Did Trump say that she should be fired from her job when he, uh, what’s the technical term… fired her from her job?
Back in May? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. You might notice that both Euphonious Polemic’s post and mine referenced a TWEET by the President.
Did Yovanovitch contradict herself?
versus
Yes, that is exactly the sort of thing I would expect to be indicative of witness intimidation (unsuccessful intimidation, obviously). I will have to review Mr. Trump’s actions and the law before coming to a conclusion though - I am much much more concerned about witness intimidation with regard to the whistleblower though. We’ve also got earlier potential intimidation with tweets directed to Mr. Cohen and Mr. Manafort.
~Max
Even Fox News has been critical of that tweet. I can certainly see how she would feel intimidated by it.
However I think it’s clear that Trump is really intimidated by her testimony or he wouldn’t have felt the need to publicly attack her as she was testifying.
We can also really see who the dead enders are at this point by those who are actually trying to defend this awful and idiotic tweet. So the tweet also had that effect.
If I can unpack this… she said the Obama administration never brought up Burisma or the Bidens as an issue. At the same time, she appears to have been prepped, presumably by staffers in the Obama administration, for a Republican attack on the Bidens and Burisma during her confirmation hearing.
Is that correct? If so, that’s an awfully circular line of reasoning.
That is most unfortunate, at first glance.
ETA: after reading steronz’s post, it makes more sense and doesn’t seem to be an issue.
~Max
If one believes that once the person in charge of hiring you has fired you, that said person no longer has any ability to cause harm in your life, then perhaps you are right. If however one remembers that the person who hired you is the most powerful person on earth, then one might indeed still feel intimidated.
If that most powerful person hadn’t been agitating to have his other perceived enemies thrown in prison, one might not feel as intimidated.
However, Schiff made a key point when he talked with Yovanovitch: he asked what the effect would be on other witnesses. Some potential witnesses haven’t been fired yet, haven’t been removed from their jobs. What message will they reasonably take from reading the President’s fact-free rant against a current witness?
Any witness who thinks, “Yeah, but the difference is, I’m good at my job, so there’s no way the President will retaliate against me if I testify,” is an idiot.
He didn’t just say she was bad at her job. He said she was bad. He also said she was bad news. This is very cryptic and nefarious and can be interpreted in many ways. Of course it’s Trump and we’re supposed to give him a pass and believe that he was only saying she was bad AT HER JOB ONLY, NOTHING ELSE ABOUT HER IS BAD!!
You aren’t addressing the substance of my post. Try again.
My bold.
This is important and has been lost sight of in this discussion. This is what the soon-to-be Former President said:
“She started off in Somalia. How did that go?”
He’s not saying she’s bad at her job. He’s implying that she was instrumental in causing the crisis in Somalia. That she causes bad things to happen in a country. Of course, he doesn’t come right out and say it, because his lack of gonads prevents him from speaking clearly and directly. All he is capable of is sneering and snarking-- “I’ve heard…” “People are saying…” “It looks like…”
What the ever-loving fuck?
The testimony is compelling, but I think people have checked out:
Considerably less viewership than the Comey hearing.
About the same as the Mueller testimony.
But…much, much less a spectacle than Watergate. It’s a different era, folks. We don’t live in the gatekeeper era anymore; we live in the fakebook era.
Welcome to 2019.
Yeah, on one level it was; but on another level, the person it was target at was testifying at the time the tweet went out, and the America-hating fuckstick could conceivably characterize it as something he did not expect the Ambassador to know about before her testimony was completed, and by interrupting her to read it into the record, Schiff just now made yelling at the TV screen a LOT more interactive than it had ever been before.
Is this a legitimate concern I’m raising? Someone talk me down, please.
Shocking.
“Mr. Senator, I hate to interrupt your fifteenth reading of the U.S. Constitution but Twitter, Inc. has communicated to us that 80% of households in your state have yelled at you, through their television, to shut the fuck up.”
Reminds you of Mr. Smith in Washington, doesn’t it? When they bring in all the telegrams, “public opinion made to order”.
~Max
Something was lost in communication, I honestly have no idea how you drew the inference that Ambassador Yovanovitch’s reputation means nothing or that she doesn’t have to worry about violence and harassment. Either I wrote something incorrectly or you misread me.
~Max
And he’ll keep doing it, because he can. This impeachment trial is already over. It’s not going to move the dial. It’s not going to make Trump all that less popular than he already is; it might actually light a fire under his base’s ass.
It’s either recession, major military fuck up, and a massive repudiation of the entire GOP at the polls next year…or end of the American republic as we know it.
Uhh, this might be a problemfor Mr. Trump.
*
“David Holmes, the aide to diplomat Bill Taylor who overheard President Trump’s conversation with European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland, said that Sondland told the President that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would do “anything you ask him to,” and that he confirmed the Ukrainians were going to “do the investigation.”
“Sondland told Trump that Zelensky ‘loves your ass,’” Holmes said, according to a copy of his opening statement reviewed by CNN. “I then heard President Trump ask, ‘So, he’s gonna do the investigation?’ Ambassador Sondland replied that ‘He’s gonna do it,’ adding that President Zelensky will do ‘anything you ask him to.’”
Holmes explained that Sondland placed the call to Trump, and he could hear Trump because the call was so loud in the restaurant where they were with two others.
“While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President’s voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume,” Holmes testified.
“Even though I did not take notes of those statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made,” Holmes added.
Holmes also confirmed Taylor’s testimony about the President’s thoughts on Ukraine, saying he asked Sondland “if it was true that the President did not ‘give a s—t about Ukraine.'”
Holmes said Sondland responded Trump only cares about “big stuff.” When Holmes said that the Ukraine war was big, Sondland responded “‘big stuff’ that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,” Holmes said.”*
Wow, Sondland really is the gift that keeps on giving, isn’t he? I’m embarrassed he’s an Oregonian. But I’m glad he’s been part of the clown show.