Trump is intimidating a witness in real time on Twitter.
Complaining about BS like this makes people less likely to take legitimate complaints seriously
What specifically do you find threatening in his tweet?
Specifically the parts that the witness herself said that she was intimidated by.
I assumed that you meant to type “intimidating” instead of “threatening” since that was the wording in the question.
It was insulting, not intimidating
List time I checked, it is not permitted to look at Twitter during proceedings like this impeachment. It certainly isn’t permitted for the witness currently on the stand to look at their phone / computer / whatever. So unless the person questioning them reads something from twitter, the witness would have no way to know about it until later.
The tweet today was not the only intimidation directed toward her, it was just the latest. The tweet was more about disinformation but was also meant to be intimidating. It doesn’t matter when she sees the tweet.
You can’t intimidate someone who hasn’t even seen the tweet and wouldn’t even have known about it if Adam Schiff hadn’t read it to her. Lol 😆
Nice talking point. Too bad it doesn’t make sense.
It makes perfect sense to most people but I’m not surprised that you don’t get it.
“It doesn’t matter when she sees the tweet”
Really? Democrats are claiming that Trump’s tweet was “intimidating the witness“ which is illegal, but only if you do it before or during their testimony. Posting something that they can’t see until the hearing is over doesn’t count.
Wow. I can’t believe you two can see to type with your heads buried that far in the sand.
Ben ... so, was Adam Schiff an accomplice to intimidation of a witness?
According to@Benseth he must be.
🤣 of course you people are that dense. Schiff did not write the tweet, he only made her aware of it. Could you provide a precedent where a person that is pointing out intimidation becomes an ACCOMPLICE? This has to be an all time low for you people. How about if a reporter told her about it during break? Does the reporter become an accomplice? How about if one of her family members make her aware of it? Does that make them accomplices? It is actually interesting to see just how much you people can twist and contort trying to defend Trump. It’s disgusting, but interesting.
“You people”? I’m not black but I still don’t appreciate your racist comments.
So Trump supporters are now a “race”. I guess if you can magically come up with a new gender, you can magically come up with a new race too. It’s 2019 huh?
Maybe you could do me a favor and move your fake outrage elsewhere.
Okay then. Continue acting like a child.
Ben ... I get that you’re likely too young to understand how this law thing works. But for the fact that Mr Schiff brought the tweet into the proceeding, there would have been no opportunity for grandstanding Mr Schiff to make the point and then ask the failed ambassador about her feelings.
As for this thread, of course Mr Schiff was the accomplice to the execution of whatever feelings she had. Unfortunately the tweet wasn’t a crime, or we’d be removing Mr Schiff right now!
The truth is that the tweet was factual, and was in no way intimidating. If this kind of thing intimidated this ambassador, then all of us can see why MrT recalled her! Any ambassador that can’t deal with accurate criticism has NO business representing our country!
You’re hilarious. I know I’ve already told you multiple times what my age is- I’m not young- and that I work in the legal field. But I’m sure you didn’t care to remember. I know plenty about laws and grandstanding. None of that takes away from the substance of the tweet or the continued intimidation. Obviously it’s YOU that doesn’t know how these things work since you’re actually saying that anyone that shows the tweet to her would be an accomplice. If that really was a thing, our prisons would be filled journalists and we would be totalitarian state.
🤔try to actually think
Ben ... who cave guessed, with your arrogant outbursts, that you were a non-lawyer?
If you were honest, you’d admit that the Democrats have nothing because the President committed crime.
His need to identify the whistleblower is the worst of the intimidation. It’s beyond the whistleblower now. Trump was up in arms... the whistleblower didn’t have first hand info, blah blah... others who were more intimately involved testified and corroborated the complaint. Identifying the whistleblower at this point will only result in harassment and potential physical danger for him/her and their family.
Wow. That is not witness intimidation
Yes it is
What about it was intimidating?
Not even close.
Zim ... was Mr Schiff an accomplice to intimidation of a witness?
Think- no he wasn’t 🙄
Baxter- how is it not? When a mob boss would tweet about a witness it’s clearly intimidation, the good ambassador even said she felt intimidated! And I hope this will be added to the articles of impeachment!
It obviously wasn’t intimidation and, no, she didn’t say she was intimidated. Not even close.
😂😂😂😂she did! And it was intimidation of course! Obviously you were deaf watching the hearings.
No she didn’t.
Uh yes she did! I showed you you a link in our last conversation, it was right there! Schiff asked her point blank, she said yes! I actually don’t believe you even watched the hearings? 🙄
I read your link and watched the hearings. She never said she was intimidated in either. Just because you keep repeating the lie doesn’t make it true.
And just because you say she didn’t do doesn’t mean she didn’t, because she did. And I’m sure in the future she will again!
Ebola is correct. No witness intimidation
Zim ... let’s play out your delusion. How will this phony intimidation play out this week? How many days will it be before outraged Democrats stop talking about it?
Honestly, he is just so disgusting, how far this country has fallen 😢
Preach it brother. And the lemmings here will still repeat talking points about gossip and a cult like secret door meeting. As if any of them even get the gravity of what is happening.
How is pointing out her failures intimidation?
And what about the dozen other testimonies he’s live tweeted during? It’s suddenly intimidation now when that phrase never came up before
Jer- it isn’t, he clearly shouldn’t be doing it! The man has no self control, does he?
What exactly were her failures?
Her tenure in Somalia. Regardless still not intimidation
What happened in Somalia?
Her time in Somalia. Was absolutely fine! There was a civil war going on and Trump laughably blames her for that! I mean that’s just nuttery, does he not know the history of the country? Wait I’ll answer that-NO! 🙄
If she was so terrible why was she asked to stay on another year in March?
None of this matters because people just blindly believe tweets.
Elise Stefanik just thanked her for her service in Mogadishu. She must not have gotten the memo.
It’s you that is blind fully believing in ‘witness intimidation’ because some politicians used the buzzword. I don’t know what happened in Somalia but that’s besides the point, it was meant to criticize her job performance which is in no way ‘intimidation’. My second point is that he’s been live tweeting testimonies for 3 years, why is it suddenly witness intimidation now? If he said he has ‘insurance’ on her over tweet then an argument can be made that it’s intimidation.
Wait so you don’t know what happened in Somalia but you’re willing to stand by what he said because why again?
And no. I’ve followed this for awhile and watched for days. But thanks.
Stop moving the goalposts. The tweet was not intimidation, read it yourself
I read it. What goalpost did I move? I didn’t but that’s a common charge you guys make.
Talking about Somalia specifics when the comment chain is about witness intimidation
You brought up Somalia as a failure of hers and I asked you what specifically was the failure to which you couldn’t produce one and then accused me of moving goalposts.
It was clearly intimidating, he just couldn’t wait till after the hearings to tweet? I mean is there nothing this ass-hat does that you can actually criticize him for! He shouldn’t have done it period! Any decent human being wouldn’t have done it!
I bringing up the subject matter of the tweet, not meant as an opinion. I responded to the comment chain to ask how bringing up her failure (or success?) is intimidation. At least zimmy is staying on topic. I don’t see how suddenly live tweeting is a form of witness intimidation when for 3 years he’s been doing the same thing and it was never called witness intimidation. Read the tweet yourself instead of listening to pundits, all it says is that she failed in Somalia
🤦♂️ open your eyes. Ignore the dog whistles.
Ben ... you offer great advice ... to yourself!
Dur hur. What a put down!