Constructive commentary is welcome.


Random smearing of the President will be deleted

"Marie Yovanovitch willing & able to testify this afternoon"

Just a long time Disgruntled "Employee" of this President !

Some say she was an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton. It's a little odd to have some testify and others not. It is worse to be holding these hearings behind closed doors.

It's a little odd to have some testify and others not. It is worse to be holding these hearings behind closed doors.

The Democrats have asked for everyone to testify, the administration is so scared of what the Democrats will find they have blocked the testimony of everyone else and told them there is just blanket executive privilege which is total nonsense as the courts will destroy their sad little white house council unconstitutional cover they've invented. It's all going to come out, just like it did in the Nixon administration as soon as he tried to stop congresses investigation.

the administration is so scared of what the Democrats will find they have blocked the testimony of everyone else and told them there is just blanket executive privilege which is total nonsense as the courts will destroy their sad little white house council cover they've tried.

Then why allow Yovanovitch to testify?

BTW the WH position is posted in the article. Pelosi dosen't want to hold a vote, therefore the President question's the legitimacy of such an "inquiry." To be settled in Court.

Then why allow Yovanovitch to testify?

Maybe because he knows she'd probably quit the State Dept if she had to, because she's not an immoral toadie whose loyalty is to Trump rather than to her country.

There's no law that says Pelosi has to hold a vote, and you know it.

Maybe because he knows she'd probably quit the State Dept if she had to, because she's not an immoral toadie whose loyalty is to Trump rather than to her country.

Then if she felt that way, SHE SHOULD HAVE RESIGNED!  We elected Trump.

There's no law that says Pelosi has to hold a vote, and you know it.

I know, that is the constant democrat response. I hate saying it again, because she didn't hold a vote the President doesn't feel the "inquiry" is legitimate and he need not comply!

See you in Court!

I know, that is the constant democrat response.

It's the Democratic response because it's a FACT. 

I hate saying it again, because she didn't hold a vote the President doesn't feel the "inquiry" is legitimate and he need not comply! See you in Court!

What Trump 'feels' is irrelvent. 

It's the Democratic response because it's a FACT. 

That fuckin fact isn't being contested. We all know why she is doing it and we know there are consequences for her and maybe even disaster in the wings. By all means keep reciting it.

What Trump 'feels' is irrelvent. 

No it's not....We are going to Court...and I think he wins there!

if she felt that way, SHE SHOULD HAVE RESIGNED!  We elected Trump.

The oath they take is to our nation and the constitution, not to some unhinged half-witted narcissistic serial liar and serial adulterer who happens to be President at the moment. She did the right thing which was to keep doing her job with integrity and honor and refused to break the law by participating in the coercion of a foreign government to manufacture dirt on one of the Presidents political opponents. Interesting that this campaign to find dirt on Biden only really heated up after Trump saw the Fox polls with Biden beating him by double digits. Coincidence? I think not.

The oath they take is to our nation and the constitution

Explain what that has to do with foreign policy?  If one President says no military aid for the Ukraine and the next says we send military aid what does she do?  Look to the Constitution for which policy is right? Or does she support each in kind as an ambassador should?

Here's another question - Should she have told Ukrainian officials that Hillary Clinton is going to win the 2016 election and they should prepare for that?

Maybe the oath to the Constitution really means you leave your political beliefs outside the door.

We elected Trump.

[DELETED]

If one President says no military aid for the Ukraine

...unless they produce dirt on a specific political opponent of the President for an upcoming national election, she should refuse to participate in such a plan. It's illegal and unconstitutional. Being forced to resign because you have ethics and morals should never happen, [DELETED]

...unless they produce dirt on a specific political opponent of the President for an upcoming national election, she should refuse to participate in such a plan.

Then she should resign!

 Being forced to resign because you have ethics and morals should never happen

Wrong! To the contrary ethics and morals dictate exactly that. Sabotage is the tool of the immoral.

As stated elsewhere and before, Biden is NOT running against Trump....... yet. He has a way to go before you can say that. He's currently running against fellow Dems to win the privilege to do so. Why is it so hard for some to go 50-50 that indeed the "investigation" (hahaha) was to feel out the new President and his intentions going forward? And I said 50-50 before some people go all apeshit. I choose let's see. But of course some will jump on the guilty until proven innocent train because.................well Trump.

and refused to break the law by participating in the coercion of a foreign government to manufacture dirt on one of the Presidents political opponents.

Really? What are you referring to?  When did Trump ask her to get "dirt" or participate in the getting of "dirt"? 

Hunter Biden is definitely not running against the President

Burisma Holdings is definitely not running against the President

Ukrainian officials who dug up info on Paul Manafort are clearly not running against the President

Wrong! To the contrary ethics and morals dictate exactly that.

So having ethics and morals should be seen as a fire-able offense? For this administration it certainly seems that way, but that's not the norm.

“I, 'name here', do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

law.cornell

I see no oath to any President there. In fact, there is an argument that refusing to resign and fighting the corruption within our own government would be upholding the oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". This President is a domestic terrorist who has incited violence, attempted to coerce foreign government for his own political gain, abused the power of his office and continually attempts to obstruct justice and congresses constitutional oversight authority.

That fuckin fact isn't being contested.

