1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

It depends on his motive for dismissing her from her post. If he believed that she was interfering with his desire to pressure the Ukrainians to investigate Biden in exchange for aid, that would be grounds for impeachment.

She was a witness for the Democrats in the House.  She provided no such evidence in her testimony.  Just another gossipblower bureaucrat who didn't like Trump.

 

Trump can fire ambassadors for walking funny.  He doesn't need any reason at all.

1 hour ago, ChouDoufu said:

there apparently is no requirement that ambassadorships go to the qualified.  they are often handed out by the president to reward his supporters.  most, least, more than, less than....the actual number is irrelevant.  the president may, if he so chooses, give 100% of these slots to his golf buddies.

 

the president sets foreign policy.  if he 'feels' one of his ambassadors undermining his policy, he gets to fire 'em.

 

i'm in no way supporting trump.  i think he's an idiot. 

'peach him, but get him for something real.

Why do people always say "the President has the right to....?"  The point is not whether he can, but whether he should.  Nixon had "the right" to fire his investigators and the AG, but should he have?  Trump has the right to give Alaska to the Russians, but should he?  

 

As to the seriousness of this case, if Trump told the Russians "I'll lift the sanctions if you put $1 billion in my bank account," would that be alright?  It's almost the same thing.     

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

. . . corrupt purpose . . . 

Still a valid firing -- no matter what the purpose.

 

And Democrats are still investigating the man in search of that elusive crime . . .  And the subject of the firing couldn't even provide any evidence of Trump and a crime.  Even trying to criminalize legal behavior and making up crimes hasn't worked.

2 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

She was a witness for the Democrats in the House.  She provided no such evidence in her testimony.  Just another gossipblower bureaucrat who didn't like Trump.

 

Trump can fire ambassadors for walking funny.  He doesn't need any reason at all.

It's not her evidence that's the issue here. Yes, the President can fire ambassadors at will. But if it's for a corrupt purpose, like eliminating a political opponent from contention, than it's impeachable. In other words, it goes to motive. 

And there's no evidence that she did spread gossip about Trump. That calumny was spread by Parnas, who has since said it was false.

4 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

She was a witness for the Democrats in the House.  She provided no such evidence in her testimony.  Just another gossipblower bureaucrat who didn't like Trump.

 

Trump can fire ambassadors for walking funny.  He doesn't need any reason at all.

If POTUS wishes to fire an ambassador then he does so by instructing via the Secretary of State, not by telling hires goons with direct links to the Ukrainian criminal underworld to

’take her out’.

 

Why was he giving these instructions to people who do not work for the government, people he denies knowing despite piles of evidence that he has known them for many years?

 

Why skirt the Secretary of State?

Why lie about knowing long term associates?

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Why do people always say "the President has the right to....?"  The point is not whether he can, but whether he should. 

. . .

 

Rights are, by design, a choice to be made by the individual and not subject to the approval of others.

 

In the case of firing of federal employees, and in light of privacy laws, there's no way to know what was at the heart of any firing at that level.  I've read articles that indicate that the new Ukrainian government was not comfortable working with her.  Ambassadors aren't very effective if the host country doesn't care for them.

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

. . . 

corrupt purpose, like eliminating a political opponent from contention, than it's impeachable. In other words, it goes to motive. 

. . . 

There's no evidence that anything was done for a corrupt purpose.

10 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Many would love to apply that logic to you, Donald!

Except for the pesky little thing called an election. She serves at the pleasure of the president. She was vehemently against him. She should have been replaced on day one like Obama had done with all political appointees 

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If POTUS wishes to fire an ambassador then he does so by instructing via the Secretary of State, not by telling hires goons with direct links to the Ukrainian criminal underworld to

’take her out’.

 

Why was he giving these instructions to people who do not work for the government, people he denies knowing despite piles of evidence that he has known them for many years?

 

Why skirt the Secretary of State?

Why lie about knowing long term associates?

Links to the criminal underworld? May I have that reference please. 

 

He can replace any diplomat or cabinet members at any time, for any reason in any way he chooses. It really is that simple. 

 

It was a year later this idiot was removed, so do you think these guys had any influence on it? 

52 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

As to the seriousness of this case, if Trump told the Russians "I'll lift the sanctions if you put $1 billion in my bank account," would that be alright?  It's almost the same thing.     

