Jump to content

Marie Yovanovitch ....just wow


aubiefifty

Recommended Posts

Yahoo

MARY CLARE JALONICK, ERIC TUCKER and LISA MASCARO,

8-10 minutes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Laying out the anatomy of a chilling smear campaign, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch told House investigators in a transcript released Monday that Ukrainian officials had warned her in advance that Rudy Giuliani and other allies of President Donald Trump were planning to "do things, including to me" and were "looking to hurt" her.

The former envoy, who was pushed out of her job in May on Trump's orders, testified that a senior Ukrainian official told her that "I really needed to watch my back."

While the major thrust of Yovanovitch's testimony had come out on the day she testified behind closed doors last month in the impeachment inquiry, Monday's 317-page transcript provided new details about the bewildering sequence of events that led to the career diplomat's ouster. Her account started with the warnings from Ukrainian officials and then led legislators through various attempts to badmouth her both in Ukraine and the U.S.

The emotion behind her nine hours of testimony was evident. At one point, when Yovanovitch returned from a short break, one of her questioners told her, "We understand this is a difficult and emotional topic."

Yovanovitch also offered significant new threads of information — including the potential that Trump was directly involved in a phone call with Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, and the Ukrainians dating back to January 2018 — while pushing back on Republican questions suggesting that she harbored opposition to Trump.

She had been recalled from Kyiv before the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that's at the center of the impeachment inquiry but was "surprised and dismayed" by what she understood from the transcript of the call.

Yovanovitch told investigators that she was shocked to learn Trump had called her "bad news" in the phone call, adding that she felt threatened and perplexed by his remark that she was "going to go through some things." The diplomat added that she worried that her job and pension could be at risk but that "so far," she wasn't concerned about her personal safety although "a number of my friends are very concerned."

Yovanovitch was recalled from Kyiv as Giuliani pressed Ukrainian officials to investigate baseless corruption allegations against Democrat Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who was involved with Burisma, a gas company there.

Giuliani's role in Ukraine was central to Yovanovitch's testimony. She said she was aware of an interest by Giuliani and his associates in investigating Biden and Burisma "with a view to finding things that could be possibly damaging to a Presidential run," as well as investigating the 2016 election and theories of Ukraine interference instead of Russian interference.

Asked directly if Giuliani was promoting investigations on Burisma and Biden, Yovanovitch said, "It wasn't entirely clear to me what was going on."

More directly, she drew a link between Giuliani and two businessmen -- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who have been indicted in the U.S. on charges stemming from campaign donations they made to U.S. politicians with foreign money -- as part of the campaign to oust her. She understood they were looking to expand their business interests in Ukraine "and that they needed a better ambassador to sort of facilitate their business' efforts here."

Yovanovitch she said was told by Ukrainian officials last November or December that Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, was in touch with Ukraine's former top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, "and that they had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me."

She said she was told Lutsenko "was looking to hurt me in the U.S."

At one point in April, Yovanovitch said she received a call from Carol Perez, a top foreign service official, at around 1 a.m. Ukraine time, abruptly telling her she needed to immediately fly back to Washington. Yovanovitch said when she asked why, Perez told her, "I don't know, but this is about your security. You need to come home immediately. You need to come home on the next plane."

Yovanovitch said she didn't think Perez meant it was to protect her physical security. Instead, Yovanovitch said, Perez told her it was for "my well-being, people were concerned."

The diplomat said she sought advice from Gordon Sondland, Trump's ambassador to the European Union, after an article appeared in The Hill newspaper about Giuliani's complaints against her and Sondland told her, "'You need to go big or go home," advising her to "tweet out there that you support the president."

Yovanovitch said she felt she could not follow that advice.

The former envoy stressed to investigators that she was not disloyal to the president.

"I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told our embassy team to ignore the President's orders since he was going to be impeached," she said. "That allegation is false."

She answered "no" when asked point blank if she'd ever "badmouthed" Trump in Ukraine, and said she felt U.S. policy in Ukraine "actually got stronger" because of Trump's decision to provide lethal assistance to the country, military aid that later was held up by the White House as it pushed for investigations into Trump's political foes.

Under friendly questioning from Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Yovanovitch said she considered herself good at her job and had been there more than three years and that her bosses at the State Department wanted to extend her tour.

"It seems to me they threw you to the wolves. Is that what happened?" Maloney asked.

Yovanovitch replied: "Well, clearly, they didn't want me in Ukraine anymore."

Long hours into her testimony, Yovanovitch was asked why she was such "a thorn in their side" that Giuliani and others wanted her fired.

