Another dirty Democrat scheme: Take Trump down using the Yovanovich Bewitch ploy

[marke]

:liar

I gave you the benefit of doubt and now you're just making **** up...and lying for Trump.

Trump may have had a right to fire her...but he didn't have a good reason. Instead, he had to make one up and no one is buying it...not even Pompeo.

Baloney.

 

[Linc]

Yovanowitch may be a bitch but that is likely because she never learned how to properly address, respect and support her superiors.

Calling a woman a witch and a bitch and not knowing her place is what we’ve come to expect from the trump cult.

 

[Moot]

Who cares whether Pompeo agrees with Trump or not. Unlike Yovanovitch, Lt. Col Vindmann, James Comey, and dozens of others, Pompeo had the good judgment to submit to and support Trump as his boss.

Submit? That's an interesting word choice. I guess freedom isn't your thing.

Pompeo only half submitted in that he's not commenting on the ambassador's removal. Now why would he do that if he supported his boss?

My guess is that he knows what Trump did was wrong and he's been trying to distance himself ever since.

 

[Moot]

Baloney.

Oneybalay. Pompeo has a lot of explaining to do....as does Giuliani, Nunes, Pence, Perry, Mulvaney, Duffy, Blair, Bolton, McGahn, Toesing, DiGiovanni...and Hyde.

 

[Moot]

If she was too high and mighty for Trump then she had no business trying to implement his policies in Ukraine.

Your putrid, hateful opinion of a woman you know nothing about has no bearing on reality. You have no business talking about her like that.

 

[marke]

Calling a woman a witch and a bitch and not knowing her place is what we’ve come to expect from the trump cult.

Democrats use women and children to promote their irrational, unethical, immoral causes because democrats are cowards and deceivers intent on forcing the whole nation into their atheistic communist mold.

 

[marke]

Submit? That's an interesting word choice. I guess freedom isn't your thing.

Pompeo only half submitted in that he's not commenting on the ambassador's removal. Now why would he do that if he supported his boss?

My guess is that he knows what Trump did was wrong and he's been trying to distance himself ever since.

There is disagreement on whether Trump was right or wrong by firing Yovanovitch. Just because one faulty mob thinks he is wrong does not mean he is wrong, no matter how many persons of importance they can use somehow to support their position.

 

[marke]

Your putrid, hateful opinion of a woman you know nothing about has no bearing on reality. You have no business talking about her like that.

You would rather instead for me to trash the President of the United States like a savage barbarian subversive moron?

 

[maxparrish]

Who is Yovanovich? The Obama and Hillary darling state department official who was fired for improper behavior in May 2019. That did not sit well with democrat seditionists who claimed the ambassador as one of their own. Trump was again demonstrating his right to dismiss government employees who hold their position at his pleasure and that just fired up democrats even more to unseat Trump by hook or crook.

Why did Trump fire Yovanovich? Because she proved untrustworthy. Trump officials were investigating Ukrainian corruption in the 2016 election and Yovanovich was obstructing that investigation. One evidence of her obstruction was revealed in Congressional impeachment hearing of 2019 in which she admitted she blocked Ukrainian prosecutor from meeting with US Justice Department officials at the US embassy. It was likely that obstruction of an investigation which was the biggest factor in Trump's dismissal of Yovanovich.

https://www.intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191104_yovanovitch_transcript_excerpts_final.pdf


Excerpts from Joint Deposition, Marie "Masha" Yovanovitch, October 11, 2019

I don't mind defending Trump when he is in the right, or criticizing him when he is in the wrong. And therefore I have no problem attacking liberal tropes that are idiotic, embellished, or dishonest. However, in this instance I believe Trump supporters have been far to credulous in adopting this line of attack.

As this story has unfolded I am moving to the narrative that Trump's affection for alt-right, Alex Jones styled conspiracy theories and Giuliani's relentless need to please Trump made the pair ideal suckers - in other words, these two masterminds were played on behalf of Ukraine's murky politics.

