If you can acknowledge that the timing was poor, then you have already identified one aspect that was wrong.
The witness is testifying against the president and the president has chosen that moment to attack her. Criticisms are one thing. Criticizing them while they are testifying against you, especially when you hold a position of great power, is intimidation of a witness.
They were crowing to impeach Clinton for 6 years before the actual impeachment process ever started. Like I said, it’s early in the ballgame. Grab a beer, sit back and enjoy the show.
Ah, whataboutism. Under Obama, ambassadors were coming back in body bags. Now everyone is upset because one got fired.
....really!? If you put your threat in a place where the intended witness is likely to hear that threat, then you have engaged in witness intimidation. Trump writes it in his personal journal? Not intimidation. Trump writes it on twitter for his 80 million followers to see? Intimidation. Does that make sense to you?
There is no law against collusion. Stone is in jail for lying about collusion under oath at a congressional hearing, witness tampering and 5 other charges related to his clouding with Wikileaks and Russian intel to use stolen personal communications to help Trump win the election.
Look at the avalanche of investigations and subpoenas just because someone was freely and fairly elected.
Facts are now theories. Schiff for brains told her about it during her testimony today because it was tweeted during the testimony.
By the way, it is a felony to agree to commit a felony. Said person is not excused even if persuaded by others.
Funny how that works. If it's committed by one side, it's criminal. If it's committed by the other side, it's not.