"Honestly," she said, "it's a mystery to me."

Yovanovitch, still employed by the State Department, is doing a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Yovanovitch told the investigators that the campaign against her, which included an article that was retweeted by Donald Trump Jr., undermined her ability to serve as a "credible" ambassador and she wanted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to issue a statement defending her. But no statement was issued.

The impeachment panels also released testimony Monday from Michael McKinley , a former senior adviser to Pompeo.

McKinley, a 37-year veteran career diplomat, testified that he decided to resign from his post as a senior adviser to Pompeo after his repeated efforts to get the State Department to issue a statement of support for Yovanovitch after the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call was released. "To see the impugning of somebody I know to be a serious, committed colleague in the manner that it was done raised alarm bells for me," he said.

McKinley said he was already concerned about politicization at the State Department and that the refusal to publicly back Yovanovitch convinced him it was time to leave. "To see the emerging information on the engagement of our missions to procure negative political information for domestic purposes, combined with the failure I saw in the building to provide support for our professional cadre in a particularly trying time, I think the combination was a pretty good reason to decide enough, that I had no longer a useful role to play," he said. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says the panels are releasing the transcripts so "the American public will begin to see for themselves."

Republicans have called for the release of the transcripts as Democrats have held the initial interviews in private, though Republican lawmakers have been present for those closed-door meetings.

___

AP writers Nancy Benac, Matthew Daly, Alan Fram, Ben Fox and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





trump is a con man and a crook. do some research and quit listening to hannity and those cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For impeachment to have even a scintilla of legitimacy, it must be broadly bipartisan. That’s not my opinion, it was the standard Democrats held until recently.

Pelosi told the Washington Post, “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” A year earlier she said, “Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens, it has to be a bipartisan initiative.”

Nadler himself said, “There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

For impeachment to have even a scintilla of legitimacy, it must be broadly bipartisan. That’s not my opinion, it was the standard Democrats held until recently.

Pelosi told the Washington Post, “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” A year earlier she said, “Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens, it has to be a bipartisan initiative.”

Nadler himself said, “There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”

Legitimacy of our political institutions is gone. That’s why we are talking impeachment. The chicken didn’t come before the egg....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, alexava said:

Legitimacy of our political institutions is gone. That’s why we are talking impeachment. The chicken didn’t come before the egg....

I respectfully disagree. This is merely a moment in time. Dems will regroup with leaders of integrity unlike the current crop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2019 at 3:23 PM, aubiefifty said:

trump is a con man and a crook. do some research and quit listening to hannity and those cats.

I absolutely don't disagree with you. But I would love to read YOUR thoughts about Trump. These are intended to be a serious questions:

What specifically did Trump do regarding collusion with Russia and what evidence was present that warranted an investigation?

What specifically did Trump do regarding quid pro quo and withholding aid to Ukraine for personal benefit and what evidence is present that he did so?

I think Trump is a vile person and I wish he was not POTUS, but I still think these investigation are a farce. What is an impeachment INQUIRY? Is there a precedent for that? To me it seems like the Dems want to have hearings but they know they don't have enough evidence for actual impeachment so they create a new term so that us morons will think he has done something worthy of impeachment without suffering the humiliation of a failed vote. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

I absolutely don't disagree with you. But I would love to read YOUR thoughts about Trump. These are intended to be a serious questions:

What specifically did Trump do regarding collusion with Russia and what evidence was present that warranted an investigation?

What specifically did Trump do regarding quid pro quo and withholding aid to Ukraine for personal benefit and what evidence is present that he did so?

I think Trump is a vile person and I wish he was not POTUS, but I still think these investigation are a farce. What is an impeachment INQUIRY? Is there a precedent for that? To me it seems like the Dems want to have hearings but they know they don't have enough evidence for actual impeachment so they create a new term so that us morons will think he has done something worthy of impeachment without suffering the humiliation of a failed vote. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I’m sorry, but your questions suggest you’ve avoided learning easily available facts. What’s an impeachment inquiry? 😳

Roger Stone’s ongoing trial is revealing collusion info. Read the depositions from nonpolitical appointees on the Ukraine investigation. Citizenship requires a little effort.

I’ll help you get started:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/03/775152421/fact-check-is-the-trump-impeachment-process-different-from-nixon-and-clinton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

I absolutely don't disagree with you. But I would love to read YOUR thoughts about Trump. These are intended to be a serious questions:

What specifically did Trump do regarding collusion with Russia and what evidence was present that warranted an investigation?

