Yovanovitch Emailed With Dem Staffer After Whistleblower Complaint, Contradicting Under-Oath Testimony

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  2 months ago  •  22 comments

By:   Erielle Davidson

Yovanovitch Emailed With Dem Staffer After Whistleblower Complaint, Contradicting Under-Oath Testimony
What makes the email particularly unsettling is that it indicates former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch possibly committed perjury during her 'impeachment inquiry' deposition, where she was questioned under oath.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


New email evidence has surfaced indicating that a Democratic staffer from the House Foreign Affairs Committee had contact with former President Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, contrary to information she provided in her “impeachment inquiry” deposition, according to exclusive information obtained by Tucker Carlson of Fox News.

Yovanovitch has sat at the center of the House Democrats’ “impeachment probe,” earning her Resistance stripes after she was recalled from her post by President Trump in May 2019, following  accusations  of “serious partisanship” and “political bias.”

According to an exclusive email obtained by Carlson, the Democratic staffer, now identified by  Fox News  as Laura Carey, wrote the following to Yovanovitch on August 14, 2019, two days after the whistleblower complaint was filed, but an entire  month  before the complaint went public. It was sent from Carey’s official House email to Yovanovitch’s personal account:

I’m writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat – in particular, I’m hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring. I’d appreciate the chance to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and, thus, we want to make sure we get them right.

The timeline of this email is critical. It is known that the whistleblower contacted Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) before filing his complaint. As Carlson points out, given that the above email was sent before the whistleblower complaint went public, it’s worth asking Schiff whether he had the audacity to contact other Democrat teams on the Hill about the complaint and its contents  before  it became public knowledge. In other words, what kind of stealthy (and possibly corrupt) machinations were taking place behind the scenes before the whistleblower’s complaint was used as a public pretext for launching an impeachment inquiry?

When Carlson questioned the spokesman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tim Mulvey, the response expectedly nodded towards Yovanovitch’s recall, which at the time of the email, had occurred three months prior: “The Committee wanted to hear from an ambassador whose assignment was cut short under unusual circumstances…This staff outreach was part of a months-long effort that culminated in the September 9 launch of an investigation into these events.”
What makes the email particularly unsettling is that it indicates Yovanovitch possibly committed perjury during her “impeachment inquiry” deposition, where she was questioned under oath. During her closed-door questioning on October 11, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) asked Yovanovitch directly about the nature of her contacts with the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Yovanovitch stated that she personally had not responded to the first email sent to her by an individual from the House Foreign Affairs Committee and that she had ignored the second overture.

The initial email came “from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” and “they wanted me to come in and talk about, I guess, the circumstances of my departure” which included her recall at the hands of President Trump in May 2019. Yovanovitch asserted that she “alerted the State Department” since she was “still an employee, and so, matters are generally handled through the State Department.”

Yovaovitch alleged that she “believe[d]” someone in Legislative Affairs had responded to the initial email. She also admits to receiving a second email but claims she did not respond to that email.

Her answers, however, do not square with Carlson’s reporting, which reveals Yovanovitch did respond to the House Foreign Affairs staffer just a day after the August 14 email, admitting she “would love to reconnect and looked forward to chatting” with the staffer. Furthermore, the initial email mentioned a “delicate matter,” not specifically her recall under President Trump.

Four days after Yovanovitch’s response, Carey responded by saying that “it would be ideal to connect this week…assuming this week is doable for you schedule-wise?” It is clear that Carey’s email conveyed urgency.

Thus, as Zeldin wrote on Twitter, there is a strong likelihood that Yovanotich thus committed perjury. The relevant portion of the transcript,  tweeted  by Zeldin, is included below:
EI0X8CJWkAA6nio?format=jpg&name=small
Zeldin reiterated to  Fox News , “I specifically asked [Yovanovitch] whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department. It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn’t answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”

The latest revelations further buttress accusations that the House’s “impeachment inquiry” has been a dishonest endeavor, “cooked up” by Democrats through possibly months of backdoor dealings. According to reporting at  Fox News , “it is a breach of normal procedure for congressional staff to reach out to a current State Department employee at their personal email address for official business.”

What did Carey hope to discuss with Yovanovitch? If it was related to the whistleblower’s complaint, how much had Schiff been sharing with others on the Hill before going public with the complaint?

