Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the biggest side takeaway I have gotten from this whole circus is that we have career government employees who fail to understand their actual job and its parameters. She actually violated some of the laws of the Geneva Convention. All of the impeachment stuff aside, like I said after reading LTC Vindman’s testimony, the United States needs to have better “boundaries” training for those working with other countries on behalf of the a United States.
Quote:
The US ambassador’s concern was therefore spot on. Major problems do remain. The problem, however, was the tone. The specificity of the actions demanded of the government seemed more the pronouncement of a viceroy than a diplomat. The ambassador’s speech called for the dismissal of the special anti-corruption prosecutor, warned that thirty-one judges with questionable ethics are slated to join a one-hundred person Supreme Court system, and repeated the G-7 denunciation of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court’s decision.
This is specifically against her job description.
Quote:
Tone apart, there was another problem with the recent comments of Western ambassadors: their timing. These comments came a little over three weeks before Ukrainians go to the polls to elect a president. As a result, the remarks were seen as a rebuke on incumbent power.
In other words, election interference.
Quote:
As Ukrainians prepare to go to the polls, it is essential that Western diplomats and leaders show respect for Ukraine’s autonomous decision-making and internal debate. Imperious comments that smack of colonial rule only fuel adverse reactions in the public and can have unanticipated consequences in what is shaping up to be a pivotal election.
Only problem is this is finding a reason months after the firing already happened. The documentation on her firing is likely filed already.
Exactly, never heard any details on why she was removed other than general claims that she was against Trump. One of the fastest departures on record so you would think it would have been extremely egregious to tell her to get on the next plane. If she was beyond her authority then Sondland was way out of bounds. She has an extensive career and many ambassadors act as a conduit.
This sounds like a desperate excuse to address her firing after the fact. This thread could have waited another day, she is testifying tomorrow.
Last edited by Goodnight; 11-14-2019 at 03:55 PM..
Exactly, never heard any details on why she was removed other than general claims that she was against Trump. One of the fastest departures on record so you would think it would have been extremely egregious to tell her to get on the next plane. If she was beyond her authority then Sondland was way out of bounds. She has an extensive career and many ambassadors act as a conduit.
This sounds like a desperate excuse to address her firing after the fact. This thread could have waited another day, she is testifying tomorrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss
An attempt to impeach a witness before she takes center stage.
I’m not trying to impeach anyone. I do agree her rants about Trump was probably why he removed her - which by the way, is perfectly acceptable, if you are an ambassador for the a United States you don’t trash the leader of the United States out loud and to members of the other country’s government. No nation would tolerate that, nor should they.
This, again, as stated in the OP, is my assertion that some of this testimony has exposed a real need to reign in some of our State Department folks. They need to be trained on appropriate boundaries, their actual roles/job descriptions, and a reminder that their first localities are to the United States. These people speak to the countries they are assigned to for all of us and more specifically the President of the United States. Speaking erroneously in the United States’ name is not a new problem, a career diplomat (April Glaspie) is who made Saddam Hussein think it was just hunky-dory to invade Kuwait.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I think the biggest side takeaway I have gotten from this whole circus is that we have career government employees who fail to understand their actual job and its parameters. She actually violated some of the laws of the Geneva Convention. All of the impeachment stuff aside, like I said after reading LTC Vindman’s testimony, the United States needs to have better “boundaries” training for those working with other countries on behalf of the a United States.
What was required to not be played by Ukrainian oligarchs and their allies who were schooled in the literal life-and-death politics of the former USSR goes well beyond what some might consider the niceties of diplomatic teas. (By the way, Rudy Giuliani got played and by Trump taking his advice over that of Bolton, Pompeo etc. created a US crisis.)
Trying to sort out which political-oligarch pairings were most corrupt - those associated with Ukrainian nationalists or those associated or more sympathetic to the former President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian separatists - is tough and beyond my ability. The writer of this particular blog appears suspiciously sympathetic towards then-President Poroshenko - and takes a position different from those of other Atlantic Council bloggers. From what I can see, about every faction now disavows Poroshenko as profoundly corrupt:
He writes:
"Tone apart, there was another problem with the recent comments of Western ambassadors: their timing. These comments came a little over three weeks before Ukrainians go to the polls to elect a president. As a result, the remarks were seen as a rebuke on incumbent power [they probably were]. While official Washington and European capitals are steadfastly neutral in Ukraine’s presidential race, they are anxious about the sudden frontrunner status of presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a comedian and political neophyte who speaks in criminal jargon and is linked to oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who has been accused by Ukrainian authorities with a $5.5 billion bank fraud. By coming down hard on the establishment, the Western ambassadors were inadvertently helping the dodgy insurgent Zelenskiy, who has spent his entire career lampooning the establishment while being a business partner to one of its pillars." https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...eroys-in-kyiv/
Fast forward ... Based upon his actions to date, Zelensky has distanced himself from Kolomoisky, fired numerous corrupt prosecutors. There are multiple internal power struggles in play, even among organizations that contain the word "Anti-Corruption" in their title. Who the "real" reformers might be - everyone claims that title - and who not varies according to the source. Zelensky may end up being a pleasant surprise, or perhaps not.
