1/7 As a historian of US foreign policy, here is why Yovanovich’s testimony is very significant. Presidents sometimes appoint cronies to ambassadorships, but they rarely intervene to push out career foreign service officers who rise to Ambassador, absent major policy conflict.
2/7 The policy conflicts that may lead to a president losing confidence in an ambassador usually take place in the midst of major political transitions or wars. Think Vietnam in the 1960s. Here, Yovanovitch was universally respected, carrying out a deeply entrenched policy.
3/7 A review of embassy cables and higher level documents from the European division of the state department would reveal if there was any dissatisfaction with Yovanovich or major disagreements with her policy positions or reporting. There is almost no reporting this was case.
4/7 As a historian, barring evidence to the contrary, Yovanovich’s firing makes no sense from a policy perspective. So we search for plausible alternative explanations, in this case that Trump was corruptly taking advice from Giuliani Bc Yovanovich wouldn’t play ball re Biden.
5/7 Presidents know that there are professional ambassadors who disagree with them politically. But they rarely intervene in a way that lacks any policy related rationale, as is the case here. Giuliani’s contention that Yovanovich was sacked Bc she disliked Trump is bogus.
6/7 The only way this would matter is if there was a trail of evidence in the form of cables or memorandum of conversation in which the ambassador was publicly or privately criticizing Trump to other Ukrainian officials. And there is no evidence of this.
7/7 There isn’t even evidence that Pompeo had problems with her. Which makes her removal as Ambassador all the more corrupt. Trump removed Yovanovich for reasons that make zero sense bureaucratically, but perfect sense if he’s advancing a corrupt agenda where she was an obstacle.