It's NOT? Then exactly WHAT is all the bullshit from Trump's letter about 'unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process' and 'unconstitutional inquiry' if not an attempt to contest that Vic? 

We all know why she is doing it and we know there are consequences for her and maybe even disaster in the wings. By all means keep reciting it.

I had no idea how big of a trigger FACTS would be Vic. 

No it's not....We are going to Court...and I think he wins there!

How Trump feels is even MORE irrelevant in court.

Cipollone's letter is laughable. 

As stated elsewhere and before, Biden is NOT running against Trump.......

Tell him that when he's staring at polls that have him pitted against the top Democrat candidates and he's losing by double digits.

Why is it so hard for some to go 50-50 that indeed the "investigation" (hahaha) was to feel out the new President and his intentions going forward?

Because that's a total bullshit narrative invented after the fact to attempt to obfuscate the criminal actions of this desperate mob boss of a President.

I choose let's see

Of course you do. Trump supporters want to give this heap of lies the benefit of the doubt because most care more about sticking it to fellow Americans they disagree with than the rule of law.

Burisma Holdings is definitely not running against the President

And yet all the President could think about was getting something he could use against Biden.

"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me." - DJT

Tell him that when he's staring at polls that have him pitted against the top Democrat candidates and he's losing by double digits.

And Warren is creeping up on and has passed  Mr. Biden.

" Because that's a total bullshit narrative invented after the fact to attempt to obfuscate the criminal actions of this desperate mob boss of a President."

Why yes your honor (congrats on the internet law degree BTW)

" Of course you do. Trump supporters want to give this heap of lies the benefit of the doubt because most care more about sticking it to fellow Americans they disagree with than the rule of law"

That, my friend is a two way street that smells of bullshit. 

I knew someone would jump and assume. Thanks for not disappointing.

Careful, any bad word about Trump will be deleted as "no value" by the thought police. They can't have facts and reality being injected into their carefully crafted narrative or else it all falls apart.

Because that's a total bullshit narrative invented after the fact to attempt to obfuscate the criminal actions of this desperate mob boss of a President.

You have been spewing about criminal actions for three years now.  The drama never ends and no criminal activities against the President have been presented with factual evidence.

Schiff, Pelosi and their posse of fools have gone way down the rabbit hole and taken you and many others with them.  Each new wild conspiracy theory against Trump shows the desperation of many liberals.  

[deleted]

"Careful, any bad word about Trump will be deleted as "no value" by the thought police. They can't have facts and reality being injected into their carefully crafted narrative or else it all falls apart."

As stated in the opening comment..............

"Random smearing of the President will be deleted" So the Warning shot was previously fired. I'd ask if you want a tissue but that would probably get flagged..........so I won't.

So having ethics and morals should be seen as a fire-able offense?

Morals and ethics require transparency and refusing to serve anyone whom you think violates those ethics. Sabotage makes one immoral by definition. Of course we are speaking hypothetically. We seem to have divergent views on what morals and ethics happen to be.

Thanks for sharing the oath. It is only relevant in this case via serving the President's policy.

I see no oath to any President there.

Sorry, serving the nation and the Constitution means you either fulfill your duties as ambassador via current policy or you don't take the job to begin with.

there is an argument that refusing to resign and fighting the corruption within our own government

You fight that by being open. Sabotage is the act of an immoral activist

It's NOT? Then exactly WHAT is all the bullshit from Trump's letter about 'unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process' and 'unconstitutional inquiry' if not an attempt to contest that Vic? 

I can only speak for myself. I didn't contest the constitutionality of the Speaker not holding a vote. The House makes it's own rules. The President has a right to his view which he needs to make in Court.

How Trump feels is even MORE irrelevant in court.

They are always relevant if the court agrees. Remember the travel ban?

Cipollone's letter is laughable.

Pelosi isn't laughing.

Some say she was an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Some say she was a detractor of Trump too, while in the service for THIS President !

And yet all the President could think about was getting something he could use against Biden.

Mentioning Joe Biden was definitely inappropriate

"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son

Hunter Biden is fair game. Why was the VP's know nothing son put on the board of Burisma?

The results of your subterfuge have seen your intentions come to fruition. The question remains...will you be held accountable for bastardizing the election process

Since Joe and Son is such a non-issue (pressed by the "Left" day in and day out)....why would the "Left" be so gullible and move over to Liz, if they really liked Joe ?

They are always relevant if the court agrees. Remember the travel ban?

Yes I remember the First one that was found UNCONTITUTIONAL. I remember the Second one, that was ALSO found UNCONSTITUTIONAL even though the court practically wrote the fucking thing for them. The third one, the one that Trump whined about being a 'watered down version' finally met muster. Congratulations. 

Pelosi isn't laughing.

Wanna bet? 

Sabotage makes one immoral by definition

There is no evidence of her "sabotaging" anything, just speaking truthfully about her experience working for the Trump administration. If that ends up "sabotaging" his Presidency because she truthfully testifies as to the administrations corrupt behavior, that's not on her, it's on Trump and his loyal lawless cronies who care more about Trump than our country.

The third one, the one that Trump whined about being a 'watered down version' finally met muster. Congratulations. 

Ya, the third one was the SCOTUS and we all knew he had that right. The first two were the usual shopped judges that the ACLU ran to. We knew how they would vote to.

Wanna bet? 