Great example, but I think you mistakenly substituted Trump's name for Obama's.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Do you understand that Parnas taped Trump at this dinner? That Trump denied knowing Parnas?That Trump believed what Parnas was saying and responded accordingly? That Parnas was supplying Giuliana with this information?  Do you have any use for evidence at all?

 

Trump wasn't taped by Parnas....but by another loser called Igor Fruman.

Get you facts right.

Also, dont be dispensing legal opinions based on what you THINK Trump believed.

I believe neither you nor any of the so-called witnesses are in a position to know what

someone believes....stick to facts you can prove. Or just sit back and enjoy the show.

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by JHolmesJr

49 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's not her evidence that's the issue here. Yes, the President can fire ambassadors at will. But if it's for a corrupt purpose, like eliminating a political opponent from contention, than it's impeachable. In other words, it goes to motive. 

And there's no evidence that she did spread gossip about Trump. That calumny was spread by Parnas, who has since said it was false.

Please tell me you can't possibly think firing an ambassador that is not working on the presidents policy is in any way impeachment material. 

 

You can't possibly think that can you? 

6 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Putting your own imagination to work and assigning meanings to words and expressions is never really convincing.

 

She was, supposedly, refusing to hang the POTUS photo up and being unco-operative due to political bias. 

 

Likely to get fired by any POTUS.

 

Or these may be false accusations, she did hang the photo up and was just trying to do her job.

 

But wonder how you'd react if Hilary had been elected and an Ambassador was refusing to hang her photo up and showing political bias in her job?

 You should check your fact before posting. The above has being debanked a long time ago as untrue.

The Ambassador along with thousands of other embassies, consulates and other US offices, did not have a picture to hung, because it took the trump administration nine months to release an official portrait

, and even longer to deliver one,

"In September 2017, the Washington Post reported that, eight months after the president’s inauguration, photos of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were still missing from thousands of government offices. That included embassies abroad.

Why? The Post reported the delay had to do with red tape at the Government Publishing Office (GPO), which prints official portraits. 

The GPO told the Post it was still waiting for the White House to send official portraits of Trump and Pence. The White House told the newspaper that the duo had not yet decided when they would sit for the photos. "

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/22/fact-checking-trumps-falsehoods-fox-and-friends-ab/

That and the allegations that she "badmouthed" were were refuted by her under oath, if the assertions are true why isn't the administration  prosecute her for perjury?

This is our country you are damaging by repeating lies. Be a Patriot and stand up four your country and not for this waste if skin President.

^^^^^^

Now the trump supporter confusion has being replaced by nervous laughter

Notice that none of what I said was refuted.

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by sirineou

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 You should check your fact before posting. The above has being debanked a long time ago as untrue.

The Ambassador along with thousands of other embassies, consulates and other US offices, did not have a picture to hung, because it took the trump administration nine months to release an official portrait

, and even longer to deliver one,

"In September 2017, the Washington Post reported that, eight months after the president’s inauguration, photos of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were still missing from thousands of government offices. That included embassies abroad.

Why? The Post reported the delay had to do with red tape at the Government Publishing Office (GPO), which prints official portraits. 

The GPO told the Post it was still waiting for the White House to send official portraits of Trump and Pence. The White House told the newspaper that the duo had not yet decided when they would sit for the photos. "

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/22/fact-checking-trumps-falsehoods-fox-and-friends-ab/

That and the allegations that she "badmouthed" were were refuted by her under oath, if the assertions are true why isn't the administration  prosecute her for perjury?

This is our country you are damaging by repeating lies. Be a Patriot and stand up four your country and not for this waste if skin President.

Virtue signaling, it really is getting old. 

 

He will not be removed from office. 

 

Beat him at the ballot box with someone who isn't going to go on a massive utopian giveaway campaign and you have a chance. 

Just now, Chiphigh said:

Virtue signaling, it really is getting old. 

 

He will not be removed from office. 

 

Beat him at the ballot box with someone who isn't going to go on a massive utopian giveaway campaign and you have a chance. 

I am sorry you feel the truth is "getting old"

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am sorry you feel the truth is "getting old"

You have your opinion. I am sorry you think the impeachment is actually warranted. But there is no need to preach or pretend that you possess a better moral perspective. It gets nowhere. 

