If Witness Intimidation Occurred -

[MAGAman]

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?

The transcript is evidence.

Every witness saying they have no 1st hand knowledge of a Trump crime is evidence.

Zelensky confirming Trump did nothing wrong is evidence.

"I heard Bob say Mary said Sally said Trump did something" isn't evidence.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No, I didn't. You're not replying to the guy who did. I assumed you were defending a point you actually agree with, not that you were simply butting in to argue semantics, or I wouldn't have replied to you at all.

I replied directly to you.

Is this not your post?

"I said "witness intimidation," you fucking dumbass."

No, it's not. Read the names.

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.

Awww, you don't have an answer so you retort with some dumbass assumption about me. If you were 6 I'd find that cute AF. I'm guessing that you're grown, though.

Seriously, though. Rather than guessing at what I think a threat looks like, maybe you could just save us some time and explain how Trump's tweet adds up to witness intimidation?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

All Trump did was trash talk the ambassador's performance in a tweet. The fact that she testified to FEELING intimidated doesn't actually make this witness tampering.

Otherwise, it's like. . . I FEEL that Schiff's "process" has assassinated my faith in due process. When are we bringing him up on murder 1?

Ludicrous ^^^ as well as an absurd effort to exonerate trump the bully. It's clear that trump was sending a warning to others who will testify in the future weeks, and is one more example of trumps efforts to obstruct justice:

"Section 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers"

What is the warning? "If you testify against me, I'll badmouth you on the internet!"?

How is that intimidating to any reasonably sane adult?

 

[Synthaholic]

The transcript is evidence.

It sure is!

And when it’s released the public will see the extortion attempt and the bribery.

 

[MAGAman]

The transcript is evidence.

It sure is!

And when it’s released the public will see the extortion attempt and the bribery.

Hahaha...

Your fear of the 2020 election is noted.

 

[Crepitus]

I replied directly to you.

Is this not your post?

"I said "witness intimidation," you fucking dumbass."

No, it's not. Read the names.

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."

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's not. Read the names.

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."

How is that a threat?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

The transcript is evidence.

Every witness saying they have no 1st hand knowledge of a Trump crime is evidence.

Zelensky confirming Trump did nothing wrong is evidence.

"I heard Bob say Mary said Sally said Trump did something" isn't evidence.

You're such a good boy, you follow the road you've been led. You echo propaganda without an independent thought, no matter how out of touch reality it may be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Sorry turd, but you have to threaten a witness with bodily harm for it to be "witness intimidation."

Man, you are really stupid.

Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings. Laws regarding witness tampering also apply to proceedings before the U.S. Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies.

Depending on the circumstances of your case, federal witness intimidation can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony under U.S. Code 18 Section 1512. Federal witness intimidation is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000

So in other words what Schiff did was a sideshow gimmick?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Sorry turd, but you have to threaten a witness with bodily harm for it to be "witness intimidation."

Man, you are really stupid.

Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings. Laws regarding witness tampering also apply to proceedings before the U.S. Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies.

Depending on the circumstances of your case, federal witness intimidation can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony under U.S. Code 18 Section 1512. Federal witness intimidation is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000

So in other words what Schiff did was a sideshow gimmick?

In your opinion. I do not agree, of course this is my opinion:

Chairman Schiff's behavior was polite, restrained and within the decorum expected in such a serious hearing; the behavior of several members of the Republican caucus were like that of a ruffian, that is a lawless person; a roughneck and a bully.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[MAGAman]

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?

The transcript is evidence.

Every witness saying they have no 1st hand knowledge of a Trump crime is evidence.

Zelensky confirming Trump did nothing wrong is evidence.

"I heard Bob say Mary said Sally said Trump did something" isn't evidence.

You're such a good boy, you follow the road you've been led. You echo propaganda without an independent thought, no matter how out of touch reality it may be.

IOW, you have no substantive reply because you know you're wrong but can't admit it.

 

[MAGAman]

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.

Derp,

Trump tweeted this not knowing that Shifffft would read it to her before her testimony was complete. Therefore he couldn't be trying to intimidate her with character definition.

Tards don't employ critical thinking...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

The transcript is evidence.

Every witness saying they have no 1st hand knowledge of a Trump crime is evidence.

Zelensky confirming Trump did nothing wrong is evidence.

"I heard Bob say Mary said Sally said Trump did something" isn't evidence.

You're such a good boy, you follow the road you've been led. You echo propaganda without an independent thought, no matter how out of touch reality it may be.

IOW, you have no substantive reply because you know you're wrong but can't admit it.

The facts are you have not posted anything original, you are nothing more than an echo in the wind. Thus the ad hominem.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Derp,

Trump tweeted this not knowing that Shifffft would read it to her before her testimony was complete. Therefore he couldn't be trying to intimidate her with character definition.

Tards don't employ critical thinking...

You must be a tard. Trump's tweets go out to the world, and it is likely trump sought to intimidate future witnesses who had already been subpoenaed

The Ambassador had already been humiliated by the bully you so adore.

 

[Thinker101]

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?

The transcript is evidence.

Every witness saying they have no 1st hand knowledge of a Trump crime is evidence.

Zelensky confirming Trump did nothing wrong is evidence.

"I heard Bob say Mary said Sally said Trump did something" isn't evidence.

You're such a good boy, you follow the road you've been led. You echo propaganda without an independent thought, no matter how out of touch reality it may be.

IOW, you have no substantive reply because you know you're wrong but can't admit it.

The facts are you have not posted anything original, you are nothing more than an echo in the wind. Thus the ad hominem.

Echo in the wind, that's exactly what you need, you fricken loons haven't learned a damn thing in the last 3 years so you need to hear it over and over again, like an echo.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

The transcript is evidence.

Every witness saying they have no 1st hand knowledge of a Trump crime is evidence.

Zelensky confirming Trump did nothing wrong is evidence.

"I heard Bob say Mary said Sally said Trump did something" isn't evidence.

You're such a good boy, you follow the road you've been led. You echo propaganda without an independent thought, no matter how out of touch reality it may be.

IOW, you have no substantive reply because you know you're wrong but can't admit it.

The facts are you have not posted anything original, you are nothing more than an echo in the wind. Thus the ad hominem.

Echo in the wind, that's exactly what you need, you fricken loons haven't learned a damn thing in the last 3 years so you need to hear it over and over again, like an echo.

Gee, and I always believed the supporters of trump were stuck in the bullshit propagated by the RW Media, The Donald himself, and his band of trumpanzees.

Thanks for sharing you opinion. I do have one question, which one of these are you;

Methinks the two on stage right.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No, it's not. Read the names.

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.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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!

 

[MAGAman]

The facts are you have not posted anything original, you are nothing more than an echo in the wind. Thus the ad hominem.

Since all you've posted is regurgitated vomit from Shiff, my post was sufficient.

I get the fact that you're desperate.

The Russian Collusion hoax died with a whimper, now the Ukraine Quid Pro Quo hoax is spiraling down...

So it's a new hoax, with the same sheep falling in line to reembarrass themselves.