Marie Yovanovitch tells Chris Stewart: No info that Trump committed crime

She wasn't fired. She was recalled from Ukraine and granted a Senior State Dept Fellowship at Georgetown University.

 

And she was replaced by who?

 

Yea If your really a lawyer I would be shocked as much as you believe hearsay should change an Presidential election. Your either the worst lawyer in the world if you believe what you right about third hand hearsay equals a guilty verdict or your so partisan that you overlook your own professional knowledge.

 

Temporarily by Ambassador Taylor.

 

Exactly. Taylor, the one who would not help Trump. Get it?

 

Taylor's testimony made it clear that when he arrived in Ukraine, the Trump goal of having the Ukrainian President pursue the investigations of Biden and the 2016 election was in the hands of Ambassador Sondland and Giuliani. The prior Ambassador had left almost two months previously, immediately following the new Ukrainian President's election. The Embassy was being run by an "acting ambassador," whom I don't think has been interviewed as of now.

 

OK, that's a valid point, but it does not refute that recalling Yovanovitch served no illicit purposes for Trump.

 

Ambassadorships are cush jobs, that is why donors most often get them.

 

I'll wait for the rest of the testimonies. IMO, they figured they could bluff through a demand to the new President for the investigations. They had to get Yovanovitch out of the way, because they knew she would expose the conspiracy. Pompeo wasn't directly involved, but stood aside and appointed a reasonable replacement, Taylor, on a temporary basis. The Trump/Giuliani/Sondland/Mulvaney/Perry group were runn in g a back-channel scam and knew they had a limited "window of opportunity" of a few months in which to create sufficient pressure to force Zelenskiy to publicly commit to the investigations, thinking that the aid could be withheld indefinitely. That scam would have ended at the end of the FY 2019, when they would have had to go to Congress and explain why they hadn't furnished the aid in FY 2019.
Might have worked...if it hadn't been for the Whistle Blower, who exposed the scam, forcing the release of the tel-con transcript and the release of the funding, just prior to Zelenskiy's "public interview." I think the testimony last week may may just scratched the surface of a plan to: 1) obtain "evidence," per the Crowdstrike Conspiracy theory, of Ukrainian involvement and Russian innocence in the 2016 election; 2) dirt on Joe Biden; and 3) a possible oil deal for Rudy and Friends.

 

She became entrenched in the "Deep State" as many of them have and felt "entitled". The unelected "State Department" wants to run the show and doesn't want any input from the lowly elected officials.

 

Depends on the post. Wasn't so "cushy" for Christopher Stevens. The donors get the choosy ones...such as Sondland got...EU Ambassador. The hardships posts or the sensitive ones go to the pros, or people with extensive experience in government and diplomacy.

 

The entrenched bureaucrats did not like that the President directs foreign policy and that foreign policy might affect their inflated image of themselves and their importance.

 

Yeah, but the left are much more concerned about Yovanovitch's feewings than they were concerned about Stevens.

 

That's crazy talk.

 

Exactly what is happening so it is crazy.

 

Sounds like vague BS. No specifics?

 

He also testified that he met with the Ukrainian President 3 times after the call and one the very next day to discuss the aid and guess what, not one time did he bring up any investigations much less that they would get to work on them to get paid. He testified he didn't even know the money was held up....

 

No...not all of us are crazy.

 

He meant 'accept'.

 

I figured it out. Still not a claim based in facts.

 

The scam didn't work. Once it was exposed by the WB, the money had to be released. Once it was released, there was no necessity for a public announcement of the investigations. Zelenskiy out negotiated the President.

 

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the new statement, which was made public by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony

 

If you want to get more first hand testimony, then join Democrats by demanding that Trump stop stonewalling and permit the testimony of individuals like Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani, and Perry.

Impeachment is not a legal proceeding and politicians are perfectly within their right to listen to and accept hearsay as a justification for their impeachment vote. Also does not change the Presidential election.

 

LOL... Cause you wish...

 

You seem reasonable. Have you read this article from 2017 Politico?

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

After reading this, do you think there is something to Trump wanting to investigate Ukrainian corruption?