When President Donald Trump dispatched his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political enemies, Marie Yovanovitch stood in the way.

Now the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine is back — appearing before House impeachment investigators on Friday, when she is expected to tell the public for the first time how she became collateral damage of a Giuliani-backed shadow diplomacy campaign that she later learned was part of Trump’s relentless quest to bend Ukrainian officials to his will.

Yovanovitch, a 30-year veteran of the diplomatic corps, had already been ousted by the time Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. But the circumstances surrounding her departure in May have been a focal point for House impeachment investigators as they seek evidence that Trump abused his office to extract political benefit from a foreign ally — and steamrolled anyone who might thwart him.


“[Yovanovitch] was kneecapped by the grimy political and financial interests of the president and Mr. Giuliani,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.

Maloney added that Yovanovitch was a witness to the early efforts by Giuliani “and saw this develop in real time.”

Democrats are seeking to portray Yovanovitch as a victim of Trump and Giuliani’s effort, which she said ran counter to the anti-corruption efforts she and the rest of the State Department were advocating.

Yovanovitch told investigators behind closed doors last month that she felt threatened by Trump — in particular, after she learned that he told Zelensky on the call that she was “going to go through some things.”

She returned to Washington to an outraged diplomatic community, which immediately pressed State Department higher-ups — including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — to publicly defend her from the Trump-backed attacks, which included allegations that she was disloyal to the president.

Senior diplomats were infuriated when those officials refused to speak up on her behalf, but their anger exploded after the transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky revealed that he disparaged her directly.

Republicans have defended Trump’s decision to recall Yovanovitch to Washington, asserting that ambassadors and other appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. Some Trump allies have harangued her as an “Obama holdover” who was resistant to the new administration’s abrupt foreign policy shift.

But Yovanovitch has indicated she was concerned about Giuliani’s efforts because they were undermining the anti-corruption initiatives the U.S. was promoting in Ukraine. She expressed particular alarm over Giuliani’s alignment with Yuriy Lutsenko, the former prosecutor general in Ukraine who, the U.S. believed, was corrupt and unreliable.

She also underscored to investigators behind closed doors the extent of Giuliani’s influence, saying she did not believe other officials felt that they could push back against him.

But perhaps more significant than her resistance to Giuliani’s effort is the fact that Yovanovitch — formerly the most senior member of the U.S. diplomatic corps in Europe, and a widely respected figure within the State Department — became a casualty of Trump’s pressure campaign in Ukraine.

Yovanovitch grew emotional as she described her removal during a closed-door deposition last month. She said she was informed of her ouster by Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan. Yovanovitch said Sullivan repeatedly assured her she had done nothing to deserve her fate.

“[H]e repeated … that this was coming from President Trump, this was, you know, final,” she said, adding, “[T]hey were worried that if I wasn't, you know, physically out of Ukraine, that there would be, you know, some sort of public either tweet or something else from the White House. And so this was to make sure that I would be treated with as much respect as possible.”

Yovanovitch’s removal sent shock waves through the Trump administration.

“[T]he dismissal of Ambassador Yovanovitch was a real turning point for us,” Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia adviser on the National Security Council, said during her closed-door deposition with impeachment investigators last month.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-yovanovitch-impeachment-070988

It's obvious real judgments by a real judge in a real court doesn't phase you.

"Our eyes glaze over reading this stuff because…well, it’s Donald Trump. But that’s only because our sense of moral outrage has become deadened by his behavior. Try, if you can, to imagine that Barack Obama had raised money for veterans only to spend it on a giant portrait of himself and a bunch of sports memorabilia. It would have singlehandedly destroyed his presidency and would likely have forced his resignation. George W. Bush was certainly no saint, and his administration was guilty of misdeeds of horrendous consequence. But he would never have been so tawdry and venal as to steal money from veterans for such things. If he had, it would likely have ended his presidency. Same for Clinton, Bush Senior, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. None of them would have survived such a revelation.

But in this funhouse horror of an administration, the news that the President of the United States was forced by a judge to repay $2 million to real charities because of these grifter scams was just another Thursday. It wasn’t even the top headline of the day."

"The president admitted he had used funds raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his campaign and pay business debts.

Among Mr. Trump’s admissions in court papers:

The charity gave his campaign complete control over disbursing the $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a fund-raiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016, only days before the state’s presidential nominating caucuses.

The fund-raiser, he acknowledged, was in fact a campaign event. "

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/judge-orders-trump-to-pay-2m-for-charity-foundation-misuse

I tend to go with classical music that pleases my ears. So, I never really developed a liking for a particular composer. I love Dvorak's 9th, and while extremely complicated, Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto #1.

They emerged in the 1970's as a rock group; but Steely Dan (Walt Becker and Don Fagen) wrote some of the most complicated lyrics and melodies I've ever heard, and now you'd be hard pressed to define them as Rock. In the 70's, I just enjoyed the total package, and never tried to make sense of the lyrics (Rikki, Don't Lose That Number, among others). A couple of years ago, there was a special run on AXS TV. They showed just how some of their tracks were brought together, and how complex they were.

A few reviewers have compared Don Fagen to composers such as Irving Berlin and Cole Porter.

I tend to go with classical music that pleases my ears. So, I never really developed a liking for a particular composer. I love Dvorak's 9th, and while extremely complicated, Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto #1.

They emerged in the 1970's as a rock group; but Steely Dan (Walt Becker and Don Fagen) wrote some of the most complicated lyrics and melodies I've ever heard, and now you'd be hard pressed to define them as Rock. In the 70's, I just enjoyed the total package, and never tried to make sense of the lyrics (Rikki, Don't Lose That Number, among others). A couple of years ago, there was a special run on AXS TV. They showed just how some of their tracks were brought together, and how complex they were.

A few reviewers have compared Don Fagen to composers such as Irving Berlin and Cole Porter.

No, not precisely. But would we want a copy-cat of any sort of music. I'm not the biggest Classical fan but I do have a number of Classical CDs and LPs, including J.S. Bach compositions. Bach is probably my favorite if not most recognized Baroque composer. I especially like the music he wrote for Organ, Lute music transcribed for Guitar, ensemble, Concerto and other music he wrote. Though I am not so sure I would describe it as complicated in the sense of later "classical" styles. My understanding is you can turn Bach sheet music up-side-down and it will still make sense when played. Complicated music to my ear from the technical performance standpoint would be music composed by Thelonious Monk, Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, Max Roach, and Duke Ellington. Jazz players and composers. From the Rock world, some Frank Zappa music was intricate, especially from a rhythm point of view. I'm pretty much a fan of every type of music. Classical guitar to Punk Rock. About the only thing that does not turn me on is Country-Western and Rap. Also much of today's Vocal Pop bores me to death. I have a very eclectic collection of recorded music, including such oddities as Khmer (Cambodian) Pop and Traditional Music.