Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is sworn in to testify to the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Nov. 15, 2019, during the second public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump’s efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
I’m getting seriously tired of watching the Democrats’ star chamber, as well as that lying Democrat majority counsel Daniel Goldman make false assumptions and lead witnesses. But even before that SOB got started with his questioning, we had to suffer through perhaps the most disgraceful and rambling statement ever made by a former US ambassador. Innuendo, opinion and feelings. Barf! Let’s take a look at that in some detail. In the analysis that follows, I will quote one of her statements preceded by a “Y”. My response will be preceded by a “C”. Here we go.
Y: Like my colleagues, I entered the Foreign Service understanding that my job was to implement the foreign policy interests of this nation, as defined by the President and Congress, and to do so regardless of which person or party was in power.
C: Wednesday’s witnesses were destroyed because they clearly disagreed with the President’s policies and sought to undermine them. This statement was likely inserted by Goldman as an attempt to counter that testimony. Won’t work, given Yovanovitch’s anti-Trump actions.
Y: It was my great honor to be appointed to serve as an ambassador three times— twice by President George W. Bush and once by President Barack Obama.
C: Yes, yes, attempt to hide behind supposed bipartisan support. The reality is quite different: anti-Trump Uniparty support. We have learned that W is a globalist, too.
Y: [lots of statements about her service, including being in harm’s way, as well as comments about Ukraine’s “importance” in Europe]
C: All meaningless attempts to establish her credibility in the context of the inquiry. It’s all irrelevant, as she has no direct evidence about POTUS, having never even met him.
Y: The U.S. has provided significant security assistance since the onset of the war against Russia in 2014.
C: A completely disingenuous statement! Obama refused to give Ukraine lethal aid to help them in fight off Russian incursions into Ukraine. She left that part out.
Y: [lots of statements about Ukrainian corruption and how important it is to wean them from those bad habits]
C: More virtue-signaling, sanctimonious B.S. She tried to pose as a “corruption fighter” when she neglected to mention anything about Democrat corruption in Ukraine, for example, this.
She became ambassador in August 2016. Her job – especially after POTUS shocked the Democrat establishment in November 2016 – was to keep a lid on any and all Democrat corruption and election-meddling in Ukraine. That was her REAL job.
Y: That’s why they [Ukrainians] launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014 demanding to be a part of Europe, demanding the transformation of the system, demanding to live under the rule of law.
C: What a crock! Here’s the reality: the Clintons and their major contributor Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk were behind the 2014 coup, which PERPETUATED the corruption under Poroshenko, as noted here:
Y: Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy, while an honest and accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukrainian partnership more reliable and more valuable to the United States.
C: Yeah, right. Republicans need to ask her if she supported Poroshenko’s “election” in 2014. She once again lies like a rug. Was she talking about Poroshenko? LMFAO!
Y: It was—and remains—a top U.S. priority to help Ukraine fight corruption.
C: Laughable! The only “corruption” she mentions is attributed to those bad old Russians. She neglects to mention Chalupa, Pinchuk, Podesta, the DNC, and the Biden/Kerry/Pelosi corruption in Ukraine that she helped cover up.
Y: Significant progress has been made since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity.
C: Totally disingenuous and duplicitous! That progress was manifested in Zelensky’s election, not anything that the Obama Administration or Democrats in general were responsible for! He was voted in exclusively to replace Pinchuk/Clinton corruptocrat Poroshenko.
Y: [I]t was not surprising, that when our anti-corruption efforts got in the way of a desire for profit or power, Ukrainians who preferred to play by the old, corrupt rules sought to remove me.
C: Talk about projection! Zelensky wants to attack ALL corruption, including US involvement in that corruption. Yovanovitch did NOTHING to get to the bottom of Democrat corruption in Ukraine, which is why Zelesky thanked the President for removing her.
Y: What continues to amaze me is that they found Americans willing to partner with them and, working together, they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of a U.S. Ambassador.
C: More claptrap. This is complete speculation inserted by Goldman here to further the Democrats’ impeachment narrative. The reality is that her own actions warranted her replacement, and as she herself noted, the President could fire her any time he liked.
Y: How could our system fail like this? How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government? Which country’s interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been criticizing is allowed to prevail? Such conduct undermines the U.S., exposes our friends, and widens the playing field for autocrats like President Putin.
