by: JD Heyes
(Natural News) Friday’s “impeachment show” in the House featured a witness Democrats running the scam touted as someone with ‘intimate knowledge’ of President Trump’s ‘unconscionable,’ ‘objectionable’ interactions with the leader of Ukraine over the summer.
The diplomat, Amb. Marie Yovanovitch, had already testified that the president went ‘outside’ of the ‘normal diplomatic processes’ when dealing with Ukraine because he bypassed careerists like her and assigned his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to take the lead.
Understand that the president has this authority and can assign whomever he wants to take the reins of his foreign and domestic policy initiatives. And Trump had his reasons for handing Ukraine off to Giuliani, who, on his client’s behalf, is investigating that country’s role in interfering with the 2016 election against the president and on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
But under direct questioning from House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Yovanovitch withered and was forced to admit that she really had no knowledge whatsoever of the president’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or the White House’s delay in providing lethal military aid to that country (which was delivered).
That should have been obvious. Trump ousted Yovanovitch in May; the phone call was in July, and the temporary aid halt occurred in August.
But because we don’t have an honest media (or an honest Democrat Party), few Americans were aware of those facts. Until Friday, that is.
“Were you involved in the proposed Trump-Zelensky — later Pence-Zelensky — meetings in Warsaw, Poland, on September 1st?” the California Republican asked.
“No, I was not,” she responded.
“Did you ever talk to President Trump in 2019?” Nunes continued.
“No, I didn’t not,” Yovanovitch said, noting she also had not talked to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Nunes noted, based on those answers, that meant Yovanovitch was “not a fact witness” to anything regarding President Trump’s foreign policy interactions with Ukraine.
No president has had to deal with this rebellion – except JFK
At that point, he noted that her complaint seemed to be that she was simply taken out of the loop when the president decided to hand off Ukraine to Giuliani — which made it a “human resources” issue.
“Thank you, Ambassador. Uh, I’m not exactly sure what the ambassador is doing here today. This is the House Intelligence Committee that’s now turned into the House Impeachment Committee. This seems more appropriate for the Subcommittee on Human Resources at the Foreign Affairs Committee,” he said. (Related: What a Schiff Show! Congressional clowns unleash staged “impeachment theater” that only makes themselves look like moronic fools and cheats.)
She’s there because, like the rest of the Washington swamp and deep state, she was offended by President Trump’s efforts to sideline her and bypass the very same bureaucracy a) he was elected to take down; and b) that has been undermining him and his presidency since before he took office.
Recall that the “whistleblower” who launched this Ukraine narrative in the first place was dismissed some months ago by the White House, probably at Trump’s behest, because he was suspected of leaking to the media in an attempt to undermine the president.
Trump has his transcribed conversations with foreign leaders placed on a server with enhanced security precisely because he doesn’t want the contents of his conversations taken out of context and leaked.
No president in the history of the modern intelligence community has ever had to deal with as much deep state adversity than Trump has, with the exception of John F. Kennedy. He wanted to change the way Washington did business too, largely by keeping the U.S. out of a needless war in southeast Asia. And look what happened to him.
People who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 supported him in large part precisely because he said he would dismantle as much of the corrupt, careerist deep state as possible. They are resentful because those people — all of them unelected — think they are in charge.