by WorldTribune Staff, November 19, 2019
The major media went out of its way to defend former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch during and after her testimony in the public impeachment hearings.
“Ousted ambassador says she felt intimidated by Trump attacks,” The Star Tribune wrote in a headline.
“Trump attacks ambassador as she testifies that his words in Ukraine call made her feel threatened,” CNBC wrote.
“Ex-Envoy to Ukraine ‘Devastated’ as Trump Vilified Her,” The New York Times wrote.
In a Nov. 18 column for the Washington Times, Cheryl K. Chumley wrote: “But that smoke has cleared and a new day has dawned. And (Rudy) Giuliani, in an interview with One America News (OAN), made clear: Yovanovitch is hardly a poor suffering nonpartisan soul.”
Giuliani said in the interview: “There are at least five Ukrainian officials who are willing to testify against her, not anonymously, like their whistleblower, not hearsay, like their first two witnesses — this may be hard for Adam Schiff to take — but they would actually give real testimony. And what they would say basically is that she was very, very pro-Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.”
Chumley noted: “That’s interesting because Yovanovitch, in her own testimony, acknowledged that it wasn’t a proper diplomat role to sway elections.”
Also interesting, Chumley pointed out, because of what Giuliani went on to say.
The president’s personal attorney said in the interview with OAN’s Chanel Rion: “There are five witnesses who say that she (Yovanovitch) instructed the prosecutor general of the Ukraine to dismiss four cases. Two of those cases involved Ukrainian collusion with Democrats to hurt Donald Trump. One of them involved a company owned by George Soros. There are five witnesses who are willing to testify to that. None of them were called. None of them were interviewed.”
It would be fairly easy to vet what Giuliani said and, Chumley noted, if Democrats were to call those five witnesses “then it’s not just Yovanovitch’s character that will be called into question. It’s the validity of the whole Democrat-pressed impeachment inquiry into Trump’s Ukraine call.”
Chumley concluded: “After all, if one of the Democrats’ leading, opening, star witnesses in a case alleging Trump’s guilt of ‘bribery’ — an impeachable offense — is shown to be a pro-Hillary Clinton anti-Trumping force, imagine how the rest of Schiff’s witnesses, the Tier Two witnesses set to speak this week, will crumble.”
During Yovanovitch’s testimony, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes got the former ambassador to admit that she had nothing to do with the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s president.
“She’s never talked to Donald Trump in 2019. She was not involved in a meeting in Warsaw with Trump and somebody from Ukraine. He (Nunes) elicited from her that she is not a ‘fact witness’ to anything here. She was not part of discussions surrounding the phone call. She was not part of discussions surrounding the delay of aid,” radio host Rush Limbaugh noted.
Nunes said (summary), “I don’t even know what this is. This is more like what we should be doing. This woman is upset she got fired. This is a human resources issue. This isn’t impeachment. Some subcommittee on human resources at the State Department ought to be handling this.”
Then he yielded time to Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik “at which point Schiff pounded the gavel and told her she can’t ask any questions, that Nunes cannot delegate time to her, pass time to her, that only he and counsel can ask questions. She tried to ask questions and Pencil Neck refused to let Stefanik ask any questions. It was great TV,” Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh continued: “So let’s review Marie Yovanovitch. Let’s put all politics aside. She was Obama’s ambassador to Ukraine. While she was ambassador to Ukraine, Ukraine became one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and its most corrupt company, Burisma, hired Hunter Biden. And she wasn’t outraged. She didn’t shed any tears. She wasn’t concerned at all about this corruption when she was ambassador under Obama. While she was ambassador under Obama, Ukraine was invaded by the Russians.”
As Yovanovitch was testifying, President Donald Trump tweeted: “‘Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then let’s 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. They call it “serving at the pleasure of the president.” The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for Ukraine than’” Obama did.
Trump, Limbaugh said, “is being denied due process. Forget court-of-law business. This is due process in the public arena. Schiff and his buddies in the media have sole possession of media narratives. They get to report and leak and lie and say whatever they want to say that these witnesses are saying about Trump. Trump is not going to sit idly by and be treated unfairly.”
Limbaugh noted that the president “doesn’t care if he’s outside the normal channels. He’s being set up here. They are running a sham. And they are running it in public with the media and Trump is simply not going to sit idly by and let himself be tarred and feathered, lied about, impugned, mischaracterized and all that. So that’s why he was responding here. This woman doesn’t know a thing. She had nothing to do with the so-called ‘impeachable offenses’ that are on display here.”
Limbaugh said that Trump also knows “that nobody is going to challenge” Yovanovitch’s “character or her credibility because she is a woman. So he decides to do it. (summarized) “Everywhere she went, things turned bad. Somalia, Ukraine. She’s got no complaint. I can fire anybody I want in the ambassadorial core. I appoint them.”
“Every bit of this is right,” Limbaugh said.