Anything you want that she loses in Court...

There is no evidence of her "sabotaging" anything

I never said she did. That remains to be seen. Why not have an open hearing?

because she truthfully testifies as to the administrations corrupt behavior

Now I'll play - What corrupt behavior?

...funny that.

All blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, and regardless of how much you blame them, it will not change you. The only thing blame does is to keep the focus off you when you are looking for... reasons to explain your own unhappiness or frustration.

Casey Stengel

You fight that by being open.

Actually, you fight that by going to the State dept. IG and filing a Whistle blower complaint. Yet we now know how Trump feels about whistle blowers. Being open could be bad for your health.

Of course, you are assuming that she KNEW what was going on with Giuliani. MOST of the shit happened AFTER she left Ukraine. 

Yet we now know how Trump feels about whistle blowers. Being open could be bad for your health.

No kidding :

"In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs: Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists, threatened to jail an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a journalist investigating private defense contractors became the focus of a federal prosecution and was initially charged for sharing a hyperlink containing hacked information that had already been made public."  Those Espionage Act cases included the trial of Chelsea Manning, who was held in solitary confinement for nearly one year prior to her military trial, prompting a condemnation from the UN special rapporteur on torture.
“The absolute twisted passion with which the administration under Obama’s leadership has pursued whistleblowers is just appalling,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org. “And as far as I can tell, the administration is unrepentant in that process. There’s just no other administration that comes close.”

Trump has done NOTHING to a "Whistleblower".

Anything you want that she loses in Court...

Pelosi won't be going to court. The HOUSE will. 

No kidding :

Chelsea Manning was NOT a whistle blower. In fact, NONE of those prosecuted under the Espionage Act qualify as whistle blowers under the law. 

Trump has done NOTHING to a "Whistleblower".

Except call him a traitor, a liar and a coup conspirator. What will Trump's sycophants do if they find out who he is?  

Spin how you want.

Trump has done nothing to anyone in the whistleblower/leaker realm, like you wish it would be.

Oh ….. wait ….. he has revoked two press passes....for a few days.

The "Left" had a few calf's over that one.....or two.

well done, and topical

I try, and glad you agree.

Patriots win ring No. 7 !

Trump has done NOTHING to a "Whistleblower".

Exactly !

But "Innuendo" and "Conjecture" make "Sensational" reading for the "Left" !

Spin how you want.

Nope, just calling you on your spin. 

Trump has done nothing to anyone in the whistleblower/leaker realm, like you wish it would be.

Trump has failed to figure out who any of the leakers are in his sieve of a WH. Hell, he still hasn't figured out who wrote that Op/Ed a year ago. 

They're desperately trying to figure out how to out the whistleblowers. In short, violate the law. 

I note that you glossed over my question: What will Trump's sycophants do if they find out who he is?  

Nope, just calling you on your spin. 

Just doin' the "Equal Standard" thingy using a factual "Shinny Object" instead of "Innuendo" and "Conjecture" Crap !

"They're desperately trying to figure out how to out the whistleblowers."

Trump should just do what Obama did. It works …… But.....

May be nothing there but I would wager money there are lots of corruption from the Obama/Bush Ites to gill the Pacific Ocean.

That's a pretty terrible bet considering not a single one of those you listed have ever been indicted of any crime. Even the supposed "slam dunk" against Andy McCabe turned out to be a nothing burger that a grand jury refused to indict over.

Face it, the Trump administration is the most corrupt administration in US history. The Mueller investigation indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. Now we have a phone call from Trump where he is directly asking a foreign leader to dig up dirt on Joe Biden who he mentions by name while holding millions in military aide hostage until he got the Ukrainian Presidents cooperation in helping Trump find dirt on his political opponents. And those involved in this quid pro quo knew they had to get rid of the ambassador to Ukraine who refused to play ball and felt their requests of the Ukrainian government were highly inappropriate and likely illegal.

So besides Trump just being a monumental moron with dozens of accusations against him of sexual assault, is a known serial adulterer having cheated on all three of his wives, is an unindicted co-conspirator in an illegal campaign finance scheme to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to porn stars to keep them quiet during the campaign, welcomed the illicit help from the Russian government that stole private citizen emails and released them on Trumps behalf in an effort to embarrass his political opponents, on top of all that, he's been caught soliciting help from another foreign government to help him in the next election. Trump is a vile piece of shit and will go down in history as the worst President in US history, but some of his psycho sycophants prefer to make shit up about the former President, most likely because they harbor a deep seated hatred for his skin color, and make wildly false claims about him even though Obama is currently the most admired man in the world. Jealousy is a stinky cologne.

news.gallup

Anything you want that she loses in Court...

After yesterday, you are describing Trump.  He lost all of 'em.

What will Trump's sycophants do if they find out who he is?

Funny, people in both parties seemed to think highly of her. Giuliani wanted her out so he could deal with Ukraine himself since she wouldn't go along with the scam.

You apparently view her having morals and ethics as bad things. That's sad.

Giuliani wanted her out so he could deal with Ukraine himself since she wouldn't go along with the scam.

Is that what happened?

Funny, people in both parties seemed to think highly of her.

Were they ALL staying in touch with her since she became the Ambassador ?

Ima guess HAYULL no. Until she was let go, and without a google search, I am sure most couldn't have named her.

