Now the question is, why did trump fire Marie Jovanovic?

[christiefan915]

Because she’s an Obama holdover and he can lol?

She's been in the foreign service since 1986 so that makes her a reagan, Bush41, Clinton, bush43 and Obama holdover lol.

[christiefan915]

It doesn't matter why he fired this biased, incompetent ambassador. He can do it for any reason. Crack open a book sometime and educate yourself on the law.

But if you need a reason beyond her failures and facilitation of Ukraine's interference in Election 2016, take the perjury she committed today, pretending not to be aware of Biden bragging about blackmailing Ukraine into dropping the investigation into the notoriously corrupt firm that was paying his son (who has zero experience or qualifications and who did literally nothing for the company) $50k per month.

Looks like the anti-Yovanovich talking points went out at lightning speed. Even the GOP didn't crap on her record or claim she was bad at her job.

[christiefan915]

This has to be a unique impeachment effort by the democrats.

It’s starts out as thin gruel to begin with [lol@ Trump disrupting the ST continuum] and most of these witnesses have little to nothing to contribute besides their opinions. In this ambassador’s case she was fired. People who understand executive authority granted under the constitution say ‘so what?’.

One ambassador was sent back in a body bag under Obama and nothing happened to anyone. Right, Adam Schiff?

Unless democrats can pull out a Smoking Gun this is a waste of time.

Why are RWs giving a pass to Ghouliani and his corrupt cronies?

"Parnas and Fruman were arrested on the evening of October 9, 2019, at Dulles International Airport, and charged with planning to direct funds from a foreign government "to U.S. politicians while trying to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations". They were arrested while trying to leave the United States. The reason for their arrest was described as a "complex web of financial and political interactions linking diplomacy to alleged violations of campaign finance law." The head of the New York's FBI office described the investigation as "about corrupt behavior, deliberate lawbreaking".

The charges have also directly connected Parnas and Fruman to the campaign to oust the United States ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, from her post and have her recalled. This occurred over many months. In 2018, the operation included Parnas and Fruman donating funds and pledging further additional moneys to an unnamed Congressman, who was recruited for the "campaign to oust her." Some of the funds violated campaign limits. The funds were funneled through a shell company, Global Energy Producers. Parnas and Fruman were also charged with unlawful campaign contributions. Based on campaign finance filings, former congressional Representative Pete Sessions (R-Texas) has been identified as the unnamed Congressman. In 2018, as the Chairman of the House Rules Committee, Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that Yovanovitch should be fired for privately expressing "disdain" for the Trump administration.^"

[TOP]

It doesn't matter why he fired this biased, incompetent ambassador. He can do it for any reason. Crack open a book sometime and educate yourself on the law.

But if you need a reason beyond her failures and facilitation of Ukraine's interference in Election 2016, take the perjury she committed today, pretending not to be aware of Biden bragging about blackmailing Ukraine into dropping the investigation into the notoriously corrupt firm that was paying his son (who has zero experience or qualifications and who did literally nothing for the company) $50k per month.

If that's true, then she should have been replaced...She's got a job that she says she asked for, was granted, and loves...what's her problem?
Sorry, I don't buy the "intimidation" and "hurt feelings"...
(Who helped prepare her notes, I wonder?)
No bribes, no crimes....she saw nothing, knows nothing....

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



That is dumb. They take their orders from him. All he has to do is order them to enact the desired policy.



You made that up. He is really being impeached for other reasons, ones you refuse to recognize, so you made up your own reasons that are easier for you to argue against. Of course they are silly reasons, because you made them up!

Your caricature of Democrats makes them look silly because you have no valid argument against their actual actions.

I’ve actually been trying to make sense of their actions for about 9 weeks lol.

So, in your mind there’s no way bureaucrats in the State Department would get in the way of the president’s agenda. Why did Obama clean so many of Bush’s people out?

And I’m not against impeachment of Trump—provided democrats would come up with a *legitimate* basis for it. Presently, they’re flailing: it started out as extortion, then it shifted to bribery and one of your comrades mentioned something about an ‘aggregate’ of impeachable offenses but democrats haven’t found even one yet.

And they can’t even settle on what IT is. It would be comical were it not for the fact all they’re accomplishing is setting nasty precedents future presidents will have to contend with.

Keep in mind a future Republican House Speaker can now decree an ‘impeachment inquiry’ based on nebulous charges; come up with imaginative crime theories and etc.

All because they can’t/don’t want to wait on an election that isn’t even a year away.

[Ralph]

Priceless. Trump tossed a monkey wrench directly in the middle of the SHITSHOW. He tweeted THE REASON this disgruntled former government employee was fired. She pissed off the Ukrainian presidenet and she got the ax. That's the way to present DISCOVERY when a kangaroo soviet INQUIRY will not allow discovery on the part of the accused. You simply exercise your first amendment right of FREE SPEECH.

This SHITSHOW...by self profession is not a LEGAL HEARING about IMPEACHMENT. Madam Speaker made that perfectly clear. Its not an impeachment hearing....ITS AN IMPEACHMENT "INQUIRY"....and as such CONGRESS does not have to abide by the customary US RULE OF LAW....you know that pesky Constitutional thingy about having the right to face your accuser and the right of self defense, the right of discovery.....SHE (FANCY) made it clear...…..congress can make up its own rules.

What rule did Mr. Trump break? He was not under oath.....he was not even in the building....he was simply communicating on his legal tweeter account....in real time. And....the only reason the witness knew anything about this tweet...IN REAL TIME is because STALIN...err SHITFORBRAINS publicly threatened her from his position behind the gavel....he made her FEEL intimidated, not Mr. Trump.

THIS IS FUNNY as hell. Trump beat them at their own game. They can't use the rule of law against someone that was not even present at the hearing...because its not a LEGAL HEARING, its an inquiry to DISCOVER. PRICELESS. Go get'm Mr. President.

