So trump didn't know the man (Page 3): Well, the day the "State Department" can demand a civilian to work for them is the day I will give up on our government. The SD HAS NO...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

woodguru wrote:

Nothing undermined the state department and diplomatic functions the way Giuliani and the three amigos did running an off the grid (outside of official channels) agenda. The state department was trying to get Giuliani to work in in the open with the official goals and agenda. It was the fact that their agenda had nothing to do with national security interests that was causing the conflicts of interest. Yovanovitch was protected for as long as she was because she was good at her job.

Well, the day the "State Department" can demand a civilian to work for them is the day I will give up on our government. The SD HAS NO JURISDICTION on when, where, and to whom a private citizen, even the attorney for the President, can work or talk with. Nazi Germany conscribed civilians to do their dirty work, but we are far removed from that frame of mind! There was no conflict of interest!

at41

The Ambassador has been in the State Department since 1986. ExPresident Obama did not hire her

eden

at41 wrote:

The Ambassador has been in the State Department since 1986. ExPresident Obama did not hire her

What are mere facts in the face of a juicy and convenient narrative.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

eden wrote:

What are mere facts in the face of a juicy and convenient narrative.

You dummies might want to research before you run your yap. Obama appointed her to the Ambassadorship of the Ukraine in 2016. That’s what’s relevant. Not how long she’s sucked of the tax payer dime.

eden

Radiance3 wrote:

===============
She big mouthed the president's office. She worked for him while her mouth underground destroyed her boss. She was a traitor. How do you call that, but a bitch.

Where is your evidence that a professional diplomat like her bad mouthed the President? I heard that the worst thing she did was submit a private analysis critical of the Trump administrations handling of the Ukraine mess, something she was obliged to do as part of her job but to some that fails Trumps purity test.
Hardly makes her a traitor and as for the vicious name calling it just seems unevolved to put on such a display of corrosive gender biased hatred.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

eden wrote:

Where is your evidence that a professional diplomat like her bad mouthed the President? I heard that the worst thing she did was submit a private analysis critical of the Trump administrations handling of the Ukraine mess, something she was obliged to do as part of her job but to some that fails Trumps purity test.
Hardly makes her a traitor and as for the vicious name calling it just seems unevolved to put on such a display of corrosive gender biased hatred.

We heard it the same Democrats hear everything. A whistleblower spilled the beans. The deep state told us.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

No wonder this bitch is your hero.

https://usafeatures.news/2019/12/10/former-ukrainian-prosecutor-says-u-s-ambassador-yovanovitch-lied-during-impeachment-testimony/

eden wrote:

Where is your evidence that a professional diplomat like her bad mouthed the President? I heard that the worst thing she did was submit a private analysis critical of the Trump administrations handling of the Ukraine mess, something she was obliged to do as part of her job but to some that fails Trumps purity test.
Hardly makes her a traitor and as for the vicious name calling it just seems unevolved to put on such a display of corrosive gender biased hatred.

eden

JFlorio wrote:

No wonder this bitch is your hero.

https://usafeatures.news/2019/12/10/former-ukrainian-prosecutor-says-u-s-ambassador-yovanovitch-lied-during-impeachment-testimony/

Thanks for the link to another right wing fringe website but I believe Yovanovitch has more credibility. Even if I agreed with this fake narrative there is no excuse to call any woman that name or any other. What a charming man you are.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

woodguru wrote:

Nothing undermined the state department and diplomatic functions the way Giuliani and the three amigos did running an off the grid (outside of official channels) agenda. The state department was trying to get Giuliani to work in in the open with the official goals and agenda. It was the fact that their agenda had nothing to do with national security interests that was causing the conflicts of interest. Yovanovitch was protected for as long as she was because she was good at her job.

Pennylynn wrote:

Well, the day the "State Department" can demand a civilian to work for them is the day I will give up on our government. The SD HAS NO JURISDICTION on when, where, and to whom a private citizen, even the attorney for the President, can work or talk with. Nazi Germany conscribed civilians to do their dirty work, but we are far removed from that frame of mind! There was no conflict of interest!

Obviously the "guru" is not a student of American history. He seems inclined to make up his own.

The Special Envoy

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion. Some have been exceedingly formal; others completely informal. Many agents have borne commissions like those of Government officers, ensuring them diplomatic rights, dignities and immunities. Because of these circumstances many have mistakenly considered themselves officers. Others have had mere letters of introduction and have enjoyed no diplomatic privileges. Some have gone with no written credentials whatsoever, their errand described only verbally. Their functions have varied in importance from the trivial to the vital.

Their missions may be secret, no one whatever being informed of them. They may be open and accompanied by a blare of publicity. Neither their private character nor public attention affects the position of the representative. The President may meet their expenses and pay them such sums as he regards as reasonable. In this matter there is no check upon him except the availability of funds which has never proved an insoluble problem. In short, he is as nearly completely untrammelled as in any phase of his executive authority.

