The 15 essential questions for Marie Yovanovitch, America's former ambassador to Ukraine

John Solomon Reports ^ | November 15, 2019 | John Solomon

[Cboldt]

The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's insistence.

It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.

Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely will be an important fact witness.

After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.

1. Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma Holdings or the Bidens?
2. What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go to Ukraine in 2018?
3. In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank?
4. Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
5. John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
6. In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports?
7. Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or harassed?
8. Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
9. On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
10. If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
11. At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
12. At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
13. John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry, Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise Burisma with you?
14. What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
15. In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State resources might be improper or illegal?

[UCANSEE2]

I just turned on the news (7:35 PST)and they are saying that during her testimony Trump turned the whole thing around by tweeting something that is considered witness tampering.

How did she know Trump TWEETED something . Wasn't she in this hearing ? Did someone tell her?

Whomever told her is doing the witness tampering.

[UCANSEE2]

Then it appears we agree completely.

[Swordmaker]

My question is “What was the US Ambassador doing involving herself in the internal running of Ukraine’s governance?” Everything I heard this woman say was that she was heavily involved in Ukraine’s law enforcement and perhaps even in their elections. She seemed to have her fingers into a lot of the internal affairs of Ukraine, not just representing the US with the government that happened to be in power as she found it, but rather trying to CHANGE things there.

I noticed several times in the Ambassador’s testimony, when she was answering questions, that her eyes shifted distinctly down and to the left. This is a well known sign of lying. . . a sign she is making up her answers as she unconsciously looks toward the imaginative side of the brain as she composes her replies. It was obvious as a red flag waving and jumping up and down proclaiming that ‘I am am lying now!’ She has obvious tells. When she was consulting memory, she would look up and to the right, another pattern of looking toward the area of the brain when consulting real memories.

It was telling that she prefaced her comments by telling the committee members that she really knew NOTHING about events preceding or following her tenure as ambassador, but then answered questions on events, obviously speculating on possible “facts” and making up responses as though she did have authoritative answers to Democrat queries that were dispositive. She most often looked down and to the left during the answering of these type of questions.

In addition, she seems to be enamored of the EXISTING policy put in place by Obama’s State Department, not what President Trump and the new Secretary of State was attempting to do. You can see why a president would want to use a secondary channel of diplomacy out side of the Department of State when the bureaucrats inside the department are part of the “resistance” to his administration, blocking and countering his policies at every opportunity because they disagree with them, or just because they are politically opposed to his political party. We have never seen such a concerted effort by unelected apparatchiks doing such behavior before.

[UCANSEE2]

Reminds me of the Bible. God gave humans free will. The only problem with that, as the Angels noted, was that given freedom to choose, mankind often chooses poorly.

[Cboldt]

-- We have never seen such a concerted effort by unelected apparatchiks doing such behavior before. --

It's been hidden from view. Trump and reaction to his policies is exposing the fact that the US is run by unelected bureaucrats and their complicit press.

[UCANSEE2]

My question is “What was the US Ambassador doing involving herself in the internal running of Ukraine’s governance?

Because the CIA found it simpler to use the Ambassador as their 'insider'.

[Cboldt]

Goes back to the ancient debate over whether human nature is inherently good or inerently bad.

The non-sociopath liberals see 100% of their action as either inherently good, or, if technically a sin, the sin is justified because it is for the greater good.

The sociopaths are just in it to grab all they can.

[NetAddicted]

John Soloman was mentioned by the attorney, while interviewing Yovanovich.

[blackberry1]

This isn’t a trial. You can’t witness tamper unless it’s an official trial. It’s an inquiry......

[UCANSEE2]

Goes back to the ancient debate over whether human nature is inherently good or inerently bad.

I don't think it is inherently either.

God gives us what we need. Satan offers us what we WANT. Often what we want is not good for us.

[UCANSEE2]

This isn’t a trial. You can’t witness tamper unless it’s an official trial.

I thought about that when I commented. I figured someone would point that out. Yet they will insist it is witness tampering.

[WASCWatch]

Stefanik was awesome; again.

[wildbill]

Solomon obviously knows more about the Ukraine mess and the State Dept actions than the inept Republican counsel. Why do the Republicans always hire stiffs for their questioning.

[freefdny]

It was so blatant I didn’t think I had to add the sarcasm tag. She is the ambassador in one of the toughest Wild West corrupt parts of the world and suddenly she is threatened and afraid of Twitter and being forced to work a cushy job in Georgetown U. And the press including Fox is selling this fraud. It is a coup.