That’s interesting because , in her own testimony, acknowledged that it wasn’t a proper diplomat role to sway elections.
But that’s interesting, too, because of what Giuliani went on to say.
“There are five witnesses who say that she instructed the prosecutor general of the Ukraine to dismiss four cases,” he said, to OAN’s White House correspondent, Chanel Rion. “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.”
Where are those witnesses?
Not on Schiff’s list, apparently.
Here’s what the media wants the takeaway from Yovanovitch’s testimony to be: “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.
But if what Giuliani says is true — and honestly, that’d be a fairly easy vetting to make; Democrats need only call forward these five witnesses to publicly testify — 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.
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.