I am sure most couldn't have named her.

I'd agree !

Is that what happened?

According to her under oath testimony, yep, that's pretty much it. 

You apparently view her having morals and ethics as bad things.

Evidently one person's "morals" are another's lack of morals.

Is she another government employee who strove to thwart the policies of the man she was supposed to serve?

She took an oath to serve, protect and defend the Constitution, NOT Trump. 

We certainly don't know why the President recalled her back in May or why the President went to the extraordinary lengths of telling Ukrainian president Zelensky that "the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news" . 

Or why he told Zelsnsky that Yovanovitch:

"Well, she' s going to go through some things."

Career Diplomats at Yovanovitch's current posting seem worried about that statement in particular:

Washington, D.C. – The American Academy of Diplomacy calls on the Administration to make clear that it will not act against career diplomat Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch for doing her duty and working to support long established US policies and values.

isd.georgetown

She took an oath to serve, protect and defend the Constitution, NOT Trump. 

That sounds nice but as ambassador to Kiev she is to support the current President's policies or she should resign!

 The American Academy of Diplomacy calls on the Administration to make clear that it will not act against career diplomat Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch for doing her duty and working to support long established US policies and values

Then the Academy is wrong. US foreign policy is set by President's NOT long standing "values". When she served under George W Bush she should be serving the policy of George W Bush. When she served under Barak Obama she should be serving his policy and the same goes for Donald Trump. All of those policies differed. 

That sounds nice but as ambassador to Kiev she is to support the current President's policies or she should resign!

Then the Academy is wrong. US foreign policy is set by President's NOT long standing "values". When she served under George W Bush she should be serving the policy of George W Bush. When she served under Barak Obama she should be serving his policy and the same goes for Donald Trump. All of those policies differed. 

Well gee Vic, WHAT are you alleging that she failed to support? Do you have some kind of documentation of WTF Trump's CURRENT policy is for Ukraine? Other than of course to have them investigate a phantom server and the Biden's? 

BTW, Yovanovitch's opening statement is online here:

int.nyt

Here's a excerpt:

Supporting Ukraine’s integration into Europe and combatting Russia’s efforts to destabilize Ukraine have anchored US policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and demanded to be a part of Europe and live according to the rule of law. That was US policy when I was appointed Ambassador in August 2016, and it was reaffirmed as the policy of the current administration in early 2017.

Sure doesn't look like Yovanovitch believes that US policy in Ukraine HAS changed...at least 'officially'. 

Well gee Vic, WHAT are you alleging that she failed to support?

I didn't allege anything. I was responding to your theory that there was some long standing foreign policy that transcends presidents and that ambassadors should be dedicated to that rather than a current administration's foreign policy.

Sure doesn't look like Yovanovitch believes that US policy in Ukraine HAS changed...at least 'officially'. 

That part clearly hasn't changed. We do have a differences in what should be given to the Ukraine (we went through that the other day) as well as differences in which Ukrainian officials are trustworthy. 

That sounds nice but as ambassador to Kiev she is to support the current President's policies or she should resign!

First of all, she was the Ambassador to Ukraine.  

Secondly, she has an impeccable record related to every bit of her public service.  Let me repeat:  She has an impeccable record.  She genuinely loved serving this country.  Go ahead...try to find one hint of untoward behavior or even one inappropriate action.  You will be unable to find anything that is not attached to the greed of others.

Third?  Shame on you.  You are well aware of her impeccable record, aren't you?  It's why you haven't asserted your usual style of partisan attack.  You know what was done to her, and is still being done by your very own American Idol.

Again, shame on you. 

I was responding to your theory that there was some long standing foreign policy that transcends presidents and that ambassadors should be dedicated to that rather than a current administration's foreign policy.

I didn't express any such theory Vic. 

BTW, you've inferred that she didn't support Trump's policies yet had yet to cite one iota of evidence for that claim. 

That part clearly hasn't changed.

Yet Trump withheld military aid until almost the last minute. WHY?

We do have a differences in what should be given to the Ukraine (we went through that the other day) as well as differences in which Ukrainian officials are trustworthy. 

You proclaim that without anything to back it up.

I posted FACTS about the chronology of the military aid to Ukraine and you blew it off. I posted the fact that the Pentagon certified in May that the aid should be released to Ukraine because of their advances in fighting corruption. The ONLY credible documentation we have for a POSSIBLE reason for that aid NOT to be released to Ukraine came in the phone memo and the TEXTS submitted by Volker and it has NOTHING to do with the trustworthiness of Ukrainian officials. 

Again, shame on you.

No, shame on you. Let's get to the truth instead of your need to tell us about her record. Gen Douglas MacAthur had an impeccable record through two world wars and the Korean War and he was fired!  Was that immoral?

I didn't express any such theory Vic. 

You did in Post # 4

BTW, you've inferred that she didn't support Trump's policies yet had yet to cite one iota of evidence for that claim. 

Wrong again. I said that whoever the ambassador is should either support the current president's policies or quit. That statement was inresponse to your claim as well as others that an ambassador need not support the current foreign policy.

Yet Trump withheld military aid until almost the last minute. WHY?

I'm assuming there were corruption concerns or other policy matters. There is a lot that goes on in foreign policy that we don't know about, but the military aid was given

You proclaim that without anything to back it up.

