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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

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:

Case over.