Posted on 11/17/2019 4:16:15 PM PST by Hojczyk
Taylor strongly disapproved.
Kent and Taylor gave compelling testimony about why [President Trumps] shadow campaign was so at odds with Americas official foreign policy, wrote Rolling Stone.
The Huffington Post wrote, State Department officials say Rudy Giulianis foreign policy backchannel undercut U.S. policy on Ukraine.
And Ambassador Taylor testified, The official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Rudy Giuliani.
There must be some confusion.
Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be at odds with foreign policy when hes the one who determines it?
President Trump may well have been altering foreign policy on Ukraine. It should be of no surprise that he wasnt operating business as usual, since he ran on that platform and has executed it from day one. Its clear that Kent and Taylor didnt like or agree with Trumps ideas, and believe they know whats best. Trump rankled, contradicted and embarrassed them by operating outside the regular chain.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
All the more reason to fire them all and charge these spy’s as domestic enemies.
I once saw a reporter interviewing Henry Kissinger and said, “Now, you were in charge of foreign policy and...”. Kissinger cut her off and said, “No, Mr. Nixon was in charge of foreign policy”.
There is no mention of a State Department that sets foreign policy in our Constitution. Where did all these extraneous agencies come from? Were freedom loving patriots too busy or too lazy to stop the desecration of the Constitution by power-hungry usurpers of legitimate authority?
Hey every soul in the state department, for starters:
Sit down
Shut up
Do to the best of your ability what your boss, the president, orders, implies, or requests or you’re fired.
Don’t like it?
Quit as of yesterday.
Trump is also confused about "bribery".
He doesn't know that he's supposed to be the one GETTING the money, instead of giving it out...
While Trump is being impeached for trying to set and maintain foreign policy. The Democrats have taken their cues from the Radical Republicans of Andrew Johnson’s time.
Just more projection. They accuse others of what they themselves were doing.
“The president, not diplomats, sets ‘official foreign policy’”
This is correct.
IF the culprits are ever to be indicted and tried for seditious conspiracy (and sedition), it will be important to prove that they planned, while they held high office, to create a shadow government that would carry out The Resistance.
Sally Yates would be a very important witness in this regard, since she obviously planned her act of insubordination in advance of 1/20/17 - and she presumably didn’t think of it on her own.
The President isn't necessarily the President. This President isn't really the President. If he tries to exercise Presidential powers, he's committing a crime. Treason, or bribery, or witness intimidation. If he tries to overrule the State Department, it's a felony. If he fires the head of the FBI, it's obstruction of justice, a cover-up, and treason. If he tweets his opinion about an obviously insubordinate employee of the executive branch, that's witness intimidation, obstruction, and collusion.
In fact, anything he does (as another FReeper observed) to defend himself in the court of public opinion is obstruction of justice and witness intimidation, by definition.
Thanks! That’s a good civics reminder in light of Brennan’s commie spaz attack.
Former CIA Director Goes Ape
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3794449/posts
Probably the most egregious example of someone failing in that responsibility was Great Britains ambassador to Germany , Watt said, If blame must be attached to diplomatists rather than statemen, it must be Sir Nevile Henderson, as to all the amateur intermediaries whom the prospect of war called into activity. Their reports and their conceptions failed to convey the raw hatred, the unswervable and determined hostility with which Hitler regarded Britain.
In his book Failure of a Mission, Sir Neville Henderson defends himself by saying, The only real question was whether it was intended to use this German might as backing for the attainment of not illegitimate aims or for the prosecuting of illegitimate ambitions
.. The contrary had first to be proved. He took on that analysis and decision himself and left Neville Chamberlain with an inaccurate understanding of Hitler.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.