Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump pushed to oust her

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm just pointing out you and many others' blatant bias around here. Trump is owned by special interests, otherwise why did he have the president of Citizens United run his election campaign? You don't think David Bossie knows a thing or two about propaganda? He fought for the ruling classes right to buy the loyalty of our politicians.

So they duped you too...

There was a time after Citizens United that the entire Congress was controlled by Democrats...They could have eliminated Citizens United, but they didn't...Know why???

Because the Democrats benefit from Citizens United as much as the Republicans do...And corporations don't support one Party over another...They have to survive regardless of which Party is in control...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe you can explain what that compelling reason is

An impeachment inquiry.

Nixon tried stonewalling. Guess what? He quit to make it go away.

Clinton new better than to fight it.

But they had the voice of Congress against them...All the Democrats have against Trump is the voice of Pelousy and not Congress...
Congress may very well vote AGAINST an impeachment investigation...But we're going to pretend Pelousy has the voice and authority of Congress with handing out fake subpoenas...Can Pelousy pass any bills in Congress by herself without a vote in Congress??? Of course not...

The news media pretends the whole thing is legitimate, which it is not...

a reply to: Phage

If the phone call is not perfect, and there is something wrong in it then we have the evidence already. You can't have it both ways.

Either the call has wrongdoing, and they can move forward, or it doesn't and they want to fish.

a reply to: Iscool

How would have the Democrats overruled the Supreme Court again?

a reply to: Phage

Has executive privilege been invoked? It doesn't seem be part of that rather idiotic letter from the White House attorneys. Mostly they just say that Congress cannot investigate the president.

To repeat: Congress is NOT investigating Trump...And what Trump's attornry is saying is Pelosi without the vote of Congress can not speak for Congress...What's wrong with you people...Are you that dense???

originally posted by: Iscool
a reply to: Phage

Has executive privilege been invoked? It doesn't seem be part of that rather idiotic letter from the White House attorneys. Mostly they just say that Congress cannot investigate the president.

To repeat: Congress is NOT investigating Trump...And what Trump's attornry is saying is Pelosi without the vote of Congress can not speak for Congress...What's wrong with you people...Are you that dense???

LOL ...

“The impeachment process may be initiated as the result of various actions and events, including the receipt and referral of information from an outside source, investigations by congressional committees under their general authority, or the introduction of articles of impeachment in the form of a House resolution,”

The Impeachment Process in the House - Congressional Research Service

a reply to: Oraculi

Then she said that he specifically pressured for her dismissal.

Who else would dismiss her?
Seems this action is within potus constitutionally granted powers?
We wish her well in her future endeavors?

originally posted by: Oraculi

Associated Press

A few big developments today. For one, we know that the Trump administration barred Marie Yovanovich from testifying, late last night. This morning, the Congress issued a subpoena to the ambassador and today she testified in Congress, defying the administration.

Then she said that he specifically pressured for her dismissal.

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.

Yovanovich is a career diplomat with an impeccable record of many decades and nothing negative on the record in all those years. Well respected by our own people first, but by all abroad as well.

She was removed after she insisted that Giuliani's dealings be on the record and use proper channels of communication and not under the table as has been attempting to do. After she brought that up, she was removed by Trump.

Yovanovitch was removed from her post after insisting that Giuliani’s requests to Ukrainian officials for investigations be relayed through official channels, according to a former diplomat who has spoken with her.

“Although I understand that I served at the pleasure of the president, I was nevertheless incredulous that the U.S. government chose to remove an ambassador based, as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives,” Yovanovitch wrote in the statement.

What happens now? This is pretty damning testimony and only more subpoenas will ensue, but what happens with Yovanovich? She just disobeyed the orders of the president and the State department. They forbade her from testifying and yet she just did. Today.

The Congress has already said that the attempt to stop today's testimony is seen as evidence of obstruction of justice and will be treated as such. Read that again, the Congress already has evidence of obstruction of justice and will use the events of yesterday and today to support that. Heating up.

Marie Yovanovich Statement

testimony is seen as evidence of obstruction of justice and will be treated as such.

Thats what Liberals said about the Russian collision for two years and half with nothing,
This wont be any different

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey Nancy , Show US the Unrefuted EVIDENCE for Impeaching Our President , Or STFU ......

a reply to: Lumenari

So she got canned. Then disobeyed an order from said administration.

Ya, funny that after being fired, she no longer wanted to follow orders..go figure!!

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Lumenari

So she got canned. Then disobeyed an order from said administration.

Ya, funny that after being fired, she no longer wanted to follow orders..go figure!!

From her former employer.

The White House.

I'm assuming you don't know what a NDA is, but I will guarantee you she signed one going out the door.

a reply to: shooterbrody

CNN was waiting for Adam Schiff to take to the microphones after Marie Yovanovich's testimony concluded last night... and Schiff never showed up. I guess he has decided to stop making stuff up for a while.

a reply to: Lumenari
You know what they say about "assume"

I'm not sure a NDA from govt is holding when another branch of govt is ordering you to speak.
And White house or not, being fired does not instil obedience or loyalty.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Would you care to explain how firing an ambassador, which is his right as the sitting President, is, in your view, somehow incriminating??

Presidents have been firing, and hiring, ambassadors for over two centuries now...they're given as rewards to supporters, friends, etc... So Trump firing someone who isn't a supporter, or a friend is somehow incriminating... OK.

a reply to: Lumenari

Those pesky little security clearances are like that.

My sister is still bound by hers from her days in the US Navy...almost 30 years ago, now.

Come to think of it, my other sibs may still be bound by theirs, too. All of 'em had very high security clearances during their time in the various branches.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Lumenari
You know what they say about "assume"

I'm not sure a NDA from govt is holding when another branch of govt is ordering you to speak.
And White house or not, being fired does not instil obedience or loyalty.

I don't know anyone who even served a post at the White House in the military that didn't have to sign a NDA when they left.

You are "assuming" that they don't.

Goes both ways.

The difference is that I have experience about the process and you don't.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Lumenari

Those pesky little security clearances are like that.

My sister is still bound by hers from her days in the US Navy...almost 30 years ago, now.

Come to think of it, my other sibs may still be bound by theirs, too. All of 'em had very high security clearances during their time in the various branches.

2 of mine end in 2089.

TS/SCI/SBI here.

I feel their pain.

a reply to: Lumenari
No, you misunderstand, I don't doubt there could be an NDA, I'm wondering the legalities?

Can a person, legally compelled by a branch of govt, be punished from breaking a NDA from another branch of govt, particularly in an investigation like this?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shooterbrody

CNN was waiting for Adam Schiff to take to the microphones after Marie Yovanovich's testimony concluded last night... and Schiff never showed up. I guess he has decided to stop making stuff up for a while.

Yeah , he must have been to Busy running to CVS for Eye Drops ........

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Oraculi
As far as obstruction of justice, I have yet to see that pesky vote they need to take before they have actual subpoena power.

Got a link for that?

The Constitution

How do you read all I posted and then ask a question directly contradicting everything you just read?

Oh no! *gasp* Is it possible... you DIDN'T read?!

The subpoena has been issued, the inquiry is ongoing, that already happened today. Keep up.

Oh and the vote comes after the inquiry, this part of the inquiry did not need a vote. Keep up.

It's easy to contradict everything the Associated Press writes.

The Associated Press are a contradiction in journalism, didn't you know?