This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/marie-yovanovitch-testimony.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Marie Yovanovitch, Ex-Ukraine Envoy Ousted by Trump, Says She Feels Intimidated by Him Marie Yovanovitch, Ex-Ukraine Envoy Ousted by Trump, Says She Feels Intimidated by Him
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The former United States ambassador to Ukraine told the House impeachment inquiry on Friday that she felt threatened by President Trump and “shocked, appalled, devastated” that he vilified her in a call with a foreign leader, as Mr. Trump attacked her in real time on Twitter, drawing a stern warning about witness intimidation from Democrats. WASHINGTON — The former United States ambassador to Ukraine told the House impeachment inquiry on Friday that she felt threatened by President Trump and “shocked, appalled, devastated” that he vilified her in a call with another foreign leader, as Mr. Trump attacked her in real time on Twitter, drawing a stern warning about witness intimidation from Democrats.
The extraordinary back-and-forth unfolded on the second day of public impeachment hearings, only the third in modern history, as Marie L. Yovanovitch, who was ousted as the envoy in Ukraine on Mr. Trump’s orders, detailed an unsettling campaign by Mr. Trump’s allies to undermine her as she pushed to promote democracy and the rule of law in Ukraine. The extraordinary back-and-forth unfolded on the second day of public impeachment hearings as Marie L. Yovanovitch, who was ousted as the envoy to Ukraine on Mr. Trump’s orders, detailed an unsettling campaign by the president’s allies to undermine her as she pushed to promote democracy and the rule of law.
In deeply personal terms that put a human face on the president’s pressure campaign on Ukraine, Ms. Yovanovitch described to the House Intelligence Committee how Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, worked hand in hand with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to circumvent official channels, smear her and push her out of her job. Her testimony, in a packed and hushed House Ways and Means Committee Room, was an indictment of foreign policy in the Trump era, outlining the harm to American diplomacy and national security from a president who embraced false claims to target his own officials representing the United States overseas. In deeply personal terms, Ms. Yovanovitch described to the House Intelligence Committee how Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, worked hand in hand with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to circumvent official channels, smear her and push her out of her job.
Her testimony came amid only the third impeachment inquiry in modern United States history. It drew a spontaneous standing ovation and a loud round of applause from spectators, and capped a revealing first week of public hearings as Democrats seek to make their case that Mr. Trump abused his power to enlist Ukraine’s help in discrediting his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week called it “bribery,” echoing the language in the Constitution that describes impeachable offenses.
Shortly after Ms. Yovanovitch finished speaking, another witness revealed a potentially crucial episode in the impeachment inquiry. An official from the United States Embassy in Kiev told investigators in a private interview that he overheard a call in July between Mr. Trump and Gordon D. Sondland, a Trump ally and the ambassador to the European Union, in which the president loudly asked about “investigations” he sought from Ukraine, according to three people familiar with the closed-door session.
The official, David Holmes — who worked for Ms. Yovanovitch in Kiev — overheard Mr. Sondland telling Mr. Trump that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine “loves your ass,” and would conduct the investigations and do “anything you ask him to,” according to two of the people, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not have authorization to describe the testimony. Mr. Holmes testified that Mr. Sondland told him afterward that the president cared more about the investigations, which affected him personally, than he did about Ukraine.
Ms. Yovanovitch’s public testimony, which played out over more than five hours in a packed and hushed House Ways and Means Committee Room, was an indictment of foreign policy in the Trump era, outlining the harm to American diplomacy and national security by a president who embraced false claims to target his own officials representing the United States overseas.
“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, at the very moment that Ms. Yovanovitch was testifying about having felt threatened by the president. “She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, at the very moment that Ms. Yovanovitch was testifying about having felt threatened by the president. “She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”
Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, interrupted his counsel’s questioning to read the president’s words aloud to Ms. Yovanovitch. There were audible gasps in the stately hearing room as he did so, and asked Ms. Yovanovitch for her reaction. Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, interrupted his counsel’s questioning to read the president’s words aloud to Ms. Yovanovitch and to ask for her reaction. There were audible gasps in the room as he did so.
“It’s very intimidating,” she replied, taken aback.“It’s very intimidating,” she replied, taken aback.
To that, Mr. Schiff replied gravely, “Some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”To that, Mr. Schiff replied gravely, “Some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”
Democrats said the president’s comments were clear attempts by Mr. Trump to intimidate a crucial witness in the impeachment inquiry and do the same to others who might yet come forward, arguing that they could constitute grounds for an article of impeachment against Mr. Trump. Democrats said Mr. Trump’s comments were clear attempts by the president to intimidate a crucial witness in the impeachment inquiry and do the same to others who might yet come forward. They argued that the comments could constitute grounds for an article of impeachment against Mr. Trump.
At the White House, Mr. Trump angrily denied the charge.At the White House, Mr. Trump angrily denied the charge.
“I want freedom of speech,” he told reporters, lashing out at Democrats for conducting what he called an unfair impeachment process.“I want freedom of speech,” he told reporters, lashing out at Democrats for conducting what he called an unfair impeachment process.
