What we learned from Yovanovich's testimony was Democrats have been trying to use Ukraine for political purposes since at least the 2004 presidential election. During that election former Amb Holbrooke went to Ukraine as a private citizen on behalf of the Kerry Campaign for Pres.
Holbrooke spoke with numerous Ukrainian officials regarding then President George Bush. Dems brushed this off as "in the past and irrelevant" yet this is exact same thing is what they are accusing Rudy Giulani of doing, except Giulani is actually an attorney representing a client
Holbrooke was not. People are conflating US policy with an attorney conducting discovery because Democrats have been trying to remove President Trump since election day. We also learned that Yovanovich agreed that she could be replaced at any time and for any reason by POTUS.
This would include reasons by Ukrainian officials past and present. At least five senior level Ukrainian officials had spoken out against her. US Ambassadors have been replaced by numerous administrations over complaints by the host nation.
One interesting comments by Yovanovich was when she said, "this prevents FSO's from conducting US foreign policy." Hate to break the news to herr, but FSOs do not create or conduct foreign policy, they execute foreign policy at the direction of the current administration.
She admitted that holdover ambassadors are normally replaced by the new administration, particularly if the administration is from the opposing party. Something we also learned in today's testimony was that the president was already looking to remove her more than a year ago.
She claimed this was when the smear campaign against her started. Is it a smear campaign when the host nation is the source of the 'smear' campaign? At least five senior officials had lodged complaints against her and Rudy Giulani has affidavits to support those accusations.
She often spoke of perceptions. Well, if numerous officials in the host nation perceive you as a bad apple, then that reflects upon her as an ambassador. Keep in mind she was close to people Lushenko , who wrote an op-ed against Trump during the 2016 election.
She was also close to other Ukrainians that had an animosity towards Trump and a pro Clinton stance. So, it would not be surprising that she would make disrespectful remarks about Trump during the campaign or after when speaking with those individuals.
We already learned LTC Vindman was prone to praising Obama while bashing the US when he was in the presence of Russian officials. Yovanovich had a history of wanting lead prosecutors in Ukraine fired, particularly Nazar Kholodnitzky, whom Yovanovich tried to get fired in March 19
We also learned that the US took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC). AntAC is tied to George Soros for those not keeping score.
Daria Kaleniuk is it's co-founder and executive director. Guess who she's affiliated with? Eric Chucklehead.
Something many people are probably unaware of is that Ukraine tried to join NATO during both the Bush and Obama Administrations, but that was finally squashed in 2010 when a pro Russian president was elected to office in Ukraine.
We constantly hear Democrats speak about how important Ukraine is to our national security, but if it were, why did the US not pressure European members into allowing its entry? Could it be because 43% of Ukrainians viewed the NATO alliance as a threat in a poll in May 2008?
While Bush actually did push for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO (not as hard as he could've), Obama made even less effort. That might be why a pro Russian president was elected in 2010 as Ukraine didn't take kindly to the snub.
WaPo article: It's hard not to look back, however, & see Yushchenko's NATO dreams & their failure as a key point in Ukraine's recent history. "We don't want to return back to the Russian security system," Oleksandr Chalyi, a foreign policy adviser to Yushchenko, told Post in 2008
WaPo article continued: If NATO rebuffs Ukraine, he added, it would mean that "the last page of the Cold War is not turned."
Something else we learned (many of us already knew this) was that Ukraine had already received lethal aid from the US during the Trump Administration and that this was the same type of aid that Ukraine was begging for during the Obama Administration in 2014.
Obama Admin refused this aid through the end of Obama's presidency. If Ukraine is so vital to our national security interests why would President Obama refuse to send that aid? During private meetings with Medvedev did Obama give a green light to Russia unintentionally?
Obama stated he'd have more flexibility after 2012 election how did Putin take that when the message was relayed by Medvedev? Remember perception is reality & a US president practically begging Russia not to do something until after an election is certainly not a sign of strength
Why were Democrats not screaming for transcripts of calls after those comments since they are so concerned with inappropriate comments or appearances?
Something we also learned is that Democrats seem to believe an FSO, that happens to be a woman or other government professional could be intimidated by a tweet by the president.
Trump's tweet simply stated an opinion of what he perceives of her career. It may or may not be 100% true, but if she served in places that went to hell in a handbasket, then it does have at least some truth to it.
IF an FSO can be intimidated by a tweet like that, they have no business as an FSO because they are too timid and weak to execute foreign policy under the administration they work for.
