“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

Marie Yovanovich can cry all she wants about losing her job…, a job she apparently feels entitled to, but the bottom line is…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

In other words, President Trump doesn’t have to have any particular reason for replacing Ms. Yovanovich.  Maybe he didn’t like her looks.  Maybe he didn’t like her attitude.  Maybe whatever.

Again…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, WHEN “SHIFTY” SCHIFF HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, “A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE.”

Alex Pappas of Fox News reported that, “Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, pointed her finger at Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani while detailing her sudden removal from her diplomatic post during Friday’s nationally-televised impeachment testimony, as President Trump fired back at the diplomat and said every place she worked ‘turned bad.’”

“During her appearance, Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who served both Republican and Democratic presidents, relayed her story of being suddenly recalled by Trump in May, saying she believes Giuliani played a key role in telling people she was not sufficiently supportive of the president.”

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

‘“I do not understand Mr. Giuliani’s motives for attacking me, nor can I offer an opinion on whether he believed the allegations he spread about me,’ Yovanovitch said.”

Where is it written that Ms. Yovanovich must be able to understand the motives for anyone attacking her?

Perception is reality, Ms. Yovanovich.

“She argued the efforts against her by the president’s allies hindered her work.”

Again…, so what?  What’s your point?

‘“If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States,’ Yovanovitch said.”

BINGO!

You couldn’t handle your duties effectively, for whatever reason.

Perhaps this is why you were removed?

“After the hearing started, Trump began attacking her, tweeting, ‘Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.’ He added, ‘It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.’”

Again…, “Shifty” Schiff agrees with you Mr. President…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

“At the same time the hearing began Friday, the White House released a new transcript of the president’s first call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which showed Trump agreeing to meet with Ukraine’s president-elect — without preconditions — in the first official phone call between the two leaders.”

“Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., read the entire letter in his opening statement. A separate call between the two leaders ignited the impeachment inquiry, and Republicans suggested the new transcript is helpful to the president’s argument he did nothing wrong in his conversations with Zelensky.”

“Yovanovitch’s removal is one of several events at the center of the impeachment effort.”

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO AGAIN, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

‘“These events should concern everyone in this room,’ Yovanovitch said in her opening remarks. ‘Shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American ambassador who does not give them what they want.’”

Again…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO AGAIN, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

“Democrats have worked to connect the circumstances of Yovanovitch’s ouster to Trump’s alleged pressure campaign to enlist Zelensky in the effort to damage 2020 rival Joe Biden.”

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO AGAIN, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

“The question before us is not whether Donald Trump could recall an American ambassador with a stellar reputation for fighting corruption in Ukraine, but why would he want to?”

Does it matter?

If you believe that, “A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT,” the “why” is irrelevant.

“It’s unfortunate that today, and for most of next week, we will continue engaging in the Democrats’ day-long TV spectacles instead of solving the problems we were all sent to Washington to address,” Nunes said.

In particular, Yovanovitch and others have described Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, as leading what one called an “irregular channel” outside the diplomatic mainstream of U.S.-Ukraine relations.

Giuliani and others had claimed Yovanovitch was not supportive of the president and that she had criticized him to others. Trump, in a conversation with Zelensky, referred to her as “bad news.”

Asked on Friday what she thought of those comments from Trump, she said, “I couldn’t believe it. Shocked appalled. Devastated.”

“Schiff claimed Friday she was ‘too tough on corruption for some, and her principled stance made her enemies’ and it became clear Trump ‘wanted her gone.’”

Like they would say in a real court, “Objection, your honor, that’s an opinion,” and the judge would say, “Sustained,” meaning it isn’t admissible.

Yovanovich is just another liberal tool who is confused about where her loyalty should lay.

“Lawmakers, as they have in previous meetings, on Friday clashed with each other over procedure. Before the testimony began Friday, Schiff shut down New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik after Stefanik asked if he would “continue to prohibit witnesses from answering Republican questions.” Schiff said it wasn’t a ‘proper’ point of order, and then declined to recognize Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan who also tried to raise a parliamentary question.”

Such is life in the “People’s Republic of The Liberal Swamp!”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.