Parnas laid it out. He met Trump at a super-pac dinner in mid-spring of 2018, and bad mouthed Yovanovitch, as he was paid to do by Lutsenko. He planted the seed of "disloyalty" to Trump, and Trump seemingly took the bait according to Parnas. Later, after Parnas hooked up with Giuliani he continued to bash Yovanovitch and fed Giuliani's pre-existing belief on Biden corruption. When Shokin didn't get his visa, Giuliani was convinced she was one of the people intentionally blocking his investigation of Biden (a belief that Parnas was all to happy to feed.).

So, Yovanovitch was the victim of a smear campaign - rumors she couldn't answer from sources that she didn't even know (Parnas). Trump, because of Giuliani, became convinced she was a problem and judged and convicted without her knowledge.

After reading the transcript excerpt I did find it supported Yovanovitch as a decent professional - nothing in it suggests that her "bad reputation" was anything other than a smear and lie orchestrated by Parnas on behalf of his boss, Lutsenko.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191104_-_yovanovitch_transcript_excerpts_final.pdf

 

[marke]

I don't mind defending Trump when he is in the right, or criticizing him when he is in the wrong. And therefore I have no problem attacking liberal tropes that are idiotic, embellished, or dishonest. However, in this instance I believe Trump supporters have been far to credulous in adopting this line of attack.

As this story has unfolded I am moving to the narrative that Trump's affection for alt-right, Alex Jones styled conspiracy theories and Giuliani's relentless need to please Trump made the pair ideal suckers - in other words, these two masterminds were played on behalf of Ukraine's murky politics.

Parnas laid it out. He met Trump at a super-pac dinner in mid-spring of 2018, and bad mouthed Yovanovitch, as he was paid to do by Lutsenko. He planted the seed of "disloyalty" to Trump, and Trump seemingly took the bait according to Parnas. Later, after Parnas hooked up with Giuliani he continued to bash Yovanovitch and fed Giuliani's pre-existing belief on Biden corruption. When Shokin didn't get his visa, Giuliani was convinced she was one of the people intentionally blocking his investigation of Biden (a belief that Parnas was all to happy to feed.).

So, Yovanovitch was the victim of a smear campaign - rumors she couldn't answer from sources that she didn't even know (Parnas). Trump, because of Giuliani, became convinced she was a problem and judged and convicted without her knowledge.

After reading the transcript excerpt I did find it supported Yovanovitch as a decent professional - nothing in it suggests that her "bad reputation" was anything other than a smear and lie orchestrated by Parnas on behalf of his boss, Lutsenko.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191104_-_yovanovitch_transcript_excerpts_final.pdf

I disagree. Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama to fill the Ukrainian ambassador seat just one month after Biden had Shokin fired. Shokin was fired just one month after he seized Burisma assets, putting Hunter Biden's job with Burisma in jeopardy. Biden did not pressure Ukraine to replace Shokin with a stronger prosecutor who would be more aggressive than Shokin in investigating Burisma, proving Biden was not interested in getting rid of Shokin for not doing enough to pursue Burisma but, instead, because he was doing too much to investigate Burisma. That means Biden was lying.

Trump sent Guiliani to Ukraine to investigate the reports coming out of Ukraine that Ukrainians had testified under oath to having illegally helped Americans in support of Hillary in the 2016 election. Guiliani was also looking for details surrounding the mysterious appearance of the infamous 'black ledger' American democrats used to convict Manafort. Guiliani met with Lutsenko and Lutsenko then asked Yovanovitch for a meeting with the FBI at the embassy. Yovanovitch refused even though she should have known Trump would have wanted that meeting to take place, giving the appearance of obstructing the investigation into the corruption of the democrats and Biden.

 

[maxparrish]

I disagree. Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama to fill the Ukrainian ambassador seat just one month after Biden had Shokin fired. Shokin was fired just one month after he seized Burisma assets, putting Hunter Biden's job with Burisma in jeopardy.