[christiefan915]

And....HE FIRED HER ASS. Game over...end of story when you refuse to OBEY the commander in chief.

When did she refuse to obey the C-I-C?

[christiefan915]

Hello Darth,

No, it is actually standard procedure to retain valuable people with decades of experience and irreplaceable contacts and rapports with compatriots in other governments. The standard set by people who work in State is that they are non-partisan because the work requires it. The best diplomats have decades of experience spanning many administrations from both parties, just as Marie Yovanovitch has.

She was needlessly and wrongly smeared, and pushed out because of a personal agenda which was opposed to official US State Department policy.

Exactly. She was part of every administration since reagan and that speaks for itself.

[Darth Omar]

Priceless. Trump tossed a monkey wrench directly in the middle of the SHITSHOW. He tweeted THE REASON this disgruntled former government employee was fired. She pissed off the Ukrainian presidenet and she got the ax. That's the way to present DISCOVERY when a kangaroo soviet INQUIRY will not allow discovery on the part of the accused. You simply exercise your first amendment right of FREE SPEECH.

This SHITSHOW...by self profession is not a LEGAL HEARING about IMPEACHMENT. Madam Speaker made that perfectly clear. Its not an impeachment hearing....ITS AN IMPEACHMENT "INQUIRY"....and as such CONGRESS does not have to abide by the customary US RULE OF LAW....you know that pesky Constitutional thingy about having the right to face your accuser and the right of self defense, the right of discovery.....SHE (FANCY) made it clear...…..congress can make up its own rules.

What rule did Mr. Trump break? He was not under oath.....he was not even in the building....he was simply communicating on his legal tweeter account....in real time. And....the only reason the witness knew anything about this tweet...IN REAL TIME is because STALIN...err SHITFORBRAINS publicly threatened her from his position behind the gavel....he made her FEEL intimidated, not Mr. Trump.

THIS IS FUNNY as hell. Trump beat them at their own game. They can't use the rule of law against someone that was not even present at the hearing...because its not a LEGAL HEARING, its an inquiry to DISCOVER. PRICELESS. Go get'm Mr. President.

Good point, Ralphie lol.

It’s a congressional hearing with the legally meaningless appendage ‘impeachment’ attached to it.

[anonymoose]

Now the question is, why did trump fire Marie Jovanovic?


The president has the right to fire anyone under his employ for a good cause or no cause, he does not have the right to fire someone for bad cause. On its face it appears he fired her because she stood in the way of his corrupt effort to bully Ukraine.

She was clearly not corrupt, you really can’t assail her character, If they are smart they will not try. Why did trump fire this woman?

He can fire her for not letting him grab her pussy if he wants.

[Sailor]

He can fire her for not letting him grab her pussy if he wants.

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ralph]

When did she refuse to obey the C-I-C?

What....you missed the TWEET? Mr. Trump revealed exactly why she was fired......she did not promote nor meet the standards of the Trump administration, as POTUS/Commander in Chief.... the STAFF....ambassadors (even self professed elite ambassadors) serve solely at the pleasure of the POTUS. Were you that concerned when OBAMA fired every damn BUSH ambassador in 2008? What makes this pompous BITCH "special"? Is she mentally challenged/retarded or is it her position as president for the Hair Club for Women?

TRUTH: She was pissed/disgruntled that she was fired because she did not agree with the President of the United State's foreign policy. Forgetting "her place" at the back of the bus (remember....elections have consequences thingy declared by Obama.....republicans must now set at the back of the bus?)…….she thought she had the power to establish foreign policy instead of her civil service duty of IMPLEMENTING the policies of the POTUS. Its not rocket science. She was so bad at not carrying out standing orders......the Ukrainian President had her fired.

This so called Congressional INQURIY …… not a legal proceeding as per the declarations of the SHITSHOW production staff....SHITLESS and FANCY....but a congressional inquiry to DISCOVER truth. Mr. Trump used his 1st amendment rights to present DISCOVERY void of SHITLESSES permission. And it PISSED HIM OF GREATLY. Trump circumvented the stage show. Look for more of the same every time one of the STAR CHAMPER "witnesses" who did not actually witness a damn thing are paraded in front of the camera for OPTICS. Genius.


Now AFTER refusing to abide by the standard US RULE OF LAW in a court room sitting.....THEY DEMAND to use the rule of law against the POTUS....who was not under oath, not at the location nor forbidden from exercising his Constitutional Right of FREE SPEECH? Really? How's that cake tasting now? Trump used the lack of transparency and their own rules AGAINST THEM.....this was no legal hearing.

[Jarod]

He can fire her for not letting him grab her pussy if he wants.

He could, but could be removed for that also.

[Darth Omar]

He could, but could be removed for that also.

I have yet to see anything he could or should be removed for lol.

[Stretch]

I’ve actually been trying to make sense of their actions for about 9 weeks lol.

So, in your mind there’s no way bureaucrats in the State Department would get in the way of the president’s agenda. Why did Obama clean so many of Bush’s people out?

And I’m not against impeachment of Trump—provided democrats would come up with a *legitimate* basis for it. Presently, they’re flailing: it started out as extortion, then it shifted to bribery and one of your comrades mentioned something about an ‘aggregate’ of impeachable offenses but democrats haven’t found even one yet.

And they can’t even settle on what IT is. It would be comical were it not for the fact all they’re accomplishing is setting nasty precedents future presidents will have to contend with.

Keep in mind a future Republican House Speaker can now decree an ‘impeachment inquiry’ based on nebulous charges; come up with imaginative crime theories and etc.

All because they can’t/don’t want to wait on an election that isn’t even a year away.

Yup. I believe Bama fired all the ambassadors.