Impeachment Friday Live Blog: Marie Yovanovitch Testifies

Marie YovanovitchHappy Impeachment Friday!!!

 This Politico headline pretty much sums it up:

Trump ousted Yovanovitch. Now, she tells her story.

The former ambassador to Ukraine is delivering key testimony to impeachment investigators about the smear campaign against her.

Yovanovitch, a 30-year veteran of the diplomatic corps, had already been ousted by the time Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. But the circumstances surrounding her departure in May have been a focal point for House impeachment investigators as they seek evidence that Trump abused his office to extract political benefit from a foreign ally — and steamrolled anyone who might thwart him/

“[Yovanovitch] was kneecapped by the grimy political and financial interests of the president and Mr. Giuliani,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview

Maloney added that Yovanovitch was a witness to the early efforts by Giuliani “and saw this develop in real time.”

 

And of course Trump is commiting crimes in public again!

Stay tuned!

Image result for Marie Yavonovitch

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was recalled in the spring amid what she previously described as a “concerted campaign” against her, told lawmakers Friday she did not understand Rudy Giuliani’s “motives for attacking me.”

Yovanovitch’s remarks were part of an opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, has been named by other witnesses in the inquiry as pressing for Yovanovitch’s removal.

The veteran diplomat had testified in a closed hearing on Oct. 11 that she was told by colleagues that the State Department “had been under pressure from the President to remove me since the Summer of 2018.”

Her personal story is extremely compelling and her evidence even more so.


43 Comments on “Impeachment Friday Live Blog: Marie Yovanovitch Testifies”

  1. dakinikat says:

  2. dakinikat says:

  3. RonStill4Hills says:

    Two thing s are driving me crazy:

    1) They are nitpicking “quid pro quo” and bribery, but the clearer “crime” to me is extortion. We want to frame this is terms that anyone can understand. “I’ve got your money, if your ever want to see it follow these instructions.” This was organized crime and should be framed as such.

    2) They keep saying [it that shall not be named] wanted “dirt”, that insinuates that there is dirt to be had. And, that is not what [it that shall not be named] asked for, what [it that shall not be named] wanted was an announcement of an investigation. [it that shall not be named] wanted/needed to be able to be able to say, “Joe Biden (and the 2016 election) is under investigation by the Ukrainian government, let the conspiracy theories commence….” This has nothing to due with proof of wrong doing. The announcement of an investigation is enough to smear [it that shall not be named] rivals.

    Small things but potentially critical in terms of public opinion.

    • dakinikat says:

      I’m not sure any of the Fox News addicts will ever respond to anything remotely resembling the truth no matter what terms it’s put into but if it would persuade a few senators to vote to oust him we should do whatever!

    • quixote says:

      Agree 100%, Ron.

      Quid pro quo actually implies a corrupt transaction between people of approximately equal power. Like bribery. If you don’t bribe an official, you’re not dead. You just don’t get whatever you were after. This wasn’t that.

      This was, “Do what I want or get kneecapped.” That IS extortion. I don’t know why Dems insist on pussyfooting around with euphemisms.

      As for Hunter, what you mention was my first thought. Dump is demanding the *manufacture* of dirt, not the discovery of it. Again, Dems politely shading the truth so it doesn’t look so bad. Why? Why, why why?

      (It has to be said that Biden allowing his son to trade on his, Biden Sr.’s, position to get a super-lucrative quango from the Ukrainians *is* corruption, and of a pretty high order. It’s not illegal. But it is why the smell of dirt around this whole thing seems so plausible to the rank and file.

      I haven’t seen Biden Sr own his lapse of judgement or apologize for it, which would help draw a line between the kind of shit Ivanka pulls and what his son did.)

      • bostonboomer says:

        I think the “bribe” would be Trump promising a White House visit in return for “investigations.” But I agree that it’s extortion. Impeachment doesn’t require a crime though.

        I agree that Biden allowing his son to trade on his name was a wrong, and I believe Obama asked him not to do it. Unfortunately, that isn’t illegal. Of course Trump calling attention to someone else doing that is a joke.

      • RonStill4Hills says:

        I have always thought that Hunter’s presence on the board of Burisma was basically, “OK, so who’s word will Obama, the State Dept, Congress, the press, believe? Who can vouch for us?
        If we put Joe Biden’s son on the board, give him access to all the books, and he gives us a clean bill of health, will that be enough to keep us out of the sanctions zone.”

        They needed somebody who WE would accept as in the tank for us, not in the tank for the kleptocrats. And let’s face it 50K per month sound like a lot to us but it is only 600K a year. That is chump change in Jared and Ivanka world.

        I agree that it looks crooked as hell, but I also think there was an actually legitimate reason for it.

        • quixote says:

          Dunno, Ron. Paying somebody’s relatives a vast sum (US$600,000 is *vast* in Ukraine) to network you into power is generally considered kind of corrupt. Not illegal, but smelly. It’s why there are anti-nepotism rules. Although those seem to be applied much more stringently to women than people like Mr H Biden.

          So, I’m not sure legitimate is the right word. Logical, rational, effective: yes.

          Also, given the level of corruption in all (?) the former Soviet Socialist Republics, giving $600,000 to Hunter is equivalent to buying chocolates after dark. Barely registers.

          • RonStill4Hills says:

            Fair enough. I should have said there are plausible explanation that do not involve payoffs and corruption.

            It stinks of privilege and lucky sperm club no doubt.

            I don’t know a thing about Hunter and I don’t want Uncle Creeper McFeely to be president, but I hunk that he is being sacrifice on the altar of Tin Foil Hat wearing neo-confederates.

          • quixote says:

            Agree Hunter is just collateral damage to conservadroids. If they cared a microhoot about corruption, Repubs would have a totally different party.

        • dakinikat says:

          every corporation has its share of deadwood big names on their boards …

  4. bostonboomer says:

    Roger Stone has been found guilty.

  5. bostonboomer says:

  6. dakinikat says:

  7. bostonboomer says:

  8. dakinikat says:

  9. bostonboomer says:

  10. dakinikat says:

    is this signaling a pardon ?

  11. dakinikat says:

  12. dakinikat says:

  13. dakinikat says:

  14. dakinikat says:

  15. dakinikat says:

  16. dakinikat says:

  17. dakinikat says: