Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave public testimony Friday regarding the circumstances of her abrupt ouster from her post as part of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Catch up quickly:
5 things we learned from Yovanovitch's public testimony
- Including stirring testimony, a GOP strategy and how Russia benefited ...
Trump defends attacking Yovanovitch after Dems accuse him of 'witness intimidation'
- “I have the right to speak. I have the freedom of speech just as other people do,” Trump told reporters.
Analysis: The devastating day Trump's presidency came into sharp focus
- Also: A fate worse than firing — humiliation. "All we have is our reputations," Yovanovitch said.
Yovanovitch says Trump admin kneecapped her diplomatic efforts
Follow us here for breaking news and analysis from NBC News' political reporters as well as our teams on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Download the NBC News app for full coverage and alerts.
ANALYSIS: Impeachment in one paragraph
Schiff’s opening statement showed how this hearing will be a microcosm of the entire impeachment case against Trump — that he would stop at nothing, even subverting American interests and harming patriotic citizens, to gain an election advantage.
The short version of Schiff’s statement: Yovanovitch was smeared and fired because she was doing her job — fighting Ukrainian corruption on behalf of the U.S. — too well at a time when Trump was trying to corrupt the new Ukrainian president.
Here’s how Schiff closed:
“Ambassador Yovanovitch was serving our nation’s interests in fighting corruption in Ukraine, but she was considered an obstacle to the furtherance of the president’s personal and political agenda. For that she was smeared and cast aside. The powers of the presidency are immense but they are not absolute, and they cannot be used for corrupt purpose. The American people expect the president to use the authority they grant him in service of the nation, not to destroy others to advance his personal or political interests.”
And the storyline is important for a second reason that might turn out to be larger over time. Even if Trump is not removed from office, the narrative offered by Yovanovitch bolsters the Democrats’ argument that Trump’s campaign trail mantra of putting “America first” is untrue.
Grisham: Trump released call notes 'so every American can see he did nothing wrong'
White House press secretary Grisham said Trump "took the unprecedented steps to declassify and release the transcripts of both of his phone calls with President Zelenskiy so that every American can see he did nothing wrong.”
Yovanovitch: ‘I have no agenda’
Yovanovitch began her opening statement, which closely resembled the one she gave behind closed doors last month, connected her personal story of having parents who fled Communism and Nazism to eventually settle in the U.S. to her 33 years of service as a diplomat in the U.S.
She said that “I have no agenda” other than implementing U.S. foreign policy regardless of which party is in power. She served in six presidential administrations — four Republican and two Democratic.
She said her goal as ambassador to Ukraine was to make it a free democratic society with rule of law. She noted that it is a contentious region in which the U.S. is in a power struggle with Russia and said if Kremlin interests prevail, it could embolden Russian to expand its aggressions. She said her goal was to root out corruption to deter Russia.
"When our anti-corruption efforts got in the way of a desire for profit or power, Ukrainians who preferred to play by the old, corrupt rules sought to remove me," she said. "How could our system fail like this? How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government?"
She also laid out several key pieces of misinformation that she expected to come up, including allegations that she told Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute.
Read her full statement:
Yovanovitch sworn in
Stefanik again raises point of order
Rep. Elise Stefanik again is the first Republican to raise a point of order in the proceedings. She also did so on Wednesday. With these public objections parroting the GOP talking points, Stefanik, from a more moderate New York district and thought of as someone who might be open to support the impeachment inquiry, is further cementing her position as someone who is not entertaining that option.
Schiff, Republicans clash early in hearing
Tension was palpable after Schiff rejected several “points of order” made by Republicans, prompting one of them — Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, to exclaim, “Holy cow.”
Schiff said that if Nunes was going to read for the record the transcript of the April phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy, they should also enter into the record the multiple “documents” pertinent to the investigation that the State Department, the White House Office of Management and Budget and other agencies have so far withheld from investigators, despite subpoenas.
Trump watched Nunes' opening statement, Grisham says
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told reporters Friday, “The President will be watching Congressman Nunes’ opening statement, but the rest of the day he will be working hard for the American people.”
Lots of signs today
Nunes accuses Democrats of trying to 'overthrow a president'
Ranking member Devin Nunes, D-Calif., pivoted his opening statement away from Trump’s alleged actions and made it about the Democrats' “daylong TV spectacle” to “fulfill their Watergate fantasies.” He accused the Democrats of trying to “overthrow a president” on shaky, secondhand information because they lost the 2016 election.
He described the impeachment process so far as "being like some sort of strange cult" with "secret" depositions. Over 40 Republican members have been able to attend the closed-door hearings.
Nunes also read out loud from the White House summary, released earlier Friday, of Trump's first call with Zelenskiy in April.
Nune’s opening statement, nearly identical to the one he made at the start of Wednesday's hearing, sets the foundation for what the GOP’s argument will be during the hearing — this should be about the whistleblower and his or her motivations, not Trump.
ANALYSIS: Republicans blasted 'hearsay' impeachment testimony. But they were in Congress, not court.
One of the Republican themes during Wednesday's impeachment hearing was that the witnesses — Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and George Kent, a senior State Department official — were not credible because they were relaying, in some instances, second-, third- or even fourth-hand information.
In court, such testimony might be barred as “hearsay” — defined as an out-of-court statement that a party offers as evidence to prove the truth of the matter being asserted. Hearsay is generally inadmissible. But hearsay is a rule of evidence, applying only to court proceedings, and even then with so many exceptions that it's often admissible anyway.
First, hearsay is admissible in many government settings, including administrative proceedings, parole hearings, and preliminary hearings in a criminal case; a congressional hearing is not even a court, so it’s not governed by the rule of evidence that makes hearsay inadmissible.
Read the full analysis here.
Schiff lauds Yovanovitch in opening statement
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., used his opening statement to laud today’s witness, Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, as a lifetime diplomat who had valiantly tried to fight corruption in the country.
He praised Yovanovitch for her 33 years of service in the Foreign Service and for her efforts to take on graft there, reiterating several details that she herself shared during her closed-door testimony last month.
“In April 2019 the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was in Kyiv when she was called by a senior State Department official and told to get on the next plane back to Washington. Upon her return to D.C., she was informed by her superiors that although she had done nothing wrong, she could no longer serve as ambassador to Ukraine because she did not have the confidence of the president,” Schiff said.
“In her time in Kyiv, Ambassador Yovanovitch was tough on corruption, too tough on corruption for some, and her principled stance made her enemies,” Schiff said.
Read the full statement: