Were the networks airing this?? Right now, all of them have their daytime shows on. I watched CNN for the first day of testimony, so I'm not sure if they covered that or not, but I was under the impression that they did.
They did some brief commentary after the hearing took a short recess and after that switched to regular programming until they are back in session.
Were the networks airing this?? Right now, all of them have their daytime shows on. I watched CNN for the first day of testimony, so I'm not sure if they covered that or not, but I was under the impression that they did.
They did some brief commentary after the hearing took a short recess and after that switched to regular programming until they are back in session.
Whew, thank you. I thought that would have been typical, cover day 1, call it boring, ignore day 2 and miss the "moment."
GOP Rep Lee Zeldin says on C-Span that Trump's tweets this morning weren't witness intimidation because ``Ambassador Yovanovitch wasn't on twitter'' at the time, and the only reason she knows that Trump tweeted about her is because Adam Schiff told her.
Ah, yes. Trump was threatening her, but she hadn't seen it yet, so the person who is actually guilty of intimidating her is the person who told her what he publicly announced. Makes perfect sense.
PBS had a nice timeline of events on it earlier but I really wish it had included that Congress was informed of the whistle blower complaint and then two days later the aid was released.
GOP Rep Lee Zeldin says on C-Span that Trump's tweets this morning weren't witness intimidation because ``Ambassador Yovanovitch wasn't on twitter'' at the time, and the only reason she knows that Trump tweeted about her is because Adam Schiff told her.
Ah, yes. Trump was threatening her, but she hadn't seen it yet, so the person who is actually guilty of intimidating her is the person who told her what he publicly announced. Makes perfect sense.
Jesus H. Christ, I thought this was legendarily dumb when it was either a Russian bot or a brain-dead MAGA chud saying it on twitter, but it actually caught on as a defense with a living breathing congresscritter?? Holy hell.
Wow. Fox News' Bret Baier says that Trump's tweets attacking Yovanovitch could be construed as witness intimidation and hence "adding essentially an article of impeachment in real time as this hearing is going on."
Former independent counsel Ken Starr criticizes Trump's tweets attacking Yovanovitch: "I must say that the president was not advised by counsel in deciding to do this tweet. Extraordinarily poor judgment ... obviously I think this was quite injurious."
Even Fox realizes/understands that this is exactly what they didn't want. I also saw it noted by someone that yesterday, Trump retweeted a bunch of randos attacking Taylor and Kent, but didn't really say much (about them at least) himself, which is very different from today's attacks on Yovanovich.
NPR in the interim is replying their deep dive of Trump and Russia and 2016 to build context around how we got to this point. And how he has ignored and put down the IC and the foreign policy community. Including Helsinki and the first speech at the CIA. And how this ties to what has led to the Ukrainian Incidents.
GOP Rep Lee Zeldin says on C-Span that Trump's tweets this morning weren't witness intimidation because ``Ambassador Yovanovitch wasn't on twitter'' at the time, and the only reason she knows that Trump tweeted about her is because Adam Schiff told her.
Ah, yes. Trump was threatening her, but she hadn't seen it yet, so the person who is actually guilty of intimidating her is the person who told her what he publicly announced. Makes perfect sense.
Jesus H. Christ, I thought this was legendarily dumb when it was either a Russian bot or a brain-dead MAGA chud saying it on twitter, but it actually caught on as a defense with a living breathing congresscritter?? Holy hell.
I would not be surprised in the least if that's the GOP line going forward. They seem very good at picking a strategy and having every one of them repeat it. That the bots are already yelling it isn't surprising either.
GOP Rep Lee Zeldin says on C-Span that Trump's tweets this morning weren't witness intimidation because ``Ambassador Yovanovitch wasn't on twitter'' at the time, and the only reason she knows that Trump tweeted about her is because Adam Schiff told her.
Ah, yes. Trump was threatening her, but she hadn't seen it yet, so the person who is actually guilty of intimidating her is the person who told her what he publicly announced. Makes perfect sense.
Jesus H. Christ, I thought this was legendarily dumb when it was either a Russian bot or a brain-dead MAGA chud saying it on twitter, but it actually caught on as a defense with a living breathing congresscritter?? Holy hell.
I would not be surprised in the least if that's the GOP line going forward. They seem very good at picking a strategy and having every one of them repeat it. That the bots are already yelling it isn't surprising either.
GOP Rep Lee Zeldin says on C-Span that Trump's tweets this morning weren't witness intimidation because ``Ambassador Yovanovitch wasn't on twitter'' at the time, and the only reason she knows that Trump tweeted about her is because Adam Schiff told her.
Ah, yes. Trump was threatening her, but she hadn't seen it yet, so the person who is actually guilty of intimidating her is the person who told her what he publicly announced. Makes perfect sense.
If I mail someone a bomb, it's the postman who is guilty!
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
It doesn’t have to be directed at the currently-testifying witness to be witness tampering/intimidation. The message Trump sent was, “If you testify against me, the most powerful person in the world will publicly smear you.” This was intimidation towards anybody who may dare to cross him.
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
High crimes clearly only refer to becoming unlawfully intoxicated and nothing else.
If the brick being thrown through the home window was not seen be the occupant, but was seen by others in the neighborhood, that is still intimidation yes?
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
If the brick being thrown through the home window was not seen be the occupant, but was seen by others in the neighborhood, that is still intimidation yes?
there’s nothing in the constitution about bricks
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+63
Options
BhowSunny day, sweeping the clouds away.On my way to where the air is sweet.Registered Userregular
Live reporter from the WH lawn:
"The president continues to tweet this morning..."
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
High crimes clearly only refer to becoming unlawfully intoxicated and nothing else.
GOP Rep Lee Zeldin says on C-Span that Trump's tweets this morning weren't witness intimidation because ``Ambassador Yovanovitch wasn't on twitter'' at the time, and the only reason she knows that Trump tweeted about her is because Adam Schiff told her.
Ah, yes. Trump was threatening her, but she hadn't seen it yet, so the person who is actually guilty of intimidating her is the person who told her what he publicly announced. Makes perfect sense.
Jesus H. Christ, I thought this was legendarily dumb when it was either a Russian bot or a brain-dead MAGA chud saying it on twitter, but it actually caught on as a defense with a living breathing congresscritter?? Holy hell.
I would not be surprised in the least if that's the GOP line going forward. They seem very good at picking a strategy and having every one of them repeat it. That the bots are already yelling it isn't surprising either.
Schiff's statement was a coverage of the Ambassador's story. Where the story started and how it moved through different channels. Basically a recap in a way I can't really type as there is a lot. Also talking about her excellent service.
Nunes statement is happening now. First complains that Congress isn't passing bills, a lie as the House is still functioning. The following words have been used by Nunes, "Cult", "Watergate fantasy", and now going at the "third hand/hearsay". Also complaining that the Republicans received a statement saying "Don't out the whistleblower or get reprimanded you chuckle fucks." Now it is the conspiracy about Schiff knowing who the Whistleblower is.
So everything you expect.
Still catching up on the thread, as I can't multitask (like at all), so reading Penny while watching the testimony live is out. But I saw this post, and I find it f'n funny that that statement happened, and we're now in recess so they can go vote.
I wonder if Nunes (like several of his compatriots in the "sit in" who could have sat in the hearings but chose not to, and participate in a stupid stunt instead) will actually go to the House floor, or just bitch about not passing bills.
It's even funnier in the context of how many bills HAVE been passed, and are just sitting on McConnell's desk. House can pass a bill an hour, and it's not going to actually do anything because McConnell is an asshole.
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
+19
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
One obstruction, five for false statements, one for witness intimidation.
I didn't even know his trial was finally coming around. This all kind of got lost in the scrum, but I'm glad to see he is getting reamed for all of this.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
One obstruction, five for false statements, one for witness intimidation.
I didn't even know his trial was finally coming around. This all kind of got lost in the scrum, but I'm glad to see he is getting reamed for all of this.
Also, when does Flynn get sentenced? I know that was mostly Mueller but I'd be surprised if he wasn't involved in Ukraine somehow as well.
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
They aren't saying that witness tampering isn't illegal, just that it's not an impeachable offense, as its not specifically referenced in the impeachment clause.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
They aren't saying that witness tampering isn't illegal, just that it's not an impeachable offense, as its not specifically referenced in the impeachment clause.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have to mean an actual crime in the impeachment clause. The president can be impeached because he picked his nose on camera.
That said, witness tampering is an actual crime, so.
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
They aren't saying that witness tampering isn't illegal, just that it's not an impeachable offense, as its not specifically referenced in the impeachment clause.
Good thing bribery is right there.
+3
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
They aren't saying that witness tampering isn't illegal, just that it's not an impeachable offense, as its not specifically referenced in the impeachment clause.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have to mean an actual crime in the impeachment clause. The president can be impeached because he picked his nose on camera.
That said, witness tampering is an actual crime, so.
I mean, its really fucking dumb, but their argument is likely "not 'impeachable', and President can't break laws".
