drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump didn't fire her, he recalled her. She's still employed by the State Department (at the moment) but on leave. Must be a loophole in there somewhere.

Wish the Republicans would ask her about how well she knows Biden bestie car dealer in US and Ukraine Hynansky, the recipient of a 20 million federal government loan.

---

You're right (as usual) -- he can't fire her as she is a career United States Foreign Service employee, initially hired in 1986.

---

Then send her to the crappiest, most insignificant, most miserable post that can be found.

A backwater to a backwater.

Someplace with routine ebola outbreaks maybe, with a special mission to minister directly to the sick.

blindey said:

---

She can spend the balance of her career auditing background checks for departmental clerical and janitorial staff.

---

I was thinking more along the lines of counting pennies in full Ozarka water bottles.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You're right (as usual) -- he can't fire her as she is a career United States Foreign Service employee, initially hired in 1986.

---

If she returns to State (unlikely in my view) Pompeo can send her down to HR, though.

---

She has >30 years of service & could retire. But after her testimony, she will be a Dem heroine & may decide to stick around long enough to see the results of the 2020 Election. If Trump loses, she could end up with a big promotion.

Good twitter thread. Start at 1.

Promotions under Obama were a regular occurence for employees who got caught in various shenanigans. It always amazed me the number of times that happened, and so few seem to notice.

The most recognizable was Susan Rice. Once an Obama employee took one for the team, they were promoted some days, or weeks later.

'Fancy' that. Interesting. CrowdStrike was part of the scheme, but will they ever be exposed?

drcrinum said:

---

'Fancy' that. Interesting. CrowdStrike was part of the scheme, but will they ever be exposed?

---

Wish somebody would hack into them.

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

'Fancy' that. Interesting. CrowdStrike was part of the scheme, but will they ever be exposed?

---

Wish somebody would hack into them.

---

Talk about an insurance policy!

In view of all their numerous efforts to get rid of Trump since 2015, the Deep State Savages seem to always be careless and sloppy in constructing their malicious schemes. It looks like every nefarious scheme will eventually be uncovered and proven a hoax.

Random question: how does the 6th amendment tie into the whistblower/gossiper's course of action of testifying by letter? Not at all? Some? A bit?

will25u said:

---

---

1 Obama judge, 1 Clinton judge.

On to a full court appeal and then the Supreme Court.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Random question: how does the 6th amendment tie into the whistblower/gossiper's course of action of testifying by letter? Not at all? Some? A bit?

---

Short answer, very little in the House as the Sixth comes into play in the Senate.

Think about it this way. The House impeachment inquiry as a grand jury, the President is the ham sandwich.

Due process comes into play at the trial. Although the lack of proper process in the House could be grounds for immediate dismissal by vote in the Senate.

Clear as mud, I know but political processes are messy.

aggiehawg said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Random question: how does the 6th amendment tie into the whistblower/gossiper's course of action of testifying by letter? Not at all? Some? A bit?

---

Short answer, very little in the House as the Sixth comes into play in the Senate.

Think about it this way. The House impeachment inquiry as a grand jury, the President is the ham sandwich.

Due process comes into play at the trial. Although the lack of proper process in the House could be grounds for immediate dismissal by vote in the Senate.

Clear as mud, I know but political processes are messy.

---

No that makes perfect sense, thanks.

It seems like in a court written anonymous testimony like that would be basically garbage and unusable, no?

Quote:

---

It seems like in a court written anonymous testimony like that would be basically garbage and unusable, no?

---

In a real courtroom, there would need to be a showing of a justifiable reason for the witness being unavailable at the time of trial. Even then, absent death, admissibility could be tricky without the original opportunity for cross examination.

will25u said:

---

---

Yet they went ahead and filed this as verified to a FISA court?

Seems he just admitted defrauding the FISA court.

Quote:

---

Yet they went ahead and filed this as verified to a FISA court?

Seems he just admitted defrauding the FISA court.

---

He didn't sign anything last I checked. And FTR, McCabe acknowledged the verification investigation was in its infancy when the Page FISA was obtained. So not really a big change in his position.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/465411-dismissed-ukraine-ambassador-blames-ouster-on-a-concerted-campaign

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/us/politics/marie-yovanovitch-ukraine.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=17806&user_id=3154de4756231a971cc896fe10ac5461®i_id=73626606ing-news

Opening written statement:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1888-yovanovitch-opening-statement/48cf6b834149b4867fb5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1


Basically a historical & political statement. Not much here. That evil Trump removed me for no reason, all because of that Giuliani character.

I have a question about the whistleblowers. Why is the whole Republican side and especially the President not hammering that the whistleblower is not an ACTUAL whistleblower? The President is outside the whistleblower statute. So in reality this is just a... LEAKER with no protections.

Secolobo said:

---

---

Here's the threadreader on that tweet thread:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182481078159851520.html

will25u said:

---

I have a question about the whistleblowers. Why is the whole Republican side and especially the President not hammering that the whistleblower is not an ACTUAL whistleblower? The President is outside the whistleblower statute. So in reality this is just a... LEAKER with no protections.

---

It's been brought up, but just like the transcript of the call, the media never mentions it.

They only talk about what the Democrats have approved, the "whistle blower" and how "credible he is.

Quote:

---

Basically a historical & political statement. Not much here. That evil Trump removed me for no reason, all because of that Giuliani character.

---

Of course, a President can remove any ambassador he wants, whenever he wants, but the media and Democrats will spin it to be something nefarious.

Quote:

---

Nunes told FOX News that the fired ambassador was working with Democrats before her testimony today.

