TGIF 11/15/19

Where to begin with today's good week - bad week list?

How about that Browns/Steelers fight last night? I didn't watch the game and hadn't seen any news before I saw the video, so it was quite the shocker to see before breakfast this morning.  With quarter-million-dollar fines to both teams, player suspensions and fines already announced, I'm thinking this falls squarely in the bad week column.

And then, part of me thought about the people who make those 'cute' videos with images of president Trump's head superimposed on other people's bodies, attacking the media, or his enemies (John McCain and Hillary Clinton, among others) getting hold of this one and having Trump, I don't know, beating Rep. Adam Schiff over the head with a helmet or something. Because I can certainly see that happening.

Continuing in the bad week vein, I'd have to include a few reporters, including Jonathan Allen of NBC, who offered this:

But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall of backfire, the first round felt like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act plan than the opening night of a hit Broadway musical. 

Seriously? I guess maybe the Dems should call Randy Rainbow to come in a do a few beautifully crafted, snarky showtunes?

Allen also offered this, after talking about Ambassador Bill Taylor and diplomat George Kent delivering a 'wide-ranging discourse" on diplomacy and more (emphasis added),

And yet Taylor and Kent failed - or perhaps succeeded, given their nonpartisan roles in government and the atypically serious postures struck by lawmakers of both parties - by dropping no bombshells and largely repeating the testimony they gave congressional investigators at depositions previously held behind closed doors.

So, instead, they should have changed their stories, to generate better headlines? Tweeted from their witness chairs to spark controversy? Pounded their shoes on the table, or Nicholsoned or something?Would that have been more 'pizzazzy' for everyone?

Allen and NBC were not alone - Reuters reporters Jeff Mason and Patricia Zengerle offered this:

Democratic lawmakers tried their hand at reality television with mixed results on Wednesday as they presented arguments to the American public for the impeachment of a former start of the genre, Donald Trump. 

Unlike the best reality TV shows - not to mention the Trump presidency itself - fireworks and explosive moments were scarce, however.  

I'm guessing that Taylor and Kent will likely be making apologies to all Americans, letting us know they didn't realize that appearing under subpoena to provide testimony in an impeachment hearing should have been something done with bells on, or something. Besides, Kent was wearing a bow tie - what more fun can a person have (in contrast to the jacketless Jim Jordan)? Maybe an appearance on Sesame Street or something in the next week or so?

And, of course, I'm sure Rep. Schiff will reach out personally to the president's second son to make amends, because. as Reuters told us,

To the president's son, Eric Trump, it was a big yawn. 

I get that there's a component to this of making impeachment understandable to people, to voters,  just as there was in the Clinton hearings. And I'm sorry that there isn't an ejaculate-stained blue dress this time around. No - I'm really not sorry there's nothing as salacious here, unless of course you count Devin Nunes' opening statement on Wednesday.

Sticking with the impeachment for a little bit longer, I'm sorry that one of New York's own representatives, Elise Stefanik, is willingly participating in the game being played by Nunes and the rest of her party, instead of acting like a reasonable person. During today's hearing, Nunes attempted to yield the floor to Stefanik during what I'll loosely call 'leader time' - both of them knowing that she was not allowed to speak at that time.  Why? Because rules, that's why (emphasis added)

• Extended Questioning by the Chair, Ranking Member, and Committee Counsels. Pursuant to H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may conduct at the outset of each open hearing extended rounds of questioning for periods of up to 90 minutes, as determined by the Chair and split evenly between the two sides. As specified in H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may not yield time to other Members during these extended question periods, though either may yield time to Majority and Minority Committee Counsels, respectively.

• A similar rule put in place initially by House Republican leadership in 1997 authorized committees to allow extended periods of time for the questioning of witnesses, in excess of traditional five-minute rounds. The 1997 revision also allowed staff to question witnesses at hearings. Under this approach, which was also adopted in subsequent Congresses, staff questioned witnesses during the Clinton impeachment hearings and in numerous other investigative hearings.

• As Chairman, I expect to yield extensive time to Majority Committee Counsel during the extended questioning periods permitted under H. Res. 660. After I announce the conclusion of extended questioning, Committee Members will be recognized for customary five-minute rounds pursuant to House Rule XI. 

I'm sure though, that this will meet the 'pizzazz' threshold for DC reporters, because it looks good that there's some fighting and finger-pointing and all that. What it mostly does, though, is show the willingness of the GOP to do whatever they can to attack the hearings.

Yay, us, or something.

On the good side of the ledger? One name out there: former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who received a standing ovation after her testimony today.  Texas Republican Will Hurd had this to say about her, after reciting a list of her awards and recognitions:

You're tough as nails and you're smart as hell. You're a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. You're an honor to your family, you are an honor to the foreign service, you are an honor to this country, and I thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country.

I'd add the Roger Stone jury, as well.

The panel of nine women and three men deliberated for less than two days before finding Stone, 67, guilty on all seven counts resulting from his September 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, which was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Kremlin’s efforts to damage Donald Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps Stone will get a Donald Trump tattoo to go with his Richard Nixon tattoo; it might help his efforts to get a pardon.

TGIF, everyone.