Day two

[Ricky M]

Sigh. The president is not on trial here. They are gathering and examining evidence to see if the president can be charged and then put on trial. This is not the time for cross-examination of witnesses.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Sounds familiar......

Schiff: "now the President — in realtime — is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?"

Yovanovitch: "It's very intimidating."

Schiff: "It's designed to intimidate, is it not?"

And here's CNN with a nice little picture to make Yovanovitch look like a "victim": Schiff just accused President Trump of witness intimidation after his real-time tweets

Except she actually was being victimized by the President of the United States. Adam Schiff maintaining order during the hearings is hardly the same as the most powerful man in the world publicly degrading a person’s reputation.

Are you saying the balance of power between Jim Jordan and Adam Schiff is exactly the same as with Yovanovitch and the President?

 

[Aldebaran]

Except she actually was being victimized by the President of the United States.

Making assertions like that without any evidence is an empty gesture.

Adam Schiff maintaining order during the hearings is hardly the same as the most powerful man in the world publicly degrading a person’s reputation.

Reading a tweet during a hearing in order to paint the witness as a victim to try to get some "awwww, you poor victim!" out of the viewing audience is hardly "maintaining order". Try again.

Are you saying the balance of power between Jim Jordan and Adam Schiff is exactly the same as with Yovanovitch and the President?

You can simply read what I write if you want to know what I'm saying.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Making assertions like that without any evidence is an empty gesture.

We literally have the president’s own tweet as evidence.

Reading a tweet during a hearing in order to paint the witness as a victim to try to get some "awwww, you poor victim!" out of the viewing audience is hardly "maintaining order". Try again.

That’s your own assumption of his intentions. Why should I take you as a credible source in any of this? I saw it happen. I can form my own opinions, thank you very much.

You can simply read what I write if you want to know what I'm saying.

It reads like you’re saying Adam Schiff was victimizing Jim Jordan.

Sounds familiar.....

 

[Aldebaran]

We literally have the president’s own tweet as evidence.

Victimized by a tweet that she didn't know about until her friend Schiff decided to use it to his and her advantage? That's a weak case ya got there!

That’s your own assumption of his intentions. Why should I take you as a credible source in any of this? I saw it happen. I can form my own opinions, thank you very much.

Then that's all you have for evidence; your own opinions.

It reads like you’re saying Adam Schiff was victimizing Jim Jordan.

I haven't even been talking about Jim Jordan. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning him.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Victimized by a tweet that she didn't know about until her friend Schiff decided to use it to his and her advantage? That's a weak case ya got there!

Her friend? Where are you getting that they were friends?

And that's awfully nice of Trump to provide them with something they can use to their advantage. Is that part of his strategy?

Then that's all you have for evidence; your own opinions.

No, opinions aren't evidence. Opinions are formed using evidence. The president has not put forth anything to suggest he is at all innocent.

I haven't even been talking about Jim Jordan. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning him.

I was in the post you decided to reply to. Maybe address the content of the post instead?

Just seeing Jim Jordan get so worked up was the highlight of the day for me. And it’s not tyranny. The Chairman is in charge of the hearings and everyone there is well aware of that but it plays well with their base to act like victims.

 

[Aldebaran]

Her friend? Where are you getting that they were friends?

He twisted it to her advantage by telling her that Trump was "attacking" her, and then even led her to play the victim afterwards. I certainly wouldn't call him impartial. He's clearly on her side.
No wonder the public has already lost interest in these hearings after just 2 days on TV.

And that's awfully nice of Trump to provide them with something they can use to their advantage. Is that part of his strategy?

Telling his side of things was all he did.

No, opinions aren't evidence. Opinions are formed using evidence. The president has not put forth anything to suggest he is at all innocent.

Nor does he need to. He's presumed innocent just like everyone else is.

I was in the post you decided to reply to. Maybe address the content of the post instead?

He highlighted your day. Fine. I'm not sure how you want me to respond about it.