Whistleblower identified

[oxmixmudd]

It would not surprise me in the least if you, blinded by and consumed with your opposition to all things Trump, and having already found him guilty, should come to that unfounded conclusion, so feel free to guess away.

But, humor me, if you will.... aside from tearfully testifying that Rudy and Trump were meanies to her, what do you expect her to add to the actual charge of collusion... I mean obstruction... um... quid pro quo.... wait, now it's bribery! (Who knows what it will be tomorrow)

Seriously? You would paint this ambassador in those terms? After how she's been maligned and pushed out of her position in spite of doing her job faithfully and professionally for decades?

Disgusting.

[Cow Poke]

Seriously? You would paint this ambassador in those terms?

I have not painted the ambassador in ANY terms - it seems pretty clear that she was not treated kindly, but it is still the President's prerogative to appoint and/or recall ambassadors, and foreign policy is to be conducted at the direction of the President, not by ambassadors.

She is now testifying about how difficult it was to serve in some difficult places, and her resume appears to be impressive. She in no way deserves any hostile treatment by Trump or Riudy, but that's not the point of the impeachment trial.

After how she's been maligned in spite of doing her job faithfully for decades.

Disgusting.

If she was treated as badly as is claimed - and I have no reason not to believe she was - that's not an impeachable offense, Jim.

Perhaps now you can answer my question? -- what do you expect her to add to the actual charge of collusion... I mean obstruction... um... quid pro quo.... wait, now it's bribery!

[Cow Poke]

She is currently testifying that the importance of the ambassador is so important that "knee-capping" the ambassador is somehow more damaging than....

I don't think she gets it that she serves at the pleasure of POTUS, and her role is not more important than his.

While "ambassador" is certainly a very important role, they do not "set" foreign policy - they are to represent the US of A, the POTUS sets the policy.

She keeps emphasizing how important the role of ambassador is. SURE, but, again ---- they serve at the pleasure of the president.

In her opening statement, she pretty well established the limits of what she could testify "first hand" to - and that was pretty limited. She then defended her reputation, denouncing some of the accusations against her, then continued this "the ambassador is crucially important" speech.

[oxmixmudd]

I have not painted the ambassador in ANY terms - it seems pretty clear that she was not treated kindly, but it is still the President's prerogative to appoint and/or recall ambassadors, and foreign policy is to be conducted at the direction of the President, not by ambassadors.

She is now testifying about how difficult it was to serve in some difficult places, and her resume appears to be impressive. She in no way deserves any hostile treatment by Trump or Riudy, but that's not the point of the impeachment trial.



If she was treated as badly as is claimed - and I have no reason not to believe she was - that's not an impeachable offense, Jim.

Perhaps now you can answer my question? -- what do you expect her to add to the actual charge of collusion... I mean obstruction... um... quid pro quo.... wait, now it's bribery!

Save it. This is the person you've maligned. I am sick and tired of this partison bovine feces manifesting as brutal and disgusting malignment of good people The ONLY acceptable words as relates to Yavanovitch or any other faithful US civil servant or military hero caught up in this mess and shamefully maligned for political purposes are:

"I'm sorry they did that".





And here are some examples of her service to this country:

[Cow Poke]

Save it. This is the person you've maligned. I am sick and tired of this partison bovine feces manifesting as brutal and disgusting malignment of good people The ONLY acceptable words as relates to Yavanovitch or any other faithful US civil servant or military hero caught up in this mess and shamefully maligned for political purposes are:

I'm shocked! Another emotional rant.

I'm not maligning her, Jim, and don't appreciate your dishonest representation, however emotional it may be - I'm reporting what I see - and so far, it's "I'm a really good person (which she may well be) and I was unfairly removed (which it appears is accurate)", and she has a point.

She's a good person and Trump and Rudy were a couple of jackasses in the way they handled this. So far, that does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, Jim.

[rogue06]

Heads up!

Today, during the Schiff Show, you may expect weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Don't laugh. That was exactly what the guests on NBC's Meet the Press suggested was needed. Right after Washington Post associate editor and columnist David Ignatius urged Schiff and his gang to "dramatize" the hearings as much as possible Yamiche Alcindor, PBS's White House correspondent advised witnesses (especially Marie Yovanovitch) to get emotional and cry.

[Cow Poke]

Don't laugh. That was exactly what the guests on NBC's Meet the Press suggested was needed. Right after Washington Post associate editor and columnist David Ignatius urged Schiff and his gang to "dramatize" the hearings as much as possible Yamiche Alcindor, PBS's White House correspondent advised witnesses (especially Marie Yovanovitch) to get emotional and cry.

Perhaps Jim should be aiming his emotional tirades at these people.

How bout it, Ox --- are you going to decry these outlets for their sexist maligning of Yavanovitch?

[rogue06]

Save it. This is the person you've maligned. I am sick and tired of this partison bovine feces manifesting as brutal and disgusting malignment of good people The ONLY acceptable words as relates to Yavanovitch or any other faithful US civil servant or military hero caught up in this mess and shamefully maligned for political purposes are:

"I'm sorry they did that".





And here are some examples of her service to this country:

So what exactly does any of that have to do with impeachment. Was this an effort on her part to say that bureaucrats are the ones who should be in charge because they are special and better than anyone else? If they want to go down that road then whatever any cop says trumps what state department officials thinks since the former has generally risked far more than they have.

And as for your opening tirade -- imagine for a second someone saying the exact same thing to you except substitute "our president" for "good people" and "Yavanovitch." What would be your reaction? I doubt that sneering would only begin to cover your response.

[Cow Poke]

So what exactly does any of that have to do with impeachment. Was this an effort on her part to say that bureaucrats are the ones who should be in charge because they are special and better than anyone else?....

Her entire opening statement and initial question/answer seemed to be exactly that. And being a "career diplomat" should have more clout than a duly elected POTUS.

[rogue06]

Might I guess that listening to the testimony itself and trying to discern the likelyhood Trump engaged in illegal behavior is off the table for you?

The real question is will we ever get anything more than three or four degrees of separation? Something better than the equivalent of I overheard so-and-so tell someone that they were told by someone else that xyz happened.

As I noted early this morning

The "witnesses" could hardly be called witnesses. In one case there was something like four degrees of separation. George Kent said that he believed that there was quid pro quo because he heard it from William Taylor who heard it from Tim Morrison (who has denied Taylor's claim), who heard it from Sondland. And where did Sondland get it? He presumed that there was a quid pro quo despite Trump having explicitly told him that he wanted nothing in exchange and that there was no quid pro quo.

That's real solid evidence that the TDS crowd is hanging their hat on.

[rogue06]

Her entire opening statement and initial question/answer seemed to be exactly that. And being a "career diplomat" should have more clout than a duly elected POTUS.

Which goes back to something that Vindman said. Namely that he was worried that Trump is trying to "subvert U.S. foreign policy." But Trump, as POTUS, is in charge of setting foreign policy. Not Congress. Not career diplomats and bureaucrats in the State Department. So it is in effect impossible for Trump to have "subvert[ed] U.S. foreign policy."

But that is the mind set these bureaucrats are displaying. That they are in charge and that president's come along who muck up all their work running foreign policy.

News Flash for these egos-run-amuck. They are NOT in charge of setting policy. Their job is to carry out the president's policy. If they don't like it they can always resign but they should not be trying to sabotage it and go about establishing their own policy no matter how smart they think they are.

If one of Trump's underlings was behaving like this we would be barraged with comments about treason and attempts to establish a dictatorship.

[Cow Poke]

The only real potentially damaging thing was the fact that Trump sent out a typical jackass tweet during the hearing, and Schiff stopped to read it, because it appeared to be an attempt to intimidate the witness.

Trump is his own worst enemy, and may just do the Democrats' job for them.

[rogue06]

The only real potentially damaging thing was the fact that Trump sent out a typical jackass tweet during the hearing, and Schiff stopped to read it, because it appeared to be an attempt to intimidate the witness.

Trump is his own worst enemy, and may just do the Democrats' job for them.

And will continue to be so.

He has never grasped the philosophy of when your opponent is self-destructing the smartest thing to do is step aside and let them proceed.

[Teallaura]

Which goes back to something that Vindman said. Namely that he was worried that Trump is trying to "subvert U.S. foreign policy." But Trump, as POTUS, is in charge of setting foreign policy. Not Congress. Not career diplomats and bureaucrats in the State Department. So it is in effect impossible for Trump to have "subvert[ed] U.S. foreign policy."

But that is the mind set these bureaucrats are displaying. That they are in charge and that president's come along who muck up all their work running foreign policy.

News Flash for these egos-run-amuck. They are NOT in charge of setting policy. Their job is to carry out the president's policy. If they don't like it they can always resign but they should not be trying to sabotage it and go about establishing their own policy no matter how smart they think they are.

If one of Trump's underlings was behaving like this we would be barraged with comments about treason and attempts to establish a dictatorship.

Er, not quite - it IS possible for a president to subvert national interest - and that might well rise to treason.

Only if FP contravenes national interest is this at issue - and frankly it would have to be Russia or China to even start to make the case.

[Teallaura]

The only real potentially damaging thing was the fact that Trump sent out a typical jackass tweet during the hearing, and Schiff stopped to read it, because it appeared to be an attempt to intimidate the witness.

Trump is his own worst enemy, and may just do the Democrats' job for them.

Wait, Schiff READ it? Out loud?

Trump isn't the only one...