20191104: Schiff Releases Testimony

Here we go. First one is Marie Yovanovitch. I understand Fiona Hill is coming.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D003.pdf

Bottom of Page 288, Yovanovitch admits to asking State Dept to monitor certain US citizens.

Pages 224 and onward for several pages, fired Ambassador Yovanovitch claims she didn’t think the prosecution of Sytnyk and Leshchenko was worth a conversation to the State Dept. The trial was a HUGE DEAL in Ukraine. They were found guilty of meddling in our 2016 election by leaking 2 pages of a black box ledger from the Party of Regions. Docs suddenly appeared, mysteriously, and were thought to be forged. These two pages being released are the reason why Manafort resigned as head of Trump Campaign in August of 2016. The ledger claimed Manafort received between 9-27 million dollars in cash and carried it across 4 international borders… yet Mueller didn’t find it, and strangely Mueller dropped all reference to Ukraine. Gates, who handled the books for Manafort’s firm and admitted embezzling from Manafort, never shows an entry for the ADDITIONAL millions allegedly received from The Party of Regions.

Yovanovitch claims the prosecution was political and the courts in Ukraine “lack credibility” because they haven’t been reformed. No one asked her about the audio tape of Leshchenko bragging about helping Hillary Clinton. In the trial, 4 were indicted in Ukraine and two were found guilty, the Head of Anti-corruption bureau and a rabid Member of Parliament. A higher court acquitted the two on “statute of limitations” and “entity bringing the case didn’t have proper standing”.

Therefore, for the two years the case progressed through the court system in Ukraine, and with all the world wide media focused on Trump/Russia/Mueller, are we to believe Ambassador Yovanovitch merely ignored the whole thing?

Page 316: MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware of a policy where aid from the United States to Ukraine was linked to investigating the B’idens?

145. YOVAN0VITCH: No, I am not. An official policy. There’ s no off i c i al pol i cy . MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware of an unofficial policy? MS. YOVANOVITCH: We11, I mean, reading the texts and so forth, it made me wonder whether there was an unofficial po1 i cy.

OMG, Zeldin is completely effing with her. LOOK at this exchange, pages 316-317. Sure would have loved to have seen the look on her face.

MR. ZELDiN: Now, Ambassador Volker’s testimony when he was here, he was test’if yi ng that B j tl Taylor’s text was as a fo1low-up to a Politico story that he had read that he was concerned about. The texts that you reference also include responses to Ambassador Taylor where it says, the President has been absolutely crystal clear there’s no quid pro quo. So with regards to the texts, are you talking about some of the texts or all of the texts in saying that there was an unofficial policy? I’lS .

YOVAN0VITCH: I think that I probably should decl i ne to answer that question, because I was not in the policy world at that point. I’1R. ZELDIN: That’s a fantastic answer, and I ‘m glad you’re giving that answer, because I wouldn’t say that there would be an unofficial policy without having a1l of your information to be able to say there actually was an unofficial policy. So I think that I would have no further questions based off of that answer to the last question.

Pages 316-317

Ohhhhhh, looky here. The press has been lying to us. The press gives us the impression the Javelins were necessary to protect Ukraine. Remember Bill Taylor’s text message where he traveled to a forward position, could see Russians, and was worried Ukrainians MIGHT DIE? Well, as it turns out, this aid had nothing to do with the Javelins and are on a completely separate track/purchase timeline. The media misled the public.

MR. MEADOWS: A11 right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, there’s been, and Chairman Schiff kind of alluded to this, and when we start talking about Javelins and foreign aid, for the record, I want to make sure that we’re clear. The foreign aid that was has been reported as being held up, it doesn’t relate to Javelins, does it? l4S.

Y0VAN0VITCH: No. At least I’m not aware that it does.

MR. MEADOWS: Because foreign military sales, or FMS , as you would call it, js rea1ly a totally separate track, is it not? Foreign military sales get approved, but they’re actually a purchase that happens with, in this case, it would have been Ukraine. Is that correct?

MS . YOVAN0VITCH: So, yes . President Zelensky was talking about a purchase. But separately, as I understand it, and, again, this is from news accounts, the security assistance that was being held up was security assistance, it wasn’t the FMS.

MR. l’IEAD0WS: But ‘i t was actually ai d that had been appropriated and it had nothing to do with Javelins. Would you agree with that?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: That’s my understanding.

MR. MEAD0WS: Yeah. Because it’s critically important in this context when he says, “We’re almost ready for the Javelins, ” that happens on cycles that are not necessarily just appropriation cycles. In your history as a foreign service diplomat, you’ve seen that, I assume, over and over again. Is that correct?

MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yeah. I assumed that what it meant is that, you know, they were getting paperwork together, et cetera, and working with our military colleagues.

MR. MEAD0WS: And when the a’id ultimately came through, ‘it didn’t impact the purchase of those Javelins even when the aid ultimately was approved. Would you agree?

MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Not to my not to my knowledge.

MR. MEAD0WS: Right.

Pages 314-315