“It’s considered a joke all over Washington and all over the world,” Mr. Trump said of the proceedings, claiming after hours of tweeting about it that he had only watched “a little bit” of the hearing. “It’s considered a joke all over Washington and all over the world,” Mr. Trump said of the proceedings, claiming after hours of tweeting about it that he had watched only “a little bit” of the hearing. His press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, later issued a statement deeming the session “useless and inconsequential,” and saying it had produced “zero evidence of any wrongdoing by the president.”
Ms. Yovanovitch's testimony, which drew a loud round of applause after she finished, capped a revealing first week of public hearings in the inquiry, as Democrats seek to make their case that Mr. Trump abused his power to enlist Ukraine’s help in discrediting his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week called it “bribery,” echoing the language in the Constitution that describes impeachable offenses. Determined to avoid looking as if they were bullying Ms. Yovanovitch, Republicans gave the lone Republican woman on the committee, Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, a prominent role in questioning her. Unlike the president, they refrained from attacking Ms. Yovanovitch, even as they dismissed her as irrelevant to the allegations at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.
Ms. Yovanovitch’s testimony did not go precisely to the heart of that allegation; she was gone from Ukraine by the time of the July 25 telephone call in which Mr. Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to “do us a favor” and look into Mr. Biden and his son Hunter. Representative Devin Nunes of California, the ranking Republican on the committee, called her removal an “employment disagreement.” Other Republicans argued that her removal did not change American policy, that her career was not permanently damaged and that the president had well-founded reasons to be concerned about corruption in Ukraine.
But Mr. Trump brought up Ms. Yovanovitch during that call, shortly after he praised a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been at odds with Ms. Yovanovitch over her efforts to root out corruption, and shortly before he asked Mr. Zelensky about the Bidens. Mr. Trump called her “bad news,” and said she was going to “go through some things,” a comment that Ms. Yovanovitch told the committee had taken her breath away when she read a reconstructed transcript of the call. Still, the session was tense at times, as Republicans — who have for weeks accused Mr. Schiff of running roughshod over them — made parliamentary points that the chairman, banging his gavel, repeatedly ruled out of order. And Ms. Yovanovitch, soft-spoken and calm, showed little hesitation in challenging her Republican interrogators.
She testified that the color drained from her face and that she was, “shocked, appalled, devastated that the president of the United States would talk about any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state — and it was me. I mean, I couldn’t believe it.” “I do wonder why it was necessary to smear my reputation,” she said at one point, addressing Representative Brad Wenstrup, Republican of Ohio, noting that Mr. Trump had the authority to remove her at will.
Mr. Wenstrup cut her off, saying, “Well I wasn’t asking you about that, so thank you very much, ma’am.”
Ms. Yovanovitch’s testimony did not go precisely to the heart of the Democrats’ case against Mr. Trump; she had left Ukraine by the time Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky in a phone call on July 25 to “do us a favor” and look into Mr. Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But Democrats argued that there was a direct line between Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster and Mr. Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign.
Mr. Trump, they noted, brought up Ms. Yovanovitch himself during the call — shortly after he praised a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who had balked at her efforts to root out corruption, and shortly before he raised the Bidens. The president told Mr. Zelensky that she was “bad news,” and said that she was going to “go through some things,” a comment that Ms. Yovanovitch told the committee had taken her breath away when she read a reconstructed transcript of the call.
She testified that the color drained from her face and that she was “shocked, appalled, devastated that the president of the United States would talk about any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state — and it was me. I mean, I couldn’t believe it.”
“It sounded like a threat,” Ms. Yovanovitch added.“It sounded like a threat,” Ms. Yovanovitch added.
Her experience set the stage for what happened in the crucial months that followed. In an impassioned defense of the State Department and the career Foreign Service officers who work — and sometimes give their lives — to advance the interests of the United States, Ms. Yovanovitch recounted how she became the target of a smear campaign led by Mr. Giuliani, two of his associates — Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who have since been indicted — and the right-wing news media. Ms. Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine abruptly in May. She told lawmakers that she learned she was being pulled back two months earlier than planned from the deputy secretary of state John J. Sullivan, who called her while she was hosting an “International Women of Courage” event honoring a Ukrainian anticorruption activist who died after having acid thrown at her.
She said Mr. Sullivan relayed “words that every Foreign Service officer understands: ‘The president has lost confidence in you.’”
“That was a terrible thing to hear,” she added.
In an impassioned defense of the State Department and the career Foreign Service officers who work — and sometimes give their lives — to advance the interests of the United States, Ms. Yovanovitch recounted the months that preceded her ouster. During that time, she became the target of a smear campaign led by Mr. Giuliani, two of his associates — Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who have since been indicted on a scheme to violate campaign finance laws — and the right-wing news media.
She spoke of her astonishment at how the men, working with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who opposed her efforts to promote the rule of law in the country, were ultimately able to turn Mr. Trump against her.She spoke of her astonishment at how the men, working with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who opposed her efforts to promote the rule of law in the country, were ultimately able to turn Mr. Trump against her.
