Ambassador To Ukraine Testifies in Public Impeachment Hearing; Yovanovitch: "Shocked & Devastated" That Trump Said I Was "Bad News" During Call to Another World Leader.
CASTOR: I believe he's one of the few that span both the Poroshenko administration and the Zelensky administration?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes, that's correct.</s>CASTOR: Looking back on his comments in hindsight, do you see how that might create a perception that a very influential Ukrainian was -- was, you know, advocating against then candidate Trump?</s>YOVANOVITCH: That he was doing what? I'm sorry.</s>CASTOR: Just advocating -- he was -- he was out to get him. I mean, he was -- he was -- he said some real nasty things?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Well, you know, sometimes that happens on social media. And I...</s>CASTOR: I'm shocked that social media would be the site of negative comments. The -- you certainly can understand that the president, aware of Minister Avakov's, you know, statements, aware of what Mr. Lutshenko was up to, what Ambassador Chaly was up to, and these other elements that we've discussed, that there certainly forms a reasonable basis to wonder whether there are influential, you know, elements of the Ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president?</s>YOVANOVITCH: You know, again, I mean, I can't speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would just say that those elements that you've recited don't seem to me to be the Ukrainian -- you know, kind of a plan or a plot of the Ukrainian government to work against President Trump or -- or anyone else. I mean, they're isolated incidents. We all know -- I'm coming to find out myself -- that public life can be -- you know, people are critical. And that does not mean that someone is, or a government is undermining either a campaign or interfering in elections. And I would just remind, again, that our own U.S. intelligence community has conclusively determined that the -- those who interfered in the election were in Russia.</s>CASTOR: You -- turn our attention to Ambassador Volker. He's -- he's been a friend and colleague of yours for many years. Is that correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes, that's true.</s>CASTOR: And I believe you testified he's a man of honor...</s>YOVANOVITCH: I believe that to be true.</s>CASTOR: ... and -- and a brilliant diplomat?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>CASTOR: And you have no reason to think that he would be undertaking any initiative that was counter to U.S. interests?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I think that he tried to do what he thought was right.</s>CASTOR: The -- turning our attention to the -- the Trump administration's policy of aid, the aid package to Ukraine, you've testified that, during your tenure as ambassador, America's policy actually got stronger towards Ukraine. Is that accurate?</s>YOVANOVITCH: With the provision of Javelins to the Ukrainian military, yes. That was -- that was really positive.</s>CASTOR: And why was that important?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Well, two things. They are obviously tank-busters. And so if the war with Russia all -- all of a sudden accelerated in some way and tanks come over the horizon, Javelins are a very serious weapon to deal with that. That's number one. But really, the more important issue is the -- the symbolism of it; that the United States is providing Javelins to Ukraine. That makes Ukraine's adversaries think twice.</s>CASTOR: And the -- the provision of Javelins to Ukraine was -- was blocked during the -- the previous administration, is that correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I think they made a determination. I was not a part of those discussions, but obviously, they had not yet made a determination about whether to provide Javelins.</s>CASTOR: But do you have any understanding of what the interagency consensus was with regard to Javelins during the previous administration?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I think that most in the interagency wanted to provide Javelins to Ukraine.</s>CASTOR: And so in the new administration under, you know, President Trump, the ability to afford Ukraine this weaponry is a significant advantage, significant step forward?</s>YOVANOVITCH: We thought it was important.</s>CASTOR: And has it played out that way?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Well, it -- it has because it's...</s>CASTOR: The provision of Javelins?</s>YOVANOVITCH: ... it's a symbol of our strong support for Ukraine. But when then -- you know, this year there are questions as to whether or not our security assistance is going to go through, that kind of undermines that -- that strong message of support.</s>CASTOR: The Ukraine still has the ability to acquire the Javelins though, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Are -- are you now talking about purchasing Javelins...</s>CASTOR: Purchasing...</s>YOVANOVITCH: ... by the Ukrainian government?</s>CASTOR: Yeah.</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yeah, I do.</s>CASTOR: And...</s>YOVANOVITCH: Is my understanding. (inaudible)</s>CASTOR: And the security sector assistance did go through. It was paused for 55 days from July 18th to September 11th, but it ultimately went through, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: It's my understanding.