C: She is projecting the sins of the Democrats onto POTUS here! Outrageous! We are just beginning to learn about Democrat corruption in Ukraine, and MUCH more will come out, including DNC/Clinton actions during the 2016 campaign. And THAT is the conduct that undermines the US, not the President’s actions to get to the bottom of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election – which is the exposure that the Democrats greatly fear, and which is the reason for their impeachment gambit. Note: all of her sweeping statements and claims about “corruption” purposely gloss over the truth, and that is why she made them – because most Americans don’t know the extent of Democrat-Ukraine corruption and meddling in the 2016 election on behalf of Shrillary.
Y: I arrived in Ukraine on August 22, 2016 and left Ukraine permanently on May 20, 2019.
C: Note the timeframe and all that we have learned about Spygate, Crowdstrike, US pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors/investigators, Hunter Biden, etc. Why was she picked, and what did Obama detail her to do? Imagine how the corruption would have continued had Shrillary won!
Y: The events that pre-dated my Ukraine service include: …
- the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
C: Yet she happily comments on her opinions of the “corrupt” Shokin under questioning. Of course anyone looking into Hunter Biden et al would be considered “corrupt” by someone trying to cover up those crimes!
Y: Several other events occurred after I returned from Ukraine. These include:
- President Trump’s July 25, 2019 call with President Zelenskiy;
- The discussions surrounding that phone call; and
- Any discussions surrounding the delay of security assistance to Ukraine in Summer 2019.
C: In other words, she has nothing but hearsay to contribute about core matters, including the fake whistleblower’s complaint. She’s there exclusively to help the Democrats’ build a false narrative. She needs to be challenged HARD on her actions and claims.
Y: I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a “Do Not Prosecute” list was a fabrication. Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed.
C: Not so fast! While Lutsenko recanted on the “list,” he reaffirmed that there were four people she wanted to see removed from their offices. Time for some direct questioning from Republicans on that score!
Y: I did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute. Instead, I advocated the U.S. position that rule of law should prevail and Ukrainian law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges should stop wielding their power selectively, as a political weapon against their adversaries, and start dealing with all consistently and according to the law.
C: More prevarication and obfuscation! That’s a weasel way of saying, “I would like you to squelch any officials independently looking at Democrat-oriented corruption in Ukraine; please keep your people focused on Ukrainian corruption.”
Y: Also untrue are unsourced allegations that I told unidentified Embassy employees or Ukrainian officials that President Trump’s orders should be ignored because “he was going to be impeached”—or for any other reason. I did not and would not say such a thing. Such statements would be inconsistent with my training as a Foreign Service Officer and my role as an Ambassador.
C: Nice try! The allegations are entirely credible, and this will all come out in due course. She was/is a big Shrillary supporter, and her frustration carried over after the election.To assume that a career foreign service officer would not have made negative comments overseas about a Trump victory over her former boss and role model (Clinton) would take a special kind of denial mechanism.
Y: The Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.
C: Misdirection here. She wouldn’t have been directly involved except to facilitate visas for Democrat operatives to visit Ukraine in 2016. It was THOSE people who were helping the Clinton campaign. Her job was to keep the lid on public exposure of Democrat corruption in Ukraine. Her last phrase in that sentence is a total smokescreen.
Y: I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.
C: Lots to unpack here! Burisma was being investigated for corruption, yet the Obama Administration never raised the issue with their US ambassador there? LMFAO! Her claim that “no one in the Obama Administration” asked her about Burisma is misdirection. She is implying elected or appointed officials, which leaves the door wide open for unelected staffers, DNC operatives, John Podesta, and others to have discussed Burisma with her.
Y: 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. Clearly, no one at the State Department did.
C: Of course no one at Foggy Bottom (filled with NeverTrumpers) would believe any allegations against Yovanovitch. They’re all just reliable Deep State actors, don’t ya know?
Y: What I can say is that Mr. Giuliani should have known those claims were suspect, coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial ambitions would be stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.
C: Thanks for conveying the unsubstantiated Democrat narrative, as well as expressing your “opinions” and those of unnamed others at the State Department.
Y: After being asked by the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in early March 2019 to extend my tour until 2020, the smear campaign against me entered a new public phase in the United States.
C: The Undersecretary was appointed by Obama as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace (2011-2013), and previously Deputy Special Envoy (2009-11). Was that extension request made with the foreknowledge of Secretary Pompeo and President Trump? I highly doubt it. The smear campaign is immaterial. She can be – and was – fired, and the real reasons will come out in due course.
