Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Worked Hard to Establish Her Credibility. She'll Need Every Bit of It as the Impeachment Crisis Unfolds

Marie Yovanovitch

The prepared text of Marie L. Yovanovitch’s testimony today to the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Committee on Oversight of Reform was released in advance. Her oral testimony and answers to questions were behind closed doors for security reasons. She was recently removed as United States Ambassador to Ukraine after a series of conflicts with President Donald Trump.

Yovanovitch's remarks were vague on details (presumably, again, for security reasons), but strong on establishing her credibility. Public speaking experts have known for millennia that the speaker’s credibility is the most powerful mode of persuasion.

There’s been ongoing controversy about Donald Trump’s actions about Ukraine. Allegations are being made, and seemingly supported by the president’s own clear statements, that he engaged in corrupt activities while leading American foreign policy. Yovanovitch’s thesis was that the President removed her from office because she resisted corrupt activities in the Ukrainian government. The issues and facts behind President Trump's Ukraine policy are still coming out, with new and increasingly bizarre revelations every day. Her prime defense was the force of her own character.

Let us look at how Yovanovitch worked to establish her credibility.

First, in her introduction, Yovanovitch established that her work was nonpartisan. She explained: “For the last 33 years, it has been my great honor to serve the American people as a Foreign Service Officer, over six Administrations—four Republican, and two Democratic.” This showed that she had served presidents of both major parties equally. She continued that she “was appointed to serve as an ambassador three times—twice by a Republican President, and once by a Democrat.” In our partisan era, voters are likely to think first and foremost about whether someone involved in the impeachment inquiry is a Democrat or Republican. The very concept that somebody could be objective and nonpartisan seems almost alien, yet it is a fundamental value for the United States civil service. Yovanovitch was wise to emphasize this. After reciting her oath of office, she further said: “Like all foreign service officers with whom I have been privileged to serve, I have understood that oath as a commitment to serve on a strictly nonpartisan basis, to advance the foreign policy determined by the incumbent President, and to work at all times to strengthen our national security and promote our national interests.”

Second, she turned to her personal life, which showed her how important liberty is to her. She told the committees that “my parents fled Communist and Nazi regimes. Having seen, firsthand, the war, poverty and displacement common to totalitarian regimes, they valued the freedom and democracy the U.S. represents.”

Third, she reminded the committees that the pro-freedom, anti-corruption policy toward Ukraine had long been bipartisan: “Our policy, fully embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, was to help Ukraine become a stable and independent democratic state, with a market economy integrated into Europe.”

From that point, she turned to her substantive analysis, reviewing Ukraine’s recent history, Russian aggression against Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people’s fight against political corruption. Only at that point, having provided important context, did she discuss the specific accusations made against her, none of which should have seemed credible to any rational person. She said that her supervisor had told her that there was a massive campaign against her.

Contrasting her fine credibility against her critics' lack of credibility, she said that "I was . . . incredulous that the U.S. government chose to remove an Ambassador based, as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives."

As she reached her conclusion, she further established her credibility. She reviewed her history, reemphasized her values, and positioned herself in the community of loyal civil servants: “Before I close, I must share the deep disappointment and dismay I have felt as these events have unfolded. I have served this nation honorably for more than 30 years. I have proudly promoted and served American interests as the representative of the American people and six different presidents over the last three decades.  Throughout that time, I—like my colleagues at the State Department—have always believed that we enjoyed a sacred trust with our government.”

Establishing her credibility implied important values. That is, Yovanovitch reminded the committees – and the public – that the United States Foreign Service was founded as a dedicated, non-political instrument of public service. She reminded all of us that patriotism matters more than party, and that integrity is the nation’s greatest treasure.

Conservative reaction to Yovanovitch’s testimony has so far been muted. I expect a coordinated smear campaign to appear against her as early as tomorrow morning. The only reason I can think of that conservatives have not attacked her so far is that they have no substantive objection to offer. Although her excellent effort to establish her own credibility was well-conceived, experience makes one expect that President Trump’s supporters will still spread unsupported talking points to brand her as a partisan hack.

In an act of stunning incompetence, White House staffers wrote a series of vacuous talking points for Republicans in Congress to use about Yovanovitch’s testimony and released them to Democrats in Congress. The talking points stressed that that Yovanovitch was speaking without a State Department lawyer being present. So what?

No method of persuasion is 100% reliable, because persuasion depends on the audience’s reaction. And no one can control the audience's reaction. All the same, Yovanovitch was wise to focus so strongly on credibility. I’m sure she understands that a deluge is descending on her and her sterling character is her only defense.

P.S. For centuries, speakers have circulated texts of their speeches to the public to reach a much larger audience than the group they can reach taking in person. Yovanovitch’s prepared text falls in that tradition.

Image: United States Department of State