The president, not diplomats, sets 'official foreign policy'

the Hill ^ | November 14,2019 | SHARYL ATTKISSON

[Hojczyk]

Taylor strongly disapproved.

“Kent and Taylor … gave compelling testimony about why [President Trump’s] ‘shadow campaign’ was so at odds with America’s official foreign policy,” wrote Rolling Stone.

The Huffington Post wrote, “State Department officials say Rudy Giuliani’s 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 he’s the one who determines it?

President Trump may well have been altering foreign policy on Ukraine. It should be of no surprise that he wasn’t operating “business as usual,” since he ran on that platform and has executed it from day one. It’s clear that Kent and Taylor didn’t like or agree with Trump’s ideas, and believe they know what’s best. Trump rankled, contradicted and “embarrassed” them by operating outside the “regular” chain.

[Bommer]

All the more reason to fire them all and charge these spy’s as domestic enemies.

[libertylover]

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”.

[txrefugee]

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?

[rollo tomasi]

Department of State/Treasury therein was at the beginning so just "grandfathered" in by Washington/Congress. Other over-bloated bureaucracies/agencies arose from Congress in the form of the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution.

Appears Congress is either too lazy or the government too big to control, so they passed "their work"/representation onto other departments/agencies. This is another example of why the Anti-Federalists pointed out the Constitution as ratified was a ticking time-bomb to corruption and tyranny.

[USCG SimTech]

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.

[kiryandil]

How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?

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...  

[arthurus]

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.

[philman_36]

To the extent they are attempting to further policies that oppose or undermine the president’s wishes, they are the ones conducting the “shadow campaign.”

Just more projection. They accuse others of what they themselves were doing.

[Jim Noble]

“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.

[Steely Tom]

This has been part of the fallback position from the git-go.

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.

[familyop]

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

[Retain Mike]

In his book titled The Immediate Origins of the Second World War, Donald Cameron Watt makes the point that the duty of an ambassador is to accurately explain his country’s leader to the other country and to accurately explain the other country and their leader to the head of his/her government. Per Watt there the involvement in foreign policy ends.

Probably the most egregious example of someone failing in that responsibility was Great Britain’s 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.

[subterfuge]

Well said.