The special envoy is not an American institution but a universal practice. Particular interest in the employment of this type of agent by the United States arises from the constitutional provision that the President "shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls . . . . ."

<SNIP>

An honest, objective, and diligent study of US presidents and their special envoys will reveal that many, if not all, presidents of United States have employed special envoys, emissaries, and negotiators to represent him in carrying out his foreign policies abroad. George Washington did this. Adams did this. FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW, and Obama all employed personal envoys. But, we simply cannot allow president Trump to do such a thing. Wouldn't fit the progressive socialist narrative on how to "fundamentally transform" America. Into what, they don't know.

Obama sent members of his campaign staff to Israel in an attempt to undermine and overthrow the election of Netanyahu. That's what you call a real American foreign policy engagement.

Hug

Blade_Runner wrote:

Obviously the "guru" is not a student of American history. He seems inclined to make up his own.

The Special Envoy

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion. Some have been exceedingly formal; others completely informal. Many agents have borne commissions like those of Government officers, ensuring them diplomatic rights, dignities and immunities. Because of these circumstances many have mistakenly considered themselves officers. Others have had mere letters of introduction and have enjoyed no diplomatic privileges. Some have gone with no written credentials whatsoever, their errand described only verbally. Their functions have varied in importance from the trivial to the vital.

Their missions may be secret, no one whatever being informed of them. They may be open and accompanied by a blare of publicity. Neither their private character nor public attention affects the position of the representative. The President may meet their expenses and pay them such sums as he regards as reasonable. In this matter there is no check upon him except the availability of funds which has never proved an insoluble problem. In short, he is as nearly completely untrammelled as in any phase of his executive authority.

The special envoy is not an American institution but a universal practice. Particular interest in the employment of this type of agent by the United States arises from the constitutional provision that the President "shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls . . . . ."

<SNIP>

An honest, objective, and diligent study of US presidents and their special envoys will reveal that many, if not all, presidents of United States have employed special envoys, emissaries, and negotiators to represent him in carrying out his foreign policies abroad. George Washington did this. Adams did this. FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW, and Obama all employed personal envoys. But, we simply cannot allow president Trump to do such a thing. Wouldn't fit the progressive socialist narrative on how to "fundamentally transform" America. Into what, they don't know.

Obama sent members of his campaign staff to Israel in an attempt to undermine and overthrow the election of Netanyahu. That's what you call a real American foreign policy engagement.

Obviously the "guru" is not a student of... (show quote)

Woody things he is lawyer.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

eden wrote:

Thanks for the link to another right wing fringe website but I believe Yovanovitch has more credibility. Even if I agreed with this fake narrative there is no excuse to call any woman that name or any other. What a charming man you are.

It’s what I believe she is. An elitist snob. How’s that? What you don’t seem to understand is it doesn’t matter if she’s a Saint. She wasn’t on board with Trumps foreign policy even though she admitted Trump was much more pro Ukraine than Obama. So basically she back stabbed her boss. Even that doesn’t matter. He can fire anyone in the state Department at any time. Get it?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

JFlorio wrote:

It’s what I believe she is. An elitist snob. How’s that? What you don’t seem to understand is it doesn’t matter if she’s a Saint. She wasn’t on board with Trumps foreign policy even though she admitted Trump was much more pro Ukraine than Obama. So basically she back stabbed her boss. Even that doesn’t matter. He can fire anyone in the state Department at any time. Get it?

Elections have consequences. One consequence is that they serve at the pleasure of the chief executive. Not very difficult to understand unless one is bent on having absolute control of their party, the American people, and the world. Sounds like leftist Democrats, doesn't it?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

dtucker300 wrote:

img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)

Sure does. Give these loons facts and they twist and shout. Then change the subject.

eden

JFlorio wrote:

It’s what I believe she is. An elitist snob. How’s that? What you don’t seem to understand is it doesn’t matter if she’s a Saint. She wasn’t on board with Trumps foreign policy even though she admitted Trump was much more pro Ukraine than Obama. So basically she back stabbed her boss. Even that doesn’t matter. He can fire anyone in the state Department at any time. Get it?

Believe as you wish. What you don't seem to understand is that my objection is calling the woman a bitch, a name for which there is no real male equivalent, a term that most women find as objectionable as a black person would find the word nigger. Do you call your wife this word when you argue? Do you have a daughter and if so are you ok with her knowing you throw this term around?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I would never call my wife one because she’s not one. They’re not snowflakes. They’d agree with me about that elitist snob. I could care less your opinion of me. I just showed you how wrong you were so you complain about a word. Typical liberal.

eden wrote:

Believe as you wish. What you don't seem to understand is that my objection is calling the woman a bitch, a name for which there is no real male equivalent, a term that most women find as objectionable as a black person would find the word nigger. Do you call your wife this word when you argue? Do you have a daughter and if so are you ok with her knowing you throw this term around?