I gave you the links yesterday. Obama never gave the military weapons they wanted. You simply rejected it.I won't waste my time again.

I posted FACTS about the chronology of the military aid to Ukraine and you blew it off.

No, you simply posted what was voted on, not what Obama decided to provide. I believe your statement was "I assume he did" - I responded with a link of what he actually gave, which wasn't the military weapons they needed or wanted. AND YOU BLEW IT OFF. MORE PROJECTION!

You did in Post # 4

Yes I did. Point? 

Wrong again. I said that whoever the ambassador is should either support the current president's policies or quit.

It infers that she didn't support Trump's policies. RIGHT!

That statement was inresponse to your claim as well as others that an ambassador need not support the current foreign policy.

I NEVER made that claim. STOP! 

I'm assuming there were corruption concerns or other policy matters.

WHY? 

There is a lot that goes on in foreign policy that we don't know about, but the military aid was given

After Senators and the Freedom Caucus stepped in. Trump withheld it for political purposes and released it for political purposes. 

I gave you the links yesterday.

Please post a link to your comment from yesterday. 

Obama never gave the military weapons they wanted. You simply rejected it.I won't waste my time again.

The Ukraine rejected the military aid that Obama sent them? Who knew? /s

No, you simply posted what was voted on, not what Obama decided to provide. I believe your statement was "I assume he did" - I responded with a link of what he actually gave, which wasn't the military weapons they needed or wanted. AND YOU BLEW IT OFF. MORE PROJECTION!

No Vic, I posted what was passed by Congress. Do you have any evidence that Obama failed to provide the aid enumerated by Congress or are you just pulling accusations from your nether regions again? 

I posted what TRUMP did. Here is the crux of it: 

Where was Trump's deep desire to uncover ANY kind of corruption in Ukraine in early 2018 FW. You know, when Trump budget asked for $250 million for Ukraine aide. 

Where was it in Oct. 2018 when he signed the bill that included the $250 million for Ukraine the HE asked for? 

Where was it during the time between Oct 2018 and May of 2019 when the Pentagon conducted an extensive review of Ukraine that included the State Dept. and the DoD and thereafter sent a letter that certified the release of the aide to Ukraine. 

Then at the END of July, Trump dumps a shitstorm on Zelensky, who is dire need of the aide asked for by Trump, passed by Congress and certified by the Pentagon. This even though Trump knew, or SHOULD have known, that the aide passed in 2019 had to be dispersed by EOY 2019, giving Zelensky just 2 months to give Trump what he wanted.

If not for Freedom Caucus members lobbying Trump on behalf of Ukraine, the time would have run out and Ukraine would be SOL until the next budget is passed. That is IF Ukraine is lucky enough not to be on Trump's permanent shit list. 

Note that Ukraine is NOT mentioned in Trump's 2020 budget. 

Still no takers on any of those questions.

I didn't express any such theory Vic. 

You did in Post # 4

Correction. I did post # 4 but I did NOT express any such theory in it. 

Let's get to the truth instead of your need to tell us about her record.

I've been time-challenged today, so I thought I would handle both concurrently.

Gen Douglas MacAthur had an impeccable record through two world wars and the Korean War and he was fired!  Was that immoral?

I wasn't even born then and I still know of his importance and greatness in history.

Next?

George W Bush she should be serving the policy of George W Bush. When she served under Barak Obama she should be serving his policy and the same goes for Donald Trump. All of those policies differed. 

The difference between these three? Two of them were not trying to win an election using extortion of a foreign government, trump was. She wouldn't play ball, so they got rid of her. Her own boss told her, "you didn't do anything wrong". Seems odd that she would be fired for doing nothing wrong, no? She was fired because she refused to be a traitor to the USA. 

She wouldn't play ball,

What was she asked to do that was illegal or unethical?

Do you have some specifics?

The question has been asked many times on the seed, but still no answer.

And no answer will there be. Gotta wait for the story to back it up and there won't be one..........

Please post a link to your comment from yesterday. 

This isn't the same one but it will do:

"Not included in the line of questioning by Schiff or Carson was any mention of why Obama never sent lethal aid to Ukraine, which has been fighting pro-Russian forces since 2014.

The Obama administration's position was that sending weapons to Ukraine would have increased the bloodshed in the country and given Russia "a pretext for further incursions," according to the  New York Times ."

washingtontimes




That's the last time I link what I'm sure you must know!!!

This isn't the same one but it will do:

Actually, it doesn't 'do' at all Vic. 

I said that you made the following proclamation without a back up:

We do have a differences in what should be given to the Ukraine (we went through that the other day) as well as differences in which Ukrainian officials are trustworthy. 

Now you claim that you gave me links to prove that YESTERDAY and post a DIFFERENT link that does NOT prove anything in above your statement. It doesn't 'do' at all because it doesn't support your post Vic. 

Now the link you speak of was posted 5 days ago and does NOT prove anything in your above statement either.  The link you claimed to have posted YESTERDAY doesn't support your post.

What's worse is that you are making the ridiculous argument that the Ukraine of 2014 is the identical to the Ukraine of 2019. The cognitive dissonance required for that ridiculous argument is galactic. 

That's the last time I link what I'm sure you must know!!!

If that means that you will refrain from posting the same bullshit ad nauseam I applaud your discision. 