I understood that Shokin had opened an investigation, I am unaware that he seized assets. Are you sure?

Biden did not pressure Ukraine to replace Shokin with a stronger prosecutor who would be more aggressive than Shokin in investigating Burisma, proving Biden was not interested in getting rid of Shokin for not doing enough to pursue Burisma but, instead, because he was doing too much to investigate Burisma.

We only know that Biden pressured the Ukraine to replace Shokin, apparently in accordance with the wishes of the Obama administration and certain other international actors. His motivations are unknown. Given that Shokin's replacement didn't do anything more than Shokin was allegedly not doing, may or may not have been intended by Biden. But clearly Yovanovitch wasn't any happier with Lutsenko.

That means Biden was lying.

No, it means we don't know.

Trump sent Guiliani to Ukraine to investigate the reports coming out of Ukraine that Ukrainians had testified under oath to having illegally helped Americans in support of Hillary in the 2016 election. Guiliani was also looking for details surrounding the mysterious appearance of the infamous 'black ledger' American democrats used to convict Manafort. Guiliani met with Lutsenko and Lutsenko then asked Yovanovitch for a meeting with the FBI at the embassy. Yovanovitch refused even though she should have known Trump would have wanted that meeting to take place, giving the appearance of obstructing the investigation into the corruption of the democrats and Biden.

Where is their supporting material that Guiliani requested Yavanovitch refusing a meeting with the FBI at the embassy? The link you provided (assuming it is that same link that I did) only stated that the consular office declined Shokin's visa due to his reputation for corruption.

I am open minded about this, but as I stated, the timeline shows that Yavanovitch's initial "enemies", Lutsenko who as the second do nothing prosecutor, were before the Biden issue came up.

 

[marke]

I understood that Shokin had opened an investigation, I am unaware that he seized assets. Are you sure?

I doubt any of this would have come to light had not Joe Biden bragged that he pressured Ukraine to dismiss Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma Holdings for corruption, dragging Hunter Biden into its investigation. Since Biden has entered the presidential race investigators were sure to look into what was really going on in Ukraine, and it is no wonder Trump happened to mention the Bidens when asking Zelensky to help American investigators look into American corruption in Ukraine.

The Washington Post, Dec 4, 2019, gave this testimony from the House impeachment investigation:

"Did you know that Joe Biden called Ukrainian President Poroshenko at least three times in February 2016 after the president and owner of Burisma's home was raided on February 2nd by the state prosecutor's office?" Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, in a question directed at the impeachment inquiry, Nov 19, 2019.

 

[marke]

I understood that Shokin had opened an investigation, I am unaware that he seized assets. Are you sure?

We only know that Biden pressured the Ukraine to replace Shokin, apparently in accordance with the wishes of the Obama administration and certain other international actors. His motivations are unknown. Given that Shokin's replacement didn't do anything more than Shokin was allegedly not doing, may or may not have been intended by Biden. But clearly Yovanovitch wasn't any happier with Lutsenko.

Democrats have a huge motivation to cover up the nefarious affairs between the Bidens and Ukraine. Democrats claim Biden was trying to put a stop to bad investigations in Ukraine, never mind that the Prosecutor General was investigating Burisma, Hunter Biden's employer, and that Biden had the prosecutor, Shokin, fired before he was to interview Hunter. The result from Shokin's firing was that the investigation against Burisma was halted and Hunter was off the hook. No new prosecutor was named to resume the investigation of Burisma, much less at a faster pace likie democrats claim they wanted. Democrats did not want the investigation ramped up, they wanted it stopped, and that is what they got. When they say they were trying to stop corruption in Ukraine, they lie. They were not trying to stop corruption, they were trying to stop investigations into corruption.

Shokin got fired and the investigation into Burisma was halted and then dismissed. Three years later, under new presidents in Ukraine and the US, the new Ukrainian prosecutor reopened corruption investigations into Burisma and into other suspicious activities by Americans in Ukraine. When the PGO, Yuriy Lutsenko, requested a meeting with FBI officials at the US embassy, Ambassador Yovanovitch, an Obama holdover, refused to allow it, adding support to the narrative that democrats are still obstructing investigations into Biden corruption in Ukraine.

