Does anyone take CNN seriously anymore?

You surely can’t when they have “journalists” like CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Media flipped out at President Donald Trump posting a critical tweet of former Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch during her testimony before Congress today because he was trying to explain why she was fired.

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

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) then read it to her and asked if it intimidated her and of course the Obama-appointed holdover said yes. Pretty sad if that tweet is “intimidating” to a former ambassador and maybe a good indication of why she wasn’t right for the job and rightly fired.

But that was all some of the media needed to call it “witness intimidation,” as though on cue.

And Tapper was right there with the talking points, even terming it a potential “article of impeachment.”

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

Great Twitter-lawyering there. Apparently, Tapper has no idea what witness intimidation is. Hint: it isn’t being critical on Twitter.

2. Furthermore, it clearly hasn’t changed the fact that the witness is testifying willingly and sticking to her script.

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 15, 2019

So, if we accept this ridiculous reasoning that tweet is somehow intimidating, are we going to charge Schiff as an accessory for intimidating the witness with it by reading it to her? Tapper has an excuse for that one too, and it’s hilarious.

Schiff definitely brought it to her attention but there is zero chance she wouldn't be told during the break that the president had attacked her.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 15, 2019

Oh, please. This is a clown show.

When it was pointed out to him that the tweet isn’t intimidating by any reasonable standard, here was his response.

Yah. but as you know, Impeachments aren't necessarily about strictly-defined violations of law.

Article I of Clinton impeachment referred to "his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence"https://t.co/j3MfINO63C

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 15, 2019

Is this beyond silly at this point? It’s intimidation because impeachment has no standards so we can call this anything we want. Come to think of it, that’s how Democrats are handling it, with no standards.

By the way, Jake? Here’s a recitation of why Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction charges.

According to the Starr report, Clinton:
encouraged Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
encouraged Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
concealed gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
attempted to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
permitted his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
attempted to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie
made false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

Yup, totally like a critical tweet.

But this approach is truly troubling. Because impeachment is not supposed to be “standard-less” but meant only for the most extreme situation, hence the “high crimes” phrasing, specifically not for political disputes.

Meanwhile why is Yovanovitch even there? She wasn’t on the call, she’s not testifying to any impeachable offense, she’s testifying as an Obama holdover, she didn’t like being fired. Tough. A president has the right to fire any ambassador for any reason or no reason at all. But Democrats are having her there to make it look like Trump is mean and nasty to employees.

Here’s all we need to know from Yovanovitch:

STEWART: "Do you have any information regarding POTUS accepting bribes?"

YOVANOVITCH: "No."

STEWART: Do you have any evidence of any criminal activity from POTUS?"

YOVANOVITCH: "No."

Alright, let's go home now, folks. pic.twitter.com/qJJE3ZAYf6

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) November 15, 2019

Case over.