Y: When I returned to the United States, Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan told me there had been a concerted campaign against me, that the President no longer wished me to serve as Ambassador to Ukraine, and that in fact, the President had been pushing for my removal since the prior summer.
C: Well, whaddayaknow! Looks like POTUS wasn’t pre-briefed about that supposed extension request. No surprise there! And that means that the supposed “smear campaign” in 2019 was NOT the primary motivating factor for her removal.
Y: Although, then and now, I have always understood that I served at the pleasure of the President, I still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine U.S. interests in this way.
C: She tries to deflect once again from the real reasons for her firing, which predated the “smear campaign.” And again, she conflates who was really undermining US interests – corrupt Democrats and Ukrainian oligarchs working together.
Y: As various witnesses have recounted, they shared baseless allegations with the President and convinced him to remove his Ambassador, despite the fact that the State Department fully understood that the allegations were false and the sources highly suspect.
C: The smokescreen continues. “The allegations were false.” Not the ones that you were covering up for Democrat corruption, Marie!
Y: If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States.
C: Yep, those career FSOs don’t like it when separate channels are used in dealing with foreign countries because they like to control all the dialog. Someone needs to remind her about FDR’s use of Harry Hopkins to get around Foggy Bottom back in the day.
Y: Our Ukraine policy has been thrown into disarray, and shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American Ambassador who does not give them what they want. [plus more along the same sob-story lines]
C: That’s YOUR opinion, Marie, and is thereby irrelevant. And you know perfectly well why you were removed.
Y: At the closed deposition, I expressed grave concerns about the degradation of the Foreign Service over the past few years and the failure of State Department leadership to push back as foreign and corrupt interests apparently hijacked our Ukraine policy.
Y: I remain disappointed that the Department’s leadership and others have declined to acknowledge that the attacks against me and others are dangerously wrong.
C: Now we get to the core of her lying. This is sheer projection of EXACTLY what transpired during the Obama Administration and what WOULD have happened with Viktor Pinchuk getting his pound of flesh during a Shrillary Administration! The reality is that the State Dept leadership has been trying to unscrew that prior corruption and Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election, and getting rid of the roadblock of a Clinton-backing ambassador is a great step in that direction.
Y: This is about far more than me or a couple of individuals. As Foreign Service professionals are being denigrated and undermined, the institution is also being degraded.
C: Give me a break! We’ve already learned that the Deep State has been undermining POTUS’s foreign policy at every step, including in Ukraine. FSOs don’t set policy – or undermine policy with which they disagree. That’s NOT their job and are rightfully castigated for doing so.
Y: Moreover, the attacks are leading to a crisis in the State Department as the policy process is visibly unravelling, leadership vacancies go unfilled, and senior and midlevel officers ponder an uncertain future and head for the doors. [plus more along those lines]
C: That’s complete spin and is NOT what is happening. Foggy Bottom perfidy is being exposed with each passing day: State Dept employees are losing security clearances for looking the other way about Shrillary’s illegal email server; Obama appointees are being exposed for Spydate sedition; State Dept facilitation of Democrat Uniparty corruption in places like Ukraine are being exposed. Damn straight those people who were involved and who are still at Foggy Bottom are getting nervous! Good!
Y: We are professionals, public servants who by vocation and training pursue the policies of the President, regardless of who holds that office or what party they affiliate with. We handle American Citizen Services, facilitate trade and commerce, work security issues, represent the U.S., and report to and advise Washington, to mention just a few of our functions.
C: More virtue-signaling! They also facilitate corruption involved with US foreign aid, hiding corruption of politically-connected US citizens, and other actions that are decidedly NOT altruistic – as we are indeed finding out in Ukraine.
Y: We are the fifty-two Americans who forty years ago this month began 444 days of deprivation, torture and captivity in Teheran.
C: Conflating her corrupt activities with the honorable service of those Iranian hostages in 1979-80 is disgraceful.
Y: And we are Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Patrick Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty—people rightly called heroes for their ultimate sacrifice to this nation’s foreign policy interests in Libya, eight years ago.
C: This is the ultimate insult! And from a Clinton supporter, no less! Obama and Shrillary were complicit in the deaths of those four Americans, and they’ve never been held to account. And yet Yovanovitch has the audacity to cite them in her closing statement!
Her closing statement finishes with more virtue-signaling. It made me puke. Read more about today’s testimony from my colleague bonchie here.
In my opinion, Yovanovitch is a perfect example of why no US foreign service officer should EVER be appointed as a US ambassador. It has been a bad policy to do that in recent years by presidents of both parties.