 

[Hamish Howl]

If you get rid of all the good guys you will have nothing but dirty crooks seeking to fleece Americans and the US Treasury the way Chavez robbed Venezuela.

I see you haven't read Revelation chapter 13 recently.

 

[marke]

I understood that Shokin had opened an investigation, I am unaware that he seized assets. Are you sure?

This was reported by The Washington Post, Dec 4, 2019:

"It is my understanding that on February 4, 2016, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office, under the direction of Prosecutor General Victor Shokin, announced the seizure of property from the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings' founder, Mykola Zlochevsky. The seizures occurred pursuant to a raid on Mr. Zlochevsky's home on February 2, 2016." --letter from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Nov 21, 2019.

 

[marke]

I understood that Shokin had opened an investigation, I am unaware that he seized assets. Are you sure?


Where is their supporting material that Guiliani requested Yavanovitch refusing a meeting with the FBI at the embassy? The link you provided (assuming it is that same link that I did) only stated that the consular office declined Shokin's visa due to his reputation for corruption.

I am open minded about this, but as I stated, the timeline shows that Yavanovitch's initial "enemies", Lutsenko who as the second do nothing prosecutor, were before the Biden issue came up.

Lutsenko himself is on record testifying of various American government departments refusal to accept evidence he has concerning American corruption in Ukraine. This further supports contentions that it was not Trump who did not want Lutsenko meeting with FBI officials at the US embassy, but it was Yovanovitch.

Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats? | TheHill

 

[marke]

I see you haven't read Revelation chapter 13 recently.

Revelation 13:3 "....and all the world wondered after the beast."

Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

God tells us the "world" refers to those unbelievers with satanic views who are banded together to resist God and the truth.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Revelation 13:3 "....and all the world wondered after the beast."

Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

God tells us the "world" refers to those unbelievers with satanic views who are banded together to resist God and the truth.

I was talking more about chapter 13, as I said in my post.

Guess which side you're on?

 

[Somerville]

Revelation 13:3 "....and all the world wondered after the beast."

Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

God tells us the "world" refers to those unbelievers with satanic views who are banded together to resist God and the truth.

Where and when did God tell us the "world refers to those unbelievers with satanic views"?

 

[marke]

Where and when did God tell us the "world refers to those unbelievers with satanic views"?

15. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2:15.

Ye adulterers and adultresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. James 4:4.

 

[Somerville]

15. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2:15.

Ye adulterers and adultresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. James 4:4.

1 John 2:15 doesn't mention Satan, nor do any of the verses before or after. I would read the verse as telling the readers of that period that they should live an ascetic life, giving up all property and wealth. Such teachings did create groups which went into the desert to live as simple a life as possible. Though there is an interesting statement in 2:18 Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. A reasonable understanding of this would apparently be saying that the author was preaching that the world was about to end. Wonder why we are still here 2000 years later.

A bit of academia for the interested

The Ascetic Impulse in Ancient Christianity by Vincent L. Wimbush, Claremont Graduate University

Especially important in this regard is the study of ascetic behavior, popularly understood as the most radical response to the world, because it provides an opportunity to reconsider ancient Christianity within a broader conceptual framework than is customary in historical or literary critical work.

It is the "world, " after all, that all individuals and groups in all cultures in history have in common, must always engage, must always exist or work in or over against to be defined. This is why greater clarity about the ascetic impulse as response to the world is so important. Behind the ascetic impulse there may be a key to an understanding of the continuing legacy of Christianity itself for cultural self-definitions. Could it be that the part of the ascetic impulse that represents resistance to the world is the most powerful legacy, perhaps the only relevant aspect, of ancient Christianity for our times?

the verse from James 4 also is calling for believers to enter the ascetic lifestyle.