Should be an open door hearing..

Iv'e asked about transparency and some of the democrats here now agreed!

news.yahoo

Pentagon officials deemed withholding of aid to Ukraine was illegal

The Pentagon was confused. Hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine had been appropriated in late 2018 by Congress, intended to help fend off aggression by neighboring Russia. But well into 2019, as summer was edging toward autumn, the funds had still not moved.

Department of Defense officials began to worry that the funds would never make it to Ukraine, since the appropriations would expire with the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. They even began to prepare a legal challenge to the freezing of the funds, leading to an unprecedented fight within the Trump administration.

Since then, the Ukraine affair has turned into an impeachment inquiry that could see President Trump removed from office. But it is also an example of yet another federal agency — this time, the Pentagon — caught off-guard by the president’s political imperatives.

But they got their aid

you didn't post this part...

At that point, the budget office revealed that the holds were authorized at the direction of the president, which, in effect, made them legal.

It is has been explained why funds where held, but of course people want to buy into a another "conspiracy" theory.

It is has been explained why funds where held,

When, by whom? Which excuse are you talking about? Link? 

impeachment inquiry

LOL 

when the house votes to BEGIN impeachment proceedings (which they never will) be sure to let us know.

- until then it is nothing but political BS

news.yahoo

Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump pushed to oust her

Defying President Donald Trump's ban on cooperation with the impeachment inquiry, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch told lawmakers Friday that Trump himself had pressured the State Department to oust her from her position.

Yovanovitch said in an   opening statement obtained by The Associated Press   that she was "abruptly" recalled in May and told the president had lost confidence in her. She said she was told by an official that there was a "concerted campaign against me" and that Trump had pressured officials to remove her for almost a year.

As I said before if Gen MacArthur can be fired over policy so can an ambassador

As I said before if Gen MacArthur can be fired over policy so can an ambassador

Is that what happened Vic? Was she recalled over policy differences? Is that the 'bad news that Trump was talking about? Is that why Trump said 'she' s going to go through some things'? 

Tell me all the facts Vic.

She was not fired.  She was recalled before the end of her term. She was not asked or forced to resign.

She has served six Administrations for 33 very honorable years.  4 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

.

She is currently the Diplomat in Residence at Georgetown University which is normally a 12 month project between FSO

assignments. DIR's recruit future FSOs from the colleges within their assigned areas, usually three or four states.

DIR DC Metro includes D.C., Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and Northern Virginia.

Of course she can also, as many before her have done, use the time to line up a new job in the private sector.

Someone thought enough of her, not to fire her or force her to resign, but to use her many skills.

It isn't anything unusual to fire/recall and replace an ambassador regardless of their qualifications.

Obama fired many of Bush's appointees, effective the day of his inauguration.

You are correct, they are often told on Day 1 to turn in their resignations.

.

But Marie is not, and has never been a political appointee.

She is a career FSO. 

But her positions changed with different Presidents...that is the point.  Not unusual for Presidents to change many different positions and personnel during their term.  

That is politics, not conspiracy theories.

It isn't anything unusual to fire/recall and replace an ambassador regardless of their qualifications.

It IS unusual however for the State Dept. to ask her to extend her term through 2020 in March and recall her in late April. 

But Marie is not, and has never been a political appointee.

So how did she get her position? Here is a hint, she was nominated by Obama for the position.

That does not make her a political appointee KD.

I am certain you can look up the difference on the internet.

She's an SFS.   A Senior Foreign Service officer.  Equivalent to the Flag rank of the military ( General/Admiral ).

Already confirmed by the US Senate for a previous Ambassadorship after being nominated by one George Bush (43)

She's been an FSO for 33 years.  No political affiliation. 

Yovanovitch joined the U.S. foreign service in 1986.

Her first foreign assignment, in Ottawa , was followed by overseas assignments including Moscow , London , and Mogadishu . ^[10]

From May 1998 to May 2000 she served as the Deputy Director of the Russian Desk in the U.S. Department of State.

From August 2001 to June 2004, as a career member of the senior foreign service, she was the Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev , Ukraine . ^[11]

From August 2004 to May 2005 she was the Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs .

Yovanovitch was nominated on June 3, 2005 to serve as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kyrgyz Republic, and confirmed by the United States Senate on June 30, 2005.

(That would be under Bush KD )

She was the United States Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan from November 20, 2004, to February 4, 2008, and the United States Ambassador to Armenia from August 1, 2008, to June 3, 2011.

Yovanovitch was nominated to be the ambassador to Ukraine on May 18, 2016, to replace Geoff Pyatt , and was sworn in on August 18, 2016

en.wikipedia

It IS unusual however for the State Dept. to ask her to extend her term through 2020 in March and recall her in late April. 

why? [deleted]

why? obviously you have no experience in hiring and firing of personnel.

Actually, the first person I hired was in 1977 and the first one I fired was in 1978. Last person I fired was in 2018. 

Now, give us the gift of your vast knowledge and explain WHY the State Dept. asked her to extend her term through 2020 in March and recalled her in late April. 

ovanovitch was nominated to be the ambassador to Ukraine on May 18, 2016,

That would be under OBAMA SP

removed for context

I've never worked for Dairy Queen, BUTT one of my good friends owns 3 locally and I get good deals on ice cream cakes.