When House Democrats allege their “impeachment inquiry” has been a transparent and fair endeavor, incidents like these indicate it has been anything  but . House Democrats should be forced to answer these uncomfortable questions, if only to avoid the “fruit of the poisonous tree” that accompanies an invalid process.

In other words, if dishonest episodes continue to wreak havoc on this inquiry, any impeachment (and possible removal) that results from it likely will be seen as tainted and illegitimate. Democrats should take heed.

B06DC785-F68E-4CBC-B801-9C29C9BC9645.jpg
  Erielle Davidson


Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Doesn't anyone get prosecuted for perjury before Congress?

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

Not iif they're a democrat.....apparently

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  WallyW @1.1    2 months ago

You got that right!

You can see in that testimony how she danced all over Zeldin. I expect to see her here soon challenging cold hard facts. Maybe we could assign her the task of making sure all the seed pictures were exactly correct!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    2 months ago

It is pathetic how Trump supporters cannot face facts. 

Pathetic. 

20 years from now we will still be hearing about the whistleblower having done something wrong. 

Donald Trump , according to his own released words, asked a foreign government to investigate Trumps election opponent.  Game over. 

But no, we get "whistle blower this" "whistleblower that". "Vindman this, Vindman that. "

th?id=OIP.DBfD-_b4gjpI8et-c2N3ywAAAA&pid

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago

384

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
20 years from now we will still be hearing about the whistleblower having done something wrong. 


Ciaramella was a leaker and anti-Trump operative. Schiff and Schumer will do anything to hide that fact. Right now Ciaramella, Vindman and about 68 other Obama holdovers have been booted out of the NSC!

Within one year John, we will have people going to jail for the Russia hoax - You heard it here first!


 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2.1  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    2 months ago
Within one year John, we will have people going to jail for the Russia hoax - You heard it here first!

I can't keep up with how many people the Right has convicted with trumped up evidence and want to throw in jail. This hoax you speak of has been investigated by several government agencies now and the only people to have gone to jail are people around the current Administration. I don't think you prediction average is improving with time.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @2.2.1    2 months ago
This hoax you speak of has been investigated by several government agencies now and the only people to have gone to jail are people around the current Administration.

How many had criminal referrals?  The fact the DOJ didn't prosecute doesn't make them innocent. We have one last investigation going on and the man running it doesn't give two fucks about colleagues working at DOJ/FBI or CIA!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    2 months ago
The fact the DOJ didn't prosecute doesn't make them innocent.

Who heads the DOJ again?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.3    2 months ago

Ozzie, a DC Jury is made up of people who have the exact same mindset as you do. That gives pause to any AG looking for a conviction of anything less than a slam dunk case. I'll take a tough Son-of-a-Bitch US Attorney with grand jury powers any day!

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2.5  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    2 months ago
How many had criminal referrals?

You tell me.

The fact the DOJ didn't prosecute doesn't make them innocent.

You said people were going to jail. Don't move the goal posts now.

We have one last investigation going on and the man running it doesn't give two fucks about colleagues working at DOJ/FBI or CIA!

Again, I don't see that panning out with people going to jail. I'm sure there will be a few conservative tweets and blog posts condemning the Deep State or some shit. Hannity will talk about it for a week. Perhaps the Graham in the Senate will get on Fox News again saying he wants to do something. It's a fucking circus to please the base. 13 fucking Bengahzi investigations - 5 Clinton email investigation s - 4 investigations into the Russian investigations and you got exactly 1 FBI lawyer that fudged some paperwork. That guys deserves what he gets, but I bet if you added up the costs from all the bs investigations you could have funded a couple more miles of Trump's insane border wall.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @2.2.5    2 months ago
You tell me.

You don't know because as long as none of those rogue shits got indicted you were happy!


You said people were going to jail.

They WILL!

Again, I don't see that panning out with people going to jail.

Of course not. If the President were assassinated, you'd say we can't be sure. Just like when they acquitted Kate Steinle's killer!

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2.7  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.6    2 months ago
You don't know because as long as none of those rogue shits got indicted you were happy!

Anyone that breaks criminal law should be punished. 

They WILL!

Based on your gut feeling? Okay Vic.