Rep. Devin Nunes: It was well known. We've had both former officials and current officials come and tell us that this was a very partisan ambassador. This was somebody who was not only supporting the Clintons, when Clinton was running, telling the people that Clinton was going to win, prognosticating about it. But also once Trump won was badmouthing the Trump administration in Ukraine, to Ukrainians and State Department staff We would want to get her on the record, did she support the Trump administration? Did she really say these negative things about the Trump administration? Was she looking at journalists? Was she monitoring journalists in the United States? These are all questions that we want answers to My guess here is that this is someone who the Democrats have been coordinating with. Let's not pretend that this ambassador hasn't been working with the Democrats. That's been happening.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump didn't fire her, he recalled her. She's still employed by the State Department (at the moment) but on leave. Must be a loophole in there somewhere.

Wish the Republicans would ask her about how well she knows Biden bestie car dealer in US and Ukraine Hynansky, the recipient of a 20 million federal government loan.

---

Let's circle back around to this for a second. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline is one of the regular contributors and the one with the least amount of affinity for Trump. But he tries to be fair so when he says this, I know he's taking it seriously enough to put it in print.

Quote:

---

A former top Ukrainian official told investigative reporter John Solomon last spring that the U.S. embassy in Kiev had been refusing to provide Ukrainian law enforcement officials with visas so they can deliver their evidence of election meddling and corruption to Washington.

"We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States," Kostiantyn Kulykthen the deputy head of the Prosecutor General's International Legal Cooperation Departmenttold Solomon back in April. "However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn't explicitly deny our visa, but also didn't give it to us."

For what it's worth, I have heard rumors that Yovanovitch has said privately that she blocked the visas at the behest of Joe Biden. This is third-hand information and should be viewed as such.


The "blocking" part comes from John Solomon. The Biden part is just rumor, as I said.

Biden had no official power over Yovanovitch at the time of the blocking, but it's possible that he still had influence with her. And Biden is one, though probably not the only, person whose interests might strongly be served by blocking Ukrainian law enforcement officials from coming to the U.S. to talk about Ukrainian election meddling and corruption.

---

Was she taking kickbacks from Hynansky?

ETA: Oops! LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It seems like in a court written anonymous testimony like that would be basically garbage and unusable, no?

---

In a real courtroom, there would need to be a showing of a justifiable reason for the witness being unavailable at the time of trial. Even then, absent death, admissibility could be tricky without the original opportunity for cross examination.

---

We also have the transcript of the call. Only a pure partisan hack judge would allow the testimony of a person with no direct knowledge about the call testify about the contents of the call when we have the transcript. The house will certainly bend over backwards to get his testimony, but I can't imagine Roberts allowing it during a Senate trial.

Quote:

---

We also have the transcript of the call. Only a pure partisan hack judge would allow the testimony of a person with no direct knowledge about the call testify about the contents of the call when we have the transcript. The house will certainly bend over backwards to get his testimony, but I can't imagine Roberts allowing it during a Senate trial.

---

I would be skeptical as well but you never know what the articles of impeachment may entail.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It seems like in a court written anonymous testimony like that would be basically garbage and unusable, no?

---

In a real courtroom, there would need to be a showing of a justifiable reason for the witness being unavailable at the time of trial. Even then, absent death, admissibility could be tricky without the original opportunity for cross examination.

---

We also have the transcript of the call. Only a pure partisan hack judge would allow the testimony of a person with no direct knowledge about the call testify about the contents of the call when we have the transcript. The house will certainly bend over backwards to get his testimony, but I can't imagine Roberts allowing it during a Senate trial.

---

And only an idiot would let a person who's only information is hearsay be cross examined under oath...

I know they didn't expect Trump to win and this has been a big problem for all of these stone cold crooks. But it also seems these crooks didn't fully understand how technology would expose their old school corruption. Technology has allowed much more in depth research to discover names and connect the dots and then to inform a large enough percentage of the public that hopefully this stuff reaches critical mass and doesn't get buried, regardless who wins in 2020.

Rapier108 said:

---

Quote:

---

Basically a historical & political statement. Not much here. That evil Trump removed me for no reason, all because of that Giuliani character.

---

Of course, a President can remove any ambassador he wants, whenever he wants, but the media and Democrats will spin it to be something nefarious.

---

Yup. Nothing illegal with that and it happens all the time.

Not to mention Zelensky didn't like working with her.

GreyhoundDad said:

---

I know they didn't expect Trump to win and this has been a big problem for all of these stone cold crooks. But it also seems these crooks didn't fully understand how technology would expose their old school corruption. Technology has allowed much more in depth research to discover names and connect the dots and then to inform a large enough percentage of the public that hopefully this stuff reaches critical mass and doesn't get buried, regardless who wins in 2020.

---

Hope you're 'spot on'...BUT, the FBI/DOJ are going to have to get up off the bench and into the game. So far, it appears they're just disinterested spectators who don't care about the final score and are heading for the exits. Makes one think they ALL partake in the rampant 'kickback' ($) games played in DC. It seems EVERYONE has skin in the game with 'dirt/pics' on EVERYONE else. They're all waiting on the 'armistice' and hoping they don't get hit before the final gun.

I am afraid the crimes and corruption is iceberg esque. We are just getting a sense of the tip. It's bad news how corrupt DC is an many federal employees.

McCabe: we just tried to think about who to investigate. No predicate at all. Steele was too good a source to question.

We need to disband the FBI. It's beyond salvage.

Quote:

---

It should scare everyone that this guy was at the highest levels of ensuring national security. "That's how good sources report?" By funneling abject garbage sourced from Russians that was so ridiculous that it was nearly all debunked the moment it went public? If that's true then we should just disband the FBI because they suck at their jobs. They treated the Steele dossier as legitimate for months while it took news outlets a few days to tear most of it apart. That's America's best and brightest? Or perhaps just most partisan.

This guy needs to be brought down hard. If he walks after all this, justice is truly not blind in this country.

---