“Perhaps it was not surprising that when our anti-corruption efforts got in the way of the desire for profit or power, Ukrainians who preferred to play by the old, corrupt rules sought to remove me,” Ms. Yovanovitch said “What continues to amaze me is that they found Americans willing to partner with them and, working together, they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of a U.S. ambassador.” “Perhaps it was not surprising that when our anticorruption efforts got in the way of the desire for profit or power, Ukrainians who preferred to play by the old, corrupt rules sought to remove me,” Ms. Yovanovitch said. “What continues to amaze me is that they found Americans willing to partner with them and, working together, they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of the U.S. ambassador.”
“How could our system fail like this?” she wondered aloud. “How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government?”“How could our system fail like this?” she wondered aloud. “How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government?”
Known as Masha to her friends, Ms. Yovanovitch, a Canadian immigrant whose parents fled the Soviet Union and Nazis, was known as a vigorous fighter against corruption in Ukraine. She has become a hero to her colleagues in the diplomatic corps (a hashtag #GoMasha has sprung up on Twitter), who say what happened to her did not simply damage a single person’s reputation and career, but was also a blow to American foreign policy. And when her State Department colleagues pressed for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to issue a statement defending her, she testified, they were rebuffed because of “concerns on the seventh floor” — the floor where Mr. Pompeo has his suite of offices — that it could be undermined by Mr. Trump in a tweet.
Republicans argued that Ms. Yovanovitch is, essentially, irrelevant to the inquiry, because she left before the July 25 call and because ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, who may recall them for any reason. And they tried to prove an unsubstantiated theory that Ukrainian officials conspired with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to interfere in the 2016 election at Mr. Trump’s expense. But Ms. Yovanovitch cast her own personal ordeal as far less important than the sweeping implications Mr. Trump’s actions had for the United States’ national security and the delicate balance of geopolitical forces operating in and around Ukraine, a struggling democracy and “battleground for great power competition” ever since the Russians invaded five years ago.
With the right support from the United States, Ms. Yovanovitch testified, Ukraine “could move out of Russia’s orbit.” But she said it was even more critical that Ukraine root out the lasting Soviet legacy of corruption, which undercuts the country’s reliability as a strategic and trading partner of the United States — and only strengthens the hand of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
Known as Masha to her friends, Ms. Yovanovitch, a Canadian immigrant whose parents fled the Soviet Union and Nazis, was known as a vigorous fighter against corruption in Ukraine. She has become a hero to her colleagues in the diplomatic corps, and the hashtag #GoMasha has sprung up on Twitter.
Republicans did not try to undercut her credibility, but they did try to prove an unsubstantiated theory that Ukrainian officials conspired with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to interfere in the election at Mr. Trump’s expense.
Ms. Yovanovitch pushed back on the assertion.Ms. Yovanovitch pushed back on the assertion.
“We all know that people are critical,” she said after Steve Castor, a lawyer for the Republicans, pointed to disparaging statements that a Ukrainian official had made about Mr. Trump during the campaign. “That does not mean that someone, or a government, is undermining either a campaign or interfering in elections.”“We all know that people are critical,” she said after Steve Castor, a lawyer for the Republicans, pointed to disparaging statements that a Ukrainian official had made about Mr. Trump during the campaign. “That does not mean that someone, or a government, is undermining either a campaign or interfering in elections.”
“And I would just remind you again,” she went on, “that our own U.S. intelligence community has conclusively determined that those who interfered in the election were Russian.” “And I would just remind you again,” she went on, “that our own U.S. intelligence community has conclusively determined that those who interfered in the election were in Russia.”
Ms. Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine abruptly in May, two months earlier than planned. She told lawmakers that she learned she was being pulled back from the deputy secretary of state John J. Sullivan, who called her while she was hosting an “International Woman of Courage” event honoring a Ukrainian anticorruption activist who died after having acid thrown at her.
She said Mr. Sullivan relayed “words that every Foreign Service officer understands: ‘The president has lost confidence in you.’ That was a terrible thing to hear.”
Republicans, determined to avoid looking as if they were bullying Ms. Yovanovitch, gave the lone Republican woman on the committee, Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, a prominent role in questioning her. The session was tense at times, as Republicans made parliamentary points that Mr. Schiff, banging his gavel, repeatedly ruled out of order.
“I do wonder why it was necessary to smear my reputation,” Ms. Yovanovitch said at one point, addressing Representative Brad Wenstrup, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Wenstrup cut her off, saying, “Well I wasn’t asking you about that, so thank you very much, ma’am.”
Seated behind Ms. Yovanovitch, in a demonstration of support as she testified, was Grace Kennan Warnecke, the daughter of George Kennan, one of the most revered American diplomats of the last century and the architect of the containment policy that governed America’s strategy through the Cold War.
After watching the opening round of questioning, Ms. Warnecke walked out with Ms. Yovanovitch during the recess, her presence clearly intended as a sign of the widespread backing that the former ambassador has among the career Foreign Service, which was broadly disturbed by her abrupt removal in the spring.
Mr. Kennan, one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War, served as ambassador to Moscow before he was expelled and his famous “long telegram” to Washington ultimately formed the basis for the policy embraced by presidents of both parties for decades to mount “strong resistance” to the Soviet Union around the world.
Peter Baker contributed reporting.Peter Baker contributed reporting.