If the President were assassinated, you'd say we can't be sure.

No, Vic. assassination is a vicious crime. I'd hope they caught the killer, taken them to trial, got a conviction and then dumped the fucker in the deepest hole they can find.

Just like when they acquitted Kate Steinle's killer!

It's not like the guy went skipping free, Vic. Garcia-Zarate had been held in federal custody on related gun charges for 2 years after the trial and appeals until he finally went back to trial in December where the case was discharged. I still don't think the guy is walking around free in San Fran. I, personally, don't want him to be. But he was tried and appealed all the way to the SCOTUS and back.

Are you saying you want to over turn our whole justice system and fry anyone conservatives see as guilty? No real evidence, no real trial, no appeals... just fry those people that don't think like you? If you don't get 'em the first time then 13 more times might just work? Hey, if someone wants to look into serious allegations into conservatives then "Witch Hunt!" and "Let's investigate those bastards until we find something - anything - even if we have to make shit up." Good plan! /s

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
3  Transyferous Rex    2 months ago

This is why Bolton was not put on or subpoenaed in the House. I still wish the Republicans would have called him in the Senate. Let him state that he does not recall or does not know. I seriously doubt he would have given anything substantive though, or even attempted to, because of the fear of perjury. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4  Dulay    2 months ago
Zeldin reiterated to  Fox News , “I specifically asked [Yovanovitch] whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department. It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn’t answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”

Well it's good that Zeldin wasn't under oath when he made that statement because it's a LIE. He did NO SUCH THING. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4    2 months ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 months ago

From where the article conveniently left off:

MR. ZELDIN: And you one more time. And what did you do after you received the email?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: I alerted the State Department, because I'm still an employee and so matters are generally handled through the State Department.

MR. ZELDiN: Was that person responded to by you or someone else?

MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I believe, yes , by ---------------  in the Legislative Affairs office.

MR. ZELDIN: Did you receive any subsequent requests to testify to the House Foreign Affairs Committee or to come in to speak to someone at the House Foreign Affairs Committee following that initial email? Was there any follow-up?

MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Well, as I said, there was the second email where she said, oh, okay, you know, who should I be talking to? I didn't respond to that email, because I had already transferred everything to the State Department and I figured they would be in touch, and they were.

So as any thinking person with an 8th grade reading level can see, Zeldin didn't even ask Yovanovich who responded to the second email. NOR did he say a fucking word about a 'Democratic staffer'. 

Note that there is no link to these emails that Carlson allegedly has so there is no way to confirm they exist or WHICH email responded to, if any. 

BTW, it must be a slow week because this is the second 'new seed' from bullshit posted in RW media over a month ago.

OH and BTFW, Carlson STILL hasn't posted a link to the emails he alleges to have in the 3  months since this article came out. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4    2 months ago

Start reading on page 215 of the transcript in the link in the article.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamelder/...

He DID, in FACT, ask exactly what he stated he asked.

No matter how much you deny that fact, it remains in the transcript.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    2 months ago

Bullshit Tex. 

First of all, I don't need to search down a link from buzzfeed. I have all of the transcripts saved on SCRIBD.

Secondly, page 215 is posted in the article and any thinking person can see that Zeldin does NOT ask 'exactly what he stated he asked' in that posted image. 

Why post a comment that every member can see for themselves is FALSE? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.2.1    2 months ago
First of all, I don't need to search down a link from buzzfeed. I have all of the transcripts saved on SCRIBD

Good for you. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Secondly, page 215 is posted in the article and any thinking person can see that Zeldin does NOT ask 'exactly what he stated he asked' in that posted image. 

I know how much some like to play word games. I'll let people read and decide for themselves what it is they see.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    2 months ago
I know how much some like to play word games. I'll let people read and decide for themselves what it is they see.

Is there a particular word you are having issue with. Hell, a third of that sentence quotes you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.2.3    2 months ago
Is there a particular word you are having issue with

What an extremely odd statement for someone whop just read this:

I know how much some like to play word games. I'll let people read and decide for themselves what it is they see.
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


The People's Fish
r.t..b...
Save Me Jebus
XDm9mm
The Magic Eight Ball
jungkonservativ111
GregTx
Dulay


43 visitors