(TNS) As journalists, most mainstream reporters are pretty good propagandists. As propagandists, they are terrible lawyers.
- Check out “4 MORE YEARS OF TRUMP-CONOMICS: How His Reelection is Guaranteed and What it Means for You†— download for FREE in Crisis Reports
That’s why we don’t seek legal advice from mainstream media types, and neither should you. Or President Trump, for that matter.
Especially when it comes to his impeachment sham.
Earlier Friday, the president tweeted some commentary regarding diplomat Marie Yovanovitch, who is Adam Schiff’s sole ‘impeach witness’ for the day.
Mind you, as USA Features News reported, she really didn’t have anything to contribute to “Ukrainegate” because she doesn’t know anything.
She never spoke to the president about Ukraine and had already been fired by him by the time of his ‘controversial’ July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The president, of course, knows that. So, being Trump, he tweeted about it…while she was testifying.
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2019
….They call it “serving at the pleasure of the President.” The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for Ukraine than O.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2019
Poor judgment? Eh. Maybe. Former Independent Counsel Ken Starr thinks so.
But … was it witness intimidation?
That’s what some of the media legal geniuses believe. Like CNN’s Jake Tapper.
Amb. Yovanovitch testifies about POTUS and his team smearing her.
During her testimony, Pres. Trump goes on twitter and attacks her.
Asked for her reaction in real time, the witness says she finds the attack intimidating.
A potential article of impeachment, right there.
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 15, 2019
Add Fox News’ Bret Baier to the list.
That was a turning point in this hearing so far. She was already a sympathetic witness & the President’s tweet ripping her allowed Schiff to point it out real time characterizing it as witness tampering or intimidation -adding an article of impeachment real-time. https://t.co/HSCkGMIqmH
— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) November 15, 2019
Really?
What about when, say, Bill Clinton met Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the airport in Phoenix while his wife, Hillary Clinton, was being investigated by the DoJ and FBI for felony mishandling of classified information? Nothing to see there…right?
Starr seems to have it about right.
Well, I must say that the president was not advised by counsel in deciding to do this tweet — extraordinarily poor judgment,†he said Friday. “The president frequently says, ‘I follow my instincts.’ Sometimes we have to control our instincts.”
“So, obviously, this was I think quite injurious,†he noted further, adding that regardless of the bad taste, it wasn’t an “impeachable” offense because he wasn’t “tampering” with any “witnesses.”
Remember, a) this isn’t a real House impeachment probe; and b) Yovanovitch has admitted she wasn’t a party to any part of President Trump’s Ukraine involvement.
- We need your help to grow, pure and simple. If you like our no holds barred approach to defending President Trump and our republic, share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications. We don’t do a regular ‘email newsletter’ anymore because it gets blocked.Â
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW
Irrelevant.
Hearsay witness. Crybully faggot tactics from the pedomedia satanists, that eat at Comet pizza.
well….a “witness” has information relevant to the matter being heard. Ms. Yovanovich admitted she had none, therefore she is not a witness.
and “witness intimidation/tampering” would have to happen BEFORE the “testimony” occurs. if Shiff had not read the tweet, Ms. Yovanovich would not have known what trump had said until AFTERb the “testimony”….too late to be intimidation.
sorry, this is more smoke and mirror B.S. by a desperate bunch who has nothing, and is fishing for something, anything, with which to make a case.
They’re pretending to be lawyers now? Pretending to be journalists wasn’t enough of a charade for them?
Yep. They sink lower and lower. Natural born creeps apparently.
Also, we have the Truth coming out with the third witness that said Trumps policy has no strings attached. Remember that folks! Truths are ahead in the Senate trials.
What we will learn from these trials is how strong the Senate2020 candidate are. Bernie, Kamala, Rhinestone Cowgirl, Booker and Klobuchar.
None of them want to leave the campaign trail.
Do they think they can beat 45 at the polls. Or show their true colors in a trial that follows our Constitution. These folks want to write a new one.
She’s not a witness… She’s an unindicted co-conspirator. It would have been better if the Ukraine had formally requested her removal, made her persona non grata and sent her out of their country. Oh, and Epstein didn’t commit suicide…
They are useful idiots for the leftist communists. Remember the night of the long knives!!!!! I’m sure that means nothing to them though.
Well, not sure we understand the headline–lawyers will claim anything. And isn’t that what they do whenever they get the chance: intimidate witnesses?