Stick with yang, he's at least partially sane compared to rest of the clowns. 

1 minute ago, Chiphigh said:

You have your opinion. I am sorry you think the impeachment is actually warranted. But there is no need to preach or pretend that you possess a better moral perspective. It gets nowhere. 

Stick with yang, he's at least partially sane compared to rest of the clowns. 

 But it is not an opinion, the official portraits were either send out or weren't, trump told you the truth or he didn't.

Do you like being lied to? I am sure you don't, so prove me wrong, or you will have to reconsider your opinion of trump. which in the privacy of your conscience I am sure you already are.

A TDS troll post and the replies have been removed.

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

Rights are, by design, a choice to be made by the individual and not subject to the approval of others.

 

In the case of firing of federal employees, and in light of privacy laws, there's no way to know what was at the heart of any firing at that level.  I've read articles that indicate that the new Ukrainian government was not comfortable working with her.  Ambassadors aren't very effective if the host country doesn't care for them.

The ‘rights’ POTUS has to act are not rights to act corruptly. 

 

Which ‘privacy laws’ you are referring to is a mystery, POTUS has not declared any ‘secrecy’ he has simply lied and denied knowledge of people and events for which there is publicly available evidence to demonstrate without question that he is lying.

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by Chomper Higgot

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

There's no evidence that anything was done for a corrupt purpose.

John Bolton disagrees with you.

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Except for the pesky little thing called an election. She serves at the pleasure of the president. She was vehemently against him. She should have been replaced on day one like Obama had done with all political appointees 

There is no evidence that Yovanovitch was ‘against’ Trump, there is evidence of a smear campaign against Yovanovitch run by Giuliani and there is a line of command between the POTUS and any member of the State Department - the line of command runs from POTUS through his hand picked Secretary of State Pompeo, it does not run from POTUS through hired goons with known contacts to Ukraine’s criminal underworld.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

There's no evidence that anything was done for a corrupt purpose.

John Bolton disagrees with you.

This is what this Impeachment was all about.

trump and those who are buying the trump arguments say that all who testified at the House hearings did not have first hand knowledge and/or were lying. Ok fair enough, allow those with first hand knowledge to testify and blow this case out of the water. 

   

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

There is no evidence that Yovanovitch was ‘against’ Trump, there is evidence of a smear campaign against Yovanovitch run by Giuliani and there is a line of command between the POTUS and any member of the State Department - the line of command runs from POTUS through his hand picked Secretary of State Pompeo, it does not run from POTUS through hired goons with known contacts to Ukraine’s criminal underworld.

 

 

Sorry, an ambassador can be removed by the president at any time in any way he chooses. 

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

This is what this Impeachment was all about.

trump and those who are buying the trump arguments say that all who testified at the House hearings did not have first hand knowledge and/or were lying. Ok fair enough, allow those with first hand knowledge to testify and blow this case out of the water. 

   

Impeachment was the goal since long before this made up threat to national security. 

 

You have lost another attempt. But we know they'll keep trying. 

7 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Impeachment was the goal since long before this made up threat to national security. 

 

You have lost another attempt. But we know they'll keep trying. 

 You did not answer the question I asked but simply deflected.

 The question remains. 

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by sirineou

14 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Sorry, an ambassador can be removed by the president at any time in any way he chooses. 

And a president can be removed for doing so for unlawful reasons. Not for the removal, but for the reason.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

John Bolton disagrees with you.

If I'm not incorrect, so does Washington Post, CNN, Nancy Pelosi and the entire left-liberal elite. Good thing the American people are given the option to agree/disagree as well.

 

Speaking of disagreement, what are the odds that the left-liberal elite calls for a - shall we call it a "peoples vote" - in case the majority disagrees with them... 

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

If I'm not incorrect, so does Washington Post, CNN, Nancy Pelosi and the entire left-liberal elite. Good thing the American people are given the option to agree/disagree as well.

 

Speaking of disagreement, what are the odds that the left-liberal elite calls for a - shall we call it a "peoples vote" - in case the majority disagrees with them... 

The arguments apologizing for Trump have now reached the point of lumping John Bolton I’m with the ‘entire left-liberal elite’.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The arguments apologizing for Trump have now reached the point of lumping John Bolton I’m with the ‘entire left-liberal elite’.

So...101/100..?

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by Forethat