In the interim, the West is pouring billions into Ukraine with already substantial investments now disappeared into offshore accounts maintained by oligarchs. I don't know what the answer here is - giving up and returning Ukraine to the influence of Putin-backed governing authorities may well make some sense!
But with the money flowing, then U.S. Ambassador Pyatt called for (along with pressure from Biden, U.S. Senators, IMF) the ouster back in 2015 of then Prosecutor General Shokin, who allied with and doing the bidding of Poroshenko was at best committing prosecutorial mispractice. U.S. Ambassador Yoganovitch recently called for the ouster of Special Anticorruption - there's that word again - Prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytsky.
What's interesting about this is that the power struggle between then General Prosecutor Lutsenko (who Zelensky just fired with charges now brought against him) early in 2019 and the also corrupt Kholodnystky may well lie behind Lutsenko's approach to Rudy Giuliani - and this impeachment fiasco. From what I can see Lutsenko attempted to sidestep the U.S. Embassy (he did hate Yoganovitch who blocked him, and so got Trump to fire her). His intent by getting Rudy Giuliani-backed investigations appeared to be to use the power of the US Presidency to recapture lost prosecutorial power from the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and Kholodynstky for the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO).
There are layers of complexity here. For example, the anti-corruption group that worked most closely with the US Embassy (and that was mandated by the IMF) was the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) that SAPO also undercut (the former investigated, the latter prosecuted). The existence of the NABU group also undercut GPO power. With prosecutorial power comes the ability to solicit bribes and threaten enemies by starting investigations. There was bitter intercine warfare in play, with billions at stake.
And, yes, the U.S. Embassy took positions.
Last edited by EveryLady; 11-14-2019 at 04:34 PM..
I’m not trying to impeach anyone. I do agree her rants about Trump was probably why he removed her - which by the way, is perfectly acceptable, if you are an ambassador for the a United States you don’t trash the leader of the United States out loud and to members of the other country’s government. No nation would tolerate that, nor should they.
This, again, as stated in the OP, is my assertion that some of this testimony has exposed a real need to reign in some of our State Department folks. They need to be trained on appropriate boundaries, their actual roles/job descriptions, and a reminder that their first localities are to the United States. These people speak to the countries they are assigned to for all of us and more specifically the President of the United States. Speaking erroneously in the United States’ name is not a new problem, a career diplomat (April Glaspie) is who made Saddam Hussein think it was just hunky-dory to invade Kuwait.
Writing from memory (with details now fuzzy), the first attempt to get rid of Yoganovitch came in the summer of 2018 thru the Parnas (Russian money) donations to Pete Sessions, with Sessions the next day reporting something to the effect that Yoganovitch was criticizing Trump. Parnas was at the time about to make a play to take over the board of Naftogaz (the largest distributor of energy in Ukraine). Now Parnas is at best a bumbler, with that attempt failing - his approach to the second-in-command of Naftogaz got reported to a US source. I could look up the details, but you get the gist. The State Department kept working to protect her.
The final effort was made apparently by Lutsenko in spring 2019 who - I believe thru Parnas, who maybe not but that man shows up everywhere including with Trump - approached Rudy Giuliani with documents that Lutsenko now admits were designed to entice Giuliani into the Biden investigations. Lutsenko hated Yoganovitch, who in her 'reform demands' does come across as rather 'straightforward' - plus the US embassy worked with groups that essentially undercut Lutsenko's power. Giuliani admits - I believe - he succeeded in getting Trump to institute the fire order.
The point is that this is complicated, with multiple parties working for their benefit.
I’m not trying to impeach anyone. I do agree her rants about Trump was probably why he removed her - which by the way, is perfectly acceptable, if you are an ambassador for the a United States you don’t trash the leader of the United States out loud and to members of the other country’s government. No nation would tolerate that, nor should they.
This, again, as stated in the OP, is my assertion that some of this testimony has exposed a real need to reign in some of our State Department folks. They need to be trained on appropriate boundaries, their actual roles/job descriptions, and a reminder that their first localities are to the United States. These people speak to the countries they are assigned to for all of us and more specifically the President of the United States. Speaking erroneously in the United States’ name is not a new problem, a career diplomat (April Glaspie) is who made Saddam Hussein think it was just hunky-dory to invade Kuwait.
Difficult situation for ambassadors in these third countries, hard to avoid the obvious but most presidents are generally supportive of career state department employees. Yet another reason why they need to be considerate of their selections and that is why few of these are political cronies. These state department employees testifying yesterday were top of the line.
Disagree strongly with your title since Trump claimed he hardly knew her, an ambassador critical of obvious corruption does not deserve this treatment.
Last edited by Goodnight; 11-14-2019 at 06:47 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