Again, she is NOT a political Appointee.

She was first "nominated" by George Bush and approved by the Senate.

She was "nominated" by Obama  ( Wiki's wording) , but since the Senate already approved of her previously,

it was in essence an offer from Obama  which she could accept or decline and leave the State Department.

her term through 2020 in March and recalled her in late April. 

We don't know why.  Do you know why Obama hired and fired everyone of his personnel?  Could be any reason.  Why did Obama fire 9 Generals in one year?  Must have been some big "conspiracy" that Obama wanted them to do something unethical and illegal.

It isn't unusual at all in politics or any where else.  Sometimes personel are not working out as planned.

We don't know why. 

Wait WHAT? I thought the answer would come from someone with your vast experience in hiring and firing. 

It isn't unusual at all in politics or any where else.  

It is and I already stated why. 

Sometimes personel are not working out as planned.

Yes, it must be frustrating for Trump every time he bumps up against someone with credibility, ethics and honor. 

Nope, Mom's fav b-day cake. 

t was in essence an offer from Obama 

Well she sure the hell didn't just say I'm going to be Ambassador to the Ukraine and that's that. Obama nominated her for the Job for whatever reasons he had. You don't know, That makes it political. Maybe he noticed she was a bat shit crazy liberal and he liked what he saw. SHE WAS NOMINATED BY OBAMA TO BE AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, NOT BUSH, NOT TRUMP, OBAMA. Spin it how you want. So I guess President Trump calling her back isn't political because she is just doing a service? Be sure to inform all your buddies on the left that.

 I thought the answer would come from someone with your vast experience in hiring and firing. 

Well yes I do have a lot of experience. [deleted]

Again, she is NOT a political Appointee.

washingtontimes

The State Department downplayed the allegations and said Ms. Yovanovitch, a 60-year-old career diplomat appointed by former President Obama, is “concluding her 3-year diplomatic assignment in Kyiv in 2019 as planned.”

112.international

And while our political circles discuss possible undercurrents, Washington has officially confirmed this information and began a formal procedure for the appointment of Marie Yovanovitch.

washingtonexaminer

Yovanovitch, who was raised in Connecticut, was appointed U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in the final year of Obama’s presidency.

Golly gee I took your advice and looked her up on the internets and gosh every one calls her APPOINTED. 

Now you can...

Well yes I do have a lot of experience.  

I bet you do Sunshine.

That is how I know you don't know what you are talking about.

Yet with all that experience, you STILL can't answer your own fucking question. 

And what's even MORE hilarious is that Yovonovitch was hired by Ronnie Raygun, has been working for the US Foreign Service for 33 year and STILL is.

Your deep desire to discuss hiring and firing is a side show. 

Now, how about you start a seed somewhere where we can discuss Union contracts negotiations, stewards, supervisor ratios, probationary periods and how to abuse them? 

Then you can do one about H1A and H1B Visas and undocumented workers. 

Hell, you could start a master class on it. /s

She was not fired.  She was recalled before the end of her term.

Correct.

She has served

Nice to know but she can still dosen't mean she can't have political views that conflict with her duties. I'm not saying she did, but my analogy holds. No matter how good an official is, if they conflict with the President's policy they either get fired or as you raced to point out - she got recalled from her assignment at Kiev. You get no points from me for technicalities, btw.

No political affiliation. 

Maybe none listed, but there is this:

"In March, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told The Hill newspaper that  Ms. Yovanovitch  had given him a list of people, including allies of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, that should not be prosecuted as part of any corruption probes."

washingtontimes

Nice to know but she can still dosen't mean she can't have political views that conflict with her duties.

Well as a Senior State Department Fellow of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy @ Georgetown University, I doubt that ANY political views would conflict with her duties.

I guess that's why she gave Trump and Pompeo the finger today and honored the Committee's subpoena. 

I have no such confidence, especially for someone who is "Senior State Department Fellow of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy @ Georgetown University"!

I guess that's why she gave Trump and Pompeo the finger today

Is that what Senior State Department Fellows do?  Perhaps she's been doing that from day 1.  I'm sure Schiff will leak any & all testimony that can be useful. 

She still collects a salary close to a Vice Admirals rank which I am sure she deserves.

Who cares about your "points" Vic?

Lutsenko also recanted many of his past statements.

To both the obama Administration  and Rudy Giuliani.

Zero credibility.

If she was "fired",

how come she is still a State Department employee,

making almost as much as the Under Secretary of State,

and currently the DIR DC Metro district?

?

Are you suggesting that everyone in the government should  automatically be aligned with the POTUS's every whim and bent?

That's a totally anti American stance.

.

We relish the right to dissent,

whether or not it is our best interest or based on intelligence or factual information.

That is in fact what is wrong with the internet and why we are at each other's throats.

Freedom to publish crap on a professional looking website is unhindered regardless of the source,

and it could be our undoing.

This is why China regulates everything that Buzz is exposed to, including this comment.

If she was "fired",

And the spin.

But Marie is not, and has never been a political appointee.

She was appointed by Obama to be Ambassador of Ukraine, not Busch, not Trump, And was recalled by Trump.

If she was "fired", 

Who said she was fired? Now you are denying she was called back?

She still collects a salary close to a Vice Admirals rank which I am sure she deserves.

Really? Do Vice Admirals berate the President to foreign officials?