What specifically did Trump do regarding quid pro quo and withholding aid to Ukraine for personal benefit and what evidence is present that he did so?

I think Trump is a vile person and I wish he was not POTUS, but I still think these investigation are a farce. What is an impeachment INQUIRY? Is there a precedent for that? To me it seems like the Dems want to have hearings but they know they don't have enough evidence for actual impeachment so they create a new term so that us morons will think he has done something worthy of impeachment without suffering the humiliation of a failed vote. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

You mean aside from outright admitting to an attempt at extortion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You mean aside from outright admitting to an attempt at extortion? 

Yeah, besides that. No facts are ever enough for Grumps. He has an amazing ability to ignore them while sounding otherwise open minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m sorry, but your questions suggest you’ve avoided learning easily available facts. What’s an impeachment inquiry? 😳

Roger Stone’s ongoing trial is revealing collusion info. Read the depositions from nonpolitical appointees on the Ukraine investigation. Citizenship requires a little effort.

I’ll help you get started:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/03/775152421/fact-check-is-the-trump-impeachment-process-different-from-nixon-and-clinton

Did you read my post? I was curious about aubiefifty's opinions. I don't care about yours. But thanks anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Yeah, besides that. No facts are ever enough for Grumps. He has an amazing ability to ignore them while sounding otherwise open minded.

At least you are consistent. I will send aubiefifty a PM next time I want his opinion so as not to trigger you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Did you read my post? I was curious about aubiefifty's opinions. I don't care about yours. But thanks anyway.

You’re on a forum, ❄️.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re on a forum, ❄️.

That's right. I forgot. Can you provide a link to the "impeachment inquiry" for Nixon and Clinton? I am having trouble finding any info on either one.

By the way, can you also provide a link that supports your view that citizenship requires a little effort. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Grumps said:

At least you are consistent. I will send aubiefifty a PM next time I want his opinion so as not to trigger you.

I used to fall for your game since you seem sincere. You need new folks less familiar with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

That's right. I forgot. Can you provide a link to the "impeachment inquiry" for Nixon and Clinton? I am having trouble finding any info on either one.

Of course you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I used to fall for your game since you seem sincere. You need new folks less familiar with it.

Okay, let's engage. Was there an "impeachment inquiry" for Nixon or Clinton? Do you disagree that the term is just a made up political term to try to attach "impeachment" to Trump? Do YOU think that Trump colluded with Russia to alter the 2016 election? Do YOU think that Trumps phone call with Ukraine's president was an impeachable offense?

You won't give direct answers to questions like these, so I don't ask for your opinion or care about your non-answers. aubiefifty is more honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

Okay, let's engage. Was there an "impeachment inquiry" for Nixon or Clinton?

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

Look up Clinton yourself

Quote

Do you disagree that the term is just a made up political term to try to attach "impeachment" to Trump?

As an informed person, of course I disagree with that crazy , cultist crap.

 
Quote

Do YOU think that Trump colluded with Russia to alter the 2016 election?

.

 

Absolutely

Quote

Do YOU think that Trumps phone call with Ukraine's president was an impeachable offense?

It was one episode in a sustained bribery effort to use approved military aid as a bargaining chip to gain a purely person political favor. It subverted US national interest for Trump’s. It is exactly the type of offense our founders considered impeachable.

 

Quote

You won't give direct answers to questions like these, so I don't ask for your opinion or care about your non-answers. aubiefifty is more honest.

I’ve given you direct answers for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Grumps said:

I absolutely don't disagree with you. But I would love to read YOUR thoughts about Trump. These are intended to be a serious questions:

What specifically did Trump do regarding collusion with Russia and what evidence was present that warranted an investigation?

What specifically did Trump do regarding quid pro quo and withholding aid to Ukraine for personal benefit and what evidence is present that he did so?

I think Trump is a vile person and I wish he was not POTUS, but I still think these investigation are a farce. What is an impeachment INQUIRY? Is there a precedent for that? To me it seems like the Dems want to have hearings but they know they don't have enough evidence for actual impeachment so they create a new term so that us morons will think he has done something worthy of impeachment without suffering the humiliation of a failed vote. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

well you realize the repubs have yet to turn over the full mueller report right?yep. according to the law it was supposed to be turned over in full to congress and then congress would investigate or drop it completely. as for trump blackmailing ukraine for the goods on biden i do believe it. jesus grumps. trump was just ordered to pay two mil to folks his personal charity screwed folks on including vets. you know this right? fox will not tell you these things. you know why trump wants the hwistle blowers name? so he can smear him to try and win public support. there are fixing to be a bunch of folks going to jail and rudy is one of them. the only way trump avoids jail in my humble opinion is if he wins in 20/20. and if you want to talk farce what about impeaching a pres over sex with a girlfriend. that should have been between him,hill,monica, and god. tell ya what grumps you watch the impeachment hearings next week and learn something. it is not a farce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