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Let's just think about it a second. The argument is, "They did this crime but its not in the list so you can't impeach on this one!" They still admit to the crime. That ain't the best defense.
+45
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
They aren't saying that witness tampering isn't illegal, just that it's not an impeachable offense, as its not specifically referenced in the impeachment clause.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have to mean an actual crime in the impeachment clause. The president can be impeached because he picked his nose on camera.
That said, witness tampering is an actual crime, so.
I mean, its really fucking dumb, but their argument is likely "not 'impeachable', and President can't break laws".
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:
making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
We've done all this before, but I don't expect Republicans to know how to Google something, I guess.
Some clown called into C-Span's Democratic line regarding Marie Yovanovitch's career choice, insinuating she should be a financial advisor instead of an ambassador because she turned a 200,000 salary over 33 years into a net worth of over 6 million. Then said something about deep state operatives.
But... $200,000 x 33 = $6,600,000. Basic math is too much, I guess?
Posts
They did some brief commentary after the hearing took a short recess and after that switched to regular programming until they are back in session.
Whew, thank you. I thought that would have been typical, cover day 1, call it boring, ignore day 2 and miss the "moment."
Ah, yes. Trump was threatening her, but she hadn't seen it yet, so the person who is actually guilty of intimidating her is the person who told her what he publicly announced. Makes perfect sense.
That's also not how mass communication works!
She was not the target of the message!
Jesus H. Christ, I thought this was legendarily dumb when it was either a Russian bot or a brain-dead MAGA chud saying it on twitter, but it actually caught on as a defense with a living breathing congresscritter?? Holy hell.
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
Nakedly partisan nutbag Ken Starr too.
Even Fox realizes/understands that this is exactly what they didn't want. I also saw it noted by someone that yesterday, Trump retweeted a bunch of randos attacking Taylor and Kent, but didn't really say much (about them at least) himself, which is very different from today's attacks on Yovanovich.
I would not be surprised in the least if that's the GOP line going forward. They seem very good at picking a strategy and having every one of them repeat it. That the bots are already yelling it isn't surprising either.
I keep thinking Pizazzgate, especially with that guy who was scaremongering about hearings going on in the basement
If you think that's bad/stupid, you really don't want to hear what someone on Fox followed it up with.
(Paraphrase)
If I mail someone a bomb, it's the postman who is guilty!
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Media Matters person:
High crimes clearly only refer to becoming unlawfully intoxicated and nothing else.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
there’s nothing in the constitution about bricks
"The president continues to tweet this morning..."
2019, ladies and gentleman!
Crimes committed in a hot air balloon.
Roger Stone has been found guilty on all counts.
Trump is having a very, very, very bad day.
Edit:
Here's the list of counts
One obstruction, five for false statements, one for witness intimidation tampering.
I see we've moved from "High crimes and misdemeanors means literal crimes"
To "High crimes and misdemeanors means two specific offenses called 'misdemeanor' and 'high crime' which do not exist"
Still catching up on the thread, as I can't multitask (like at all), so reading Penny while watching the testimony live is out. But I saw this post, and I find it f'n funny that that statement happened, and we're now in recess so they can go vote.
I wonder if Nunes (like several of his compatriots in the "sit in" who could have sat in the hearings but chose not to, and participate in a stupid stunt instead) will actually go to the House floor, or just bitch about not passing bills.
It's even funnier in the context of how many bills HAVE been passed, and are just sitting on McConnell's desk. House can pass a bill an hour, and it's not going to actually do anything because McConnell is an asshole.
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
I didn't even know his trial was finally coming around. This all kind of got lost in the scrum, but I'm glad to see he is getting reamed for all of this.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Also, when does Flynn get sentenced? I know that was mostly Mueller but I'd be surprised if he wasn't involved in Ukraine somehow as well.
They aren't saying that witness tampering isn't illegal, just that it's not an impeachable offense, as its not specifically referenced in the impeachment clause.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
"High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have to mean an actual crime in the impeachment clause. The president can be impeached because he picked his nose on camera.
That said, witness tampering is an actual crime, so.
Good thing bribery is right there.
I mean, its really fucking dumb, but their argument is likely "not 'impeachable', and President can't break laws".
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
*pops champagne cork*
It's a very stupid argument.
We've done all this before, but I don't expect Republicans to know how to Google something, I guess.
But... $200,000 x 33 = $6,600,000. Basic math is too much, I guess?
"Now I'm not a fan of Trump" means they are very much a fan of Trump, I've noticed.
an old trick in right wing talk radio is to call in and say you’re a democrat
guarantees you get on the air
Or pretend you're a Democrat who's seen the "light." Hi, Candace Owens!