Former Rep.  Pete Sessions , R-Texas, who reportedly was involved in Yovanovitch's ouster, said in a  statement Thursday  that "after several congressional colleagues reported to me that the current U[.]S[.] Ambassador to Ukraine was disparaging President Trump to others as part of those official duties, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State to refer this matter directly. My entire motivation for sending the letter was that I believe that political appointees should not be disparaging the President, especially while serving overseas."

foxnews



Who cares about your "points" Vic?

Obviously you do since you spend a good deal of your time trying to contradict every one of them. Let's try and leave the personal stuff out of it. Your'e supposed to be setting the example here.

Lutsenko also recanted many of his past statements.

Would you be so kind as to link those recanted statements?


To both the obama Administration  and Rudy Giuliani.

to the Obama administration?  There was something they didn't like about Lustenko - we need to know exactly what that was.


Zero credibility.

The only person in all this with zero credibility is Adam Schiff - the man who always lies about evidence he dosen't have.

Are you suggesting that everyone in the government should  automatically be aligned with the POTUS's every whim and bent?

Iv'e already made it clear - if your'e an ambassador, you support the President's policy or you quit. Progressives can't seem to do that. They have this need in their rotten souls to sabotage those policies. The FBI even tried a coup against this President. Notice how James Mattis quit. That was an honorable thing to do. If you feel you can't carry out the President's policy - you resign. Of course, Mattis didn't have an "ideology" problem, did he?

That's a totally anti American stance.

Progressives ARE anti American!

We relish the right to dissent,

It seems more like some relish an ideology, which denies opposing views.

That is in fact what is wrong with the internet and why we are at each other's throats.

We are at each others throats because some people don't believe in freedom of thought or speech or due process!

Freedom to publish crap on a professional looking website is unhindered regardless of the source,

You mean like the msm publishing stories of Presidential conspiracy for three years?

and it could be our undoing.

It already has.

This is why China regulates everything that Buzz is exposed to, including this comment.

China is a totalitarian state that is based on an ideology and prescribes what "is best" for it's people. Sound familiar?

how come she is still a State Department employee,

And if she is still a State Department employee why is she testifying? I thought the President has taken a stand on the legitimacy of the inquiry. 

Instead of constantly reciting that she wasn't fired why not answer that question?

Yes, as I said….it isn't unusual, thanks for agreeing.

Hearsay from Giuliani and the 2 "Florida businessmen" that were arrested this week, Lev & Igor?

Zero credibility.

Now, after repeating rumors and bad mouthing her to Zelensky on the famous phone call,

the POTUS says she's a wonderful woman by all accounts.

Progressives ARE anti American!

No they are not.  that is only your sad opinion.

( and a sweeping generalization, )

Maybe none listed, but there is this:

BUTT, there is THIS:

In April 2019

Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko has admitted that U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch did not give him a do not prosecute list, which he had previously stated.

...

Lutsenko recalled Yovanovitch insisted Kasko was an outstanding anti-corruption activist, and "the criminal case discredited those who were fighting against corruption."

"I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: 'Give me a do not prosecute list.' She said: "No, you got me wrong.' I said: "No, I didn't get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [the presidential administration's address, Lutsenko meant the Yanukovych administration], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [the former name of Sikorsky Street, where the U.S. Embassy is located]. The meeting ended. I'm afraid the emotions were not very good," Lutsenko gave the details of his meeting with the ambassador.

unian.info

So that begs the question: Which Lutsenko do you believe? The March Lutsenko or the April Lutsenko?

Or do you have some later bullshit that Lutsenko feed to Giuliani that you want me to accept as evidence against the character of Yovonovitch? 

I have no such confidence,

I didn't express any confidence Vic, I expressed doubt. READ MORE CAREFULLY. 

especially for someone who is "Senior State Department Fellow of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy @ Georgetown University"!

Ya, Trump sent Ivanka to Georgetown University because it's such a shithole. /s 

Is that what Senior State Department Fellows do?  

If that's what it takes to follow the Constitution, YES. 

Perhaps she's been doing that from day 1.  

That would be an amazing accomplishment since her day one in service was in 1986. You must think that she's prophetic.

I'm sure Schiff will leak any & all testimony that can be useful. 

How can you be so sure about that Vic? What evidence do you have the Schiff has EVER 'leaked' ANY transcripts of depositions? 

Ambassador to Ukraine was disparaging President Trump to others as part of those official duties, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State to refer this matter directly.

Well I suggest that Sessions prepare to put up or shut up. Oh and he better be able to name names of the 'close companions' who gave him this 'concrete evidence'. 

Isn't it interesting that at the time, even though he claims that his correspondence was private, Sessions didn't tell Pompeo that the 'concrete evidence' came for 'congressional colleagues' as he claims now? 

It's also interesting IMHO that Sessions and his 'congressional colleagues' didn't act in concert. Wonder why his 'close companions' didn't want to step up with Sessions. 

Obviously you do since you spend a good deal of your time trying to contradict every one of them.

Either you're being obtuse or obfuscating. Pick one. 

Let's try and leave the personal stuff out of it.

You're the one that pretended that earning YOUR points was worthwhile Vic. 

Your'e supposed to be setting the example here.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise a conservative mod for not setting examples with their member comments...

Be back in a few....