At least you are consistent. I will send aubiefifty a PM next time I want his opinion so as not to trigger you.

thank you for that grumps. i am very honest. and i miss a lot. i am not always right but i promise you it is not because i am a crook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

well you realize the repubs have yet to turn over the full mueller report right?yep. according to the law it was supposed to be turned over in full to congress and then congress would investigate or drop it completely. as for trump blackmailing ukraine for the goods on biden i do believe it. jesus grumps. trump was just ordered to pay two mil to folks his personal charity screwed folks on including vets. you know this right? fox will not tell you these things. you know why trump wants the hwistle blowers name? so he can smear him to try and win public support. there are fixing to be a bunch of folks going to jail and rudy is one of them. the only way trump avoids jail in my humble opinion is if he wins in 20/20. and if you want to talk farce what about impeaching a pres over sex with a girlfriend. that should have been between him,hill,monica, and god. tell ya what grumps you watch the impeachment hearings next week and learn something. it is not a farce

I have said many times that I think Trump is pathetic. But being pathetic is not an impeachable offense. I think that Russia intentionally posted false "news" articles to help Trump, but I don't know what Trump had to do with that. EVERYONE knows the whistleblower's name. Of course they are going to try to smear him. Unfortunately, that is politics. What do you think that Trump will go to jail for?

I agree with you about Clinton, though, the fact that she was an intern and he had influence over her changes the situation somewhat. But I don't see how his affair with Monica should have been included in Starr's investigation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will be interested in what comes out in the hearings, but I don't much believe what any of the politicians say. I do like to hear the opinions of people on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Grumps said:

I have said many times that I think Trump is pathetic. But being pathetic is not an impeachable offense. I think that Russia intentionally posted false "news" articles to help Trump, but I don't know what Trump had to do with that. EVERYONE knows the whistleblower's name. Of course they are going to try to smear him. Unfortunately, that is politics. What do you think that Trump will go to jail for?

I agree with you about Clinton, though, the fact that she was an intern and he had influence over her changes the situation somewhat. But I don't see how his affair with Monica should have been included in Starr's investigation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will be interested in what comes out in the hearings, but I don't much believe what any of the politicians say. I do like to hear the opinions of people on this board.

he broke the law grumps. shrugs it will come out soon.  if i eat crow because i am wrong so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2019 at 7:42 PM, aubiefifty said:

well you realize the repubs have yet to turn over the full mueller report right?yep. according to the law it was supposed to be turned over in full to congress and then congress would investigate or drop it completely. as for trump blackmailing ukraine for the goods on biden i do believe it. jesus grumps. trump was just ordered to pay two mil to folks his personal charity screwed folks on including vets. you know this right? fox will not tell you these things. you know why trump wants the hwistle blowers name? so he can smear him to try and win public support. there are fixing to be a bunch of folks going to jail and rudy is one of them. the only way trump avoids jail in my humble opinion is if he wins in 20/20. and if you want to talk farce what about impeaching a pres over sex with a girlfriend. that should have been between him,hill,monica, and god. tell ya what grumps you watch the impeachment hearings next week and learn something. it is not a farce

Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2019 at 12:29 PM, jj3jordan said:

it is not a farce

Sure it is....people like Schiff and various State Dept diplomats who routinely lie to other governments....and to the US  public and even to congress while under oath will tell whatever story that will advance their political or personal agendas.  ....and rarely will these professional liars be called to account.   I mean for example, yesterday AS said he did not know the name of the "whistleblower".....and does anyone believe that tale which is just the latest in a series of misleading statements from him? .    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AU64 said:

Sure it is....people like Schiff and various State Dept diplomats who routinely lie to other governments....and to the US  public and even to congress while under oath will tell whatever story that will advance their political or personal agendas.  ....and rarely will these professional liars be called to account.   I mean for example, yesterday AS said he did not know the name of the "whistleblower".....and does anyone believe that tale which is just the latest in a series of misleading statements from him? .    

Don’t disagree with you especially AS but did I say what you quoted me? “it is not a farce”. I don’t remember where or when I said it but I cant find that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...