defends Trump to hear all their appreciation and flattery then. :heehee:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top