December 12, 2019
Thwack! Matt Gaetz nailed Dem impeachment counsel Daniel Goldman
Attorney Daniel Goldman appears to be the brains of the impeachment operation, doing all the heavy lifting for Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee. Perhaps the most satisfying moment in the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearing Monday came when Rep. Matt Gaetz confronted Goldman, the hired-gun counsel of the committee's majority.
Goldman was visibly uncomfortable as Gaetz began by asking him if he is non-partisan, and Goldman laughably claimed to be so. Then Gaetz moved in for the kill, asking him, "Have you ever tweeted anything at the president?"
"I have made a number of tweets in my private capacity before I came to this job when I worked in the media," Goldman replied.
"As a matter of fact, this is one of those tweets," Gaetz said gleefully displaying the posterboard.
"You said, 'Nothing in the dossier has proved to be false.' But in fact, the dossier said there was a Russian consulate in Miami, when there isn't. The dossier said Michael Cohen had a meeting in Prague, when he didn't. The dossier said Michael Cohen's wife was Russian; she is in fact Ukrainian," Gaetz said. "So we sit here today, and you've got a tweet mentioning a 'pee tape' while claiming to be non-partisan. Hired by the Democrats to pursue the president. Do you regret this tweet?"
Here is the tweet:
What lying? Nothing in the dossier has proved to be false (including your pee tape). But we can agree that we all look forward to the facts coming out. Everything that has come out so far has shown you to be an out and out liar (eg Cohen tape, purpose of June 9 meeting, etc). https://t.co/or1ZQbCmy0
— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) August 5, 2018
And here is the video. It’s a thing of beauty:
November 17, 2019
Marie Yovanovitch’s Unchallenged False Testimony
By Allan J. Favish
Despite contrary reporting from John Solomon and the New York Times, former United States Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on November 15, 2019 that a Ukrainian prosecutor recanted his previous statement that she had identified Ukrainians she did not want to see investigated and prosecuted. You can see her testimony here at 1:15:00 to 1:15:20 in the video. She did this under questioning from Democratic Counsel Daniel Goldman.
Solomon published an article, with linked documentation, on November 13, 2019 discussing how, while she was ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch told a Ukranian prosecutor the identity of Ukranians she did not want to see investigated and prosecuted. Solomon wrote:
I . . . secured an interview in mid-March 2016 with Ukraine’s then top prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko. In the interview that was videotaped and released for the whole world to see, Lutsenko alleged that in his first meeting in 2016 with Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador conveyed the names of several Ukrainians she did not want to see investigated and prosecuted. He called it, colloquially, a “do not prosecute list.” [snip]
A Ukrainian news outlet claimed Lutsenko recanted his claim about the “do-not-prosecute” list. I called Lutsenko and he denied recanting or even changing his story. He gave me this very detailed response standing by his statements.
But American officials and news media eager to discredit my reporting piled on, many quoting the Ukrainian outlet without ever contacting Lutsenko to see if it was true. One of the American outlets that did contact Lutsenko, the New York Times, belatedly disclosed today that Lutsenko told it, like he told me, that he stood by his allegation that the ambassador had provided him names of people and groups she did not want to be targeted by prosecutors. You can read that here.
The New York Times article dated November 12, 2019 referenced by Solomon states:
In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr. Lutsenko blamed the confusion on the interpreter who handled his interview with The Hill. But he insisted that the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, had in fact asked him not to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.
It is one thing for Yovanovitch to dispute Lutsenko’s account of their conversation. It is quite another for Yovanovitch to falsely state under oath that Lutsenko has recanted his version of the conversation, and to do so with the help of Goldman, who should be reported to the appropriate bar associations.
None of the Republicans questioned Yovanovitch about her false testimony or confronted Goldman with his role in the deception.