</s>CASTOR: OK. You testified during your deposition that you were -- you were proud of the efforts of the United States during your tenure to, you know, supply this -- this type of aid to -- to Ukraine. Do -- do you still -- are you still happy with -- with the decisions?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Are you talking about the Javelin?</s>CASTOR: The Javelin, and also the -- the -- just the -- the whole aid package.</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>CASTOR: Do you think it's sufficient? Do -- do you think we're giving Ukraine enough money?</s>YOVANOVITCH: That's a hard question because one can always use additional funding. That said, I think that -- that the Congress has been very generous in voting for security assistance and other forms of assistance for Ukraine.</s>CASTOR: I see my time is coming to an end, Mr. Chairman.</s>SCHIFF: I thank the gentleman. We'll now go to member five-minute rounds. I recognize myself for five minutes. Ambassador Yovanovitch, I want to follow up on some of the questions from my colleagues. Some of the early questions seem to suggest that your testimony here was completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. Why are you even here? Isn't this just some small matter that should have been referred to H.R.? So I want to bring our attention to someone who thought you were actually very important to this whole plot or scheme, and that is the president of the United States. There was only one ambassador, I believe, who was discussed by the president in the July 25th call, and that was you, Ambassador Yovanovitch, and I want to refer back to how you were brought up in that conversation. At one point during the conversation, the president brings up this prosecutor who was very good, and it was shut down, and that's really unfair. And I think you indicated earlier that that was a likely reference to Mr. Lutsenko, the corrupt prosecutor. Is that right?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I believe that is the case, but I don't know.</s>SCHIFF: So immediately after the president brings up this corrupt former prosecutor, only one -- I'm sorry. My staff's correcting me. Only one American ambassador's brought up in the call. Immediately after the president brings up this corrupt prosecutor that he praises and says he was treated very unfairly, he then encourages Zelensky to speak with Giuliani, the guy who orchestrated the smear campaign against you, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>SCHIFF: And he -- he then brings you up. So he praises the corrupt prosecutor. He says, "I want you to talk to Giuliani," the guy who smeared you, and then he brings you up. He obviously thought you were relevant to this. But what is even more telling is immediately after he brings you up and says that you, the woman was bad news, he says, "There's a lot I -- a lot to talk about about Biden's son; that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great." Immediately after praising this corrupt prosecutor, he attacks you and then he goes right to Biden. That would indicate to you, wouldn't it, Ambassador, that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at odds with, and his desire to see this investigation of Biden go forward, would it not?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Again -- again, you're absolutely right, that that is the thought progression.</s>SCHIFF: My colleagues also asked, in pushing you out of the way, ultimately, Ambassador Taylor got appointed. Is Ambassador Taylor the kind of person that would further Giuliani's aims? And I think we can all agree that Ambassador Taylor is a remarkable public servant.</s>YOVANOVITCH: Absolutely.</s>SCHIFF: But what if the president could put someone else in place that wasn't a career diplomat? What if he could put in place, say, a substantial donor to his inaugural? What if he could put in place someone with no diplomatic experience at all? What if he could put in place someone whose portfolio doesn't even include Ukraine? Might that person be willing to work with Rudy Giuliani in pursuit of these investigations?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yeah, maybe.</s>SCHIFF: That's exactly what happened, wasn't it?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>SCHIFF: And my colleagues also say, "Well, the security assistance ultimately went through. So if they sought to condition or bribe Ukraine into doing these investigations by withholding security assistance, they ultimately paid the money." Are you aware, Ambassador, that the security assistance was not released until after a whistleblower complaint made its way to the White House?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes, I'm aware of that.</s>SCHIFF: Are you aware that it was not released until Congress announced it was doing an investigation?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes, I'm aware of that.</s>SCHIFF: And finally, I want to ask you about the call record that my colleague read at the outset. I'm curious about this, and just for people watching at home so they're not confused, there were two calls here. There's the perfunctory congratulatory call after Zelensky's inaugurated, which my ranking member read this morning, and then there's, of course, the very problematic call in July.</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>SCHIFF: And one of the reasons we are here is, what happened between April and July. But there was a readout put out by the White House at the time the April congratulatory call was made. And the White House readout said that the president discussed with Zelensky, helping Ukraine root out corruption. Now, that, in fact, doesn't appear anywhere in that call. So I wanted to ask you, ambassador, why would the White House put out an inaccurate reading? Why would the White House represent that the president said something about corruption, when he said nothing about corruption in that call or, in fact, in the one in July?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I -- I can't answer that question. I don't have visibility into that.</s>SCHIFF: I thank you. I yield now -- five minutes now to recognize the ranking member.</s>NUNES: I'd just remind the gentleman there's actually three calls. There's the two calls with President Trump, and the one that you reiterated in our last hearing, a couple weeks ago. Ambassador, I just want to clarify something before I yield. Are you against political-appointed ambassadors? Is it not the president's prerogative to appoint whoever he wants in any country?</s>YOVANOVITCH: First of all, I am not against political ambassadors, just to be clear.</s>NUNES: I just wanted -- I just wanted to clear that up. Now, can I yield to Ms. Stefanik? Do I need your permission?</s>SCHIFF: You may yield.</s>NUNES: Ms. Stefanik...</s>STEFANIK: Thank you. Ambassador, before I was interrupted, I wanted to thank you for your 30 years of public service, from Mogadishu to Ottawa to Moscow to London to Kiev. I also wanted to thank you for hosting the numerous bipartisan delegations. I led one of those delegations in Ukraine. My questions today will focus on three key themes. The first is the role of the president when it comes to appointing our ambassadors, the second is longstanding corruption in Ukraine, and the third is aid to Ukraine. Earlier this week, as you know, we heard from George Kent. And I know that Mr. Kent is a colleague, a friend and someone who you deeply respect. In his testimony, he stated all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. You would agree with that statement, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And in fact, he elaborated and went on to emphasize that this is without question, everybody understands that. You would agree with that?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I would agree with that.</s>STEFANIK: And in your own deposition under oath, you stated, quote, "Although I understand, everyone understands, that I serve at the pleasure of the president," is that correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And just so there's no public confusion, you are still an employee of the State Department, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And in the deposition, you say that you personally asked whether it would be possible to be a fellow at Georgetown University, and that was arranged for me and I am very grateful. That's where you're posted today, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: Georgetown students are lucky to have you. We are lucky to have you in Foreign Service and I again want to thank you for your tremendous public service. Shifting gears to corruption in Ukraine, in your powerful deposition, you described, quote, "We have long understood that strong anti- corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine, and now there is a window of opportunity to do that. And so why is this important? And why is this important to us? Put simply, anti-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests, but they also serve ours as well." Is that still your testimony?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And particularly, at the critical time in 2014 after the Ukrainian elections, you testified that the Ukrainian people had made clear, in that very election, that they were done with corruption, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And you also testified that the Ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special investigative office that would be all about the crimes of corruption, correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And I know this was before you arrived in Ukraine, but you are aware that the first case that the U.S., U.K. and Ukraine investigators worked on was in fact against the owner of Burisma?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And that was during the Obama administration?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>STEFANIK: And in your testimony, you -- and you said today, the investigation was never formally closed because, quote, "it's frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook, right?" That's your quote.</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes, the Ukrainian investigation was never closed.</s>STEFANIK: Partnered with the U.S. and the U.K.?</s>YOVANOVITCH: As I understand it, yes; although, because we didn't see the Ukrainians moving forward on that, we no longer partner with them on that case or in that way.</s>STEFANIK: But let's take a first -- a step back. The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings. And this was in the form of practiced questions and answers, this was your deposition. And you testified that in this particular practice Q&A with the Obama State Department, it wasn't just generally about Burisma and corruption, it was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Is that correct?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes, it is.</s>STEFANIK: And the exact quote from your testimony, Ambassador, is, quote, "The way the question was phrased in this model Q&A was, what can you tell us about Hunter Biden's, you know, being named to the board of Burisma?" So for the millions of Americans watching, President Obama's own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden's role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation. And yet, our Democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask that same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about. But we will continue asking it. And lastly, in my 20 seconds left, I just want to get it on record. In terms of the defensive lethal aid which you were an advocate for, that was not provided by President Obama, it was provided by President Trump.</s>YOVANOVITCH: That's correct.</s>STEFANIK: I yield back five seconds.</s>SCHIFF: Mr. Himes, you're recognized.</s>HIMES: Ambassador, thank you for your testimony today. Those of us who sit up here are supposed to be dispassionate and judicial and measured, but I'm angry. And I've been angry since I learned about your summary and unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent and faithful service to this country. I'm angry that a woman whose family fled communism and Nazism, who served this country beautifully for 33 years not in Paris or in Rome, but literally under fire in places like Mogadishu and Kiev. I'm angry that a woman like you would be not just dismissed, but humiliated and attacked by the president of the United States. And I'm not just angry for you. I'm angry for every single Foreign Service officer for every single military officer, for every intelligence officer who, right now, might believe that a lifetime of service and sacrifice and excellence might be ignored by the president of the United States or, worse yet, attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss. Now, it's the president's defense -- and it's emerging from my Republican colleagues today -- that this is all OK because, as the president so memorably put it in his tweet this morning, it is a U.S. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors. I'm a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right, because that doesn't feel to me like the system of government we have here. I think that how and why we exercise our powers and rights matters. Ambassador, when you're ambassador somewhere, do you have the right to ask the intelligence community, the CIA in an embassy, what operations they're doing?</s>YOVANOVITCH: We talk about these things collaboratively. There are some things that -- in short, yes.</s>HIMES: So you have the right to ask the intelligence community in your embassy what they're doing. Why -- why might you do that?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Because sometimes operations have political consequences.</s>HIMES: Right, so the performance of your duties in the interest of the United States gives you the right to ask very sensitive questions of our intelligence community in your embassy. But what if, instead of working through the issues that you just described, you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a Russian agent for $10,000, would that be an appropriate exercise of your right?</s>YOVANOVITCH: No, it would not.</s>HIMES: It would not. And what would happen to you if you did that?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Well, I can't even begin to imagine, but I -- I would imagine that I would be pulled out of post.</s>HIMES: Right, and this is -- this is not about ambassadors, right? A police officer has the right to pull you over but if the police officer pulls over his ex-wife because he's angry, that's probably not right. I have the right -- in fact, today I cast a bunch of votes. But if I cast those votes not in the interest of my constituents but because somebody bribed me, that is a severe abuse of my power. Wouldn't you agree?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>HIMES: So I guess the question is why, after an exemplary performance as ambassador to Ukraine, did the president decide that you should be removed? Because I think we just agreed if that was not done in the national interest, that's a problem. Ambassador, if you had remained ambassador to Ukraine, would you have recommended to the president of the United States that he asked the new Ukrainian president to investigate, and I'm quoting from the transcript here, CrowdStrike or the server?</s>YOVANOVITCH: No, I would repeat, once again, that the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that it was the Russians who...</s>HIMES: OK. So ambassador, if you had remained as ambassador and not been summarily dismissed, would you have supported a three-month delay in congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine?</s>YOVANOVITCH: No.</s>HIMES: Ambassador, if you had remained as ambassador of Ukraine, would you have recommended to the president that he ask a new president of Ukraine to, quote, find out about Biden's son?</s>YOVANOVITCH: No.</s>HIMES: I have no more questions. I yield back the balance of my time.</s>SCHIFF: Mr. Conaway?</s>CONAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a Dear Colleague letter from the Speaker Pelosi dated September 23rd. The relevant parts reads, "We expect -- we also expect that he will establish a path for the whistleblower to speak directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as required by law."</s>SCHIFF: Without objection.</s>CONAWAY: Thank you. I look forward to you honoring that statement from the speaker. Turning to the ambassador, ambassador, I, for one, want to thank you so very much for a long service -- exemplary service for -- to our country and on behalf of our nation.</s>YOVANOVITCH: Thank you.</s>CONAWAY: A lot's been said about what was going on around the phone call. I'd like to focus more on what's happened, since then, to you and your career and -- and -- and what's going on. And so when you got the word -- at any time the ambassador changes post, there's a process you go through to pick what you do next. And that happened in this instance. Can you give us a quick statement as to how -- what happened when you -- when you came back here as to what your next assignment would be at -- at State?</s>YOVANOVITCH: So when I came back, obviously it was sort of out of cycle, there was nothing set up...</s>CONAWAY: Sure.</s>YOVANOVITCH: ... And again, I am grateful that Deputy Secretary Sullivan asked me what I would like to do next. I recalled that there was the fellowship at Georgetown and asked whether that might be something that could be arranged.</s>CONAWAY: Was that your only choice?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I'm not sure...</s>CONAWAY: OK.</s>YOVANOVITCH: ... We didn't really discuss other options.</s>CONAWAY: My sense (ph) is Georgetown is fertile ground for State Department recruitment of future-fledgling Foreign Service officers. And so they now benefit from your experience and your inspiration to -- to inspire them to perhaps (ph) spend their professional life in service to our nation.</s>YOVANOVITCH: Thank you.</s>CONAWAY: You're a fellow there, you teach classes. How many classes do you teach?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Well, this semester I was supposed to teach two. I am still teaching one on national security. The other one was on Ukraine and I asked whether I could, you know...</s>CONAWAY: Defer on that one.</s>YOVANOVITCH: ... postpone that. Yes, that seemed appropriate.</s>CONAWAY: How many -- how many students in your class, approximately?</s>YOVANOVITCH: There are, let's see, I think 14 -- 14, 15.</s>CONAWAY: All right. Any other responsibilities at State other than the fellowship at Georgetown?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Well, I will tell you that all of this has kept me very busy.</s>CONAWAY: OK, I get that. But -- but -- but no, necessarily, day-to-day things that you'd be responsible for?</s>YOVANOVITCH: No (ph).</s>CONAWAY: Other than the -- other than not qualifying for overseas stipends and other things, has your compensation been affected by being recalled the way you were?</s>YOVANOVITCH: No, it has not.</s>CONAWAY: OK. I'm worried about the way you might be treated by your fellow employees at State. Any -- any negative -- are they holding (ph) you in less high regard than they used to as a result of this? Do they shun you at the lunch counter? I mean, do they treat you badly as a -- as a result of the way you were treated by -- by the president?</s>YOVANOVITCH: I've actually received an outpouring of support...</s>CONAWAY: OK.</s>YOVANOVITCH: ... from my colleagues.</s>CONAWAY: So the folks that you respect the most still respect you and -- and -- and appear to hold you in high regard and high affection?</s>YOVANOVITCH: They do.</s>CONAWAY: OK. George Kent was in here a couple of days ago. He made some exemplary statements about you, really glowing. All of us, I think, would like to be the recipient of something that worthy, and I believe you are as well. Any -- any reason on Earth that you can think of that George Kent would be saying that because of some reason other than the fact that he believes it in his heart of hearts?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Like -- like what?</s>CONAWAY: Well, I mean like somebody paid him to do it.</s>YOVANOVITCH: No, absolutely not.</s>CONAWAY: OK, so you and I agree that we think he was sincere in that -- in that bragging on you. And that's all post the recall episode that -- that had -- that was much in discussion this morning. Well, I'm glad that your colleagues -- I would have expected nothing any different from your colleagues at State to -- to continue to treat you with the high regard that you've earned over all these years of great service. And I -- I hope that, whatever you decide to do after the Georgetown fellowship, that -- that you're as successful there as you've been in the first 33 years. With that, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Jordan.</s>TURNER: I have a unanimous consent request that an article entitled, "Whistleblower is Expected to Testify Soon, House Intelligence Chairman Schiff Says," Wall Street Journal, September 29th, 2019, be included in the record.</s>SCHIFF: Without objection.</s>TURNER: I have a unanimous consent request that an article entitled, "Whistleblower reaches agreement to testify, will appear 'very soon,' Representative Adam Schiff says," USA Today, September 29th, 2019.</s>SCHIFF: Without objection.</s>TURNER: I have a unanimous consent request. An article entitled, "Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify Before House Intelligence Committee," CNN, September 29th, 2019.</s>SCHIFF: Without objection.</s>TURNER: I have a unanimous consent request. "Intelligence panel has deal to hear whistleblower's testimony," says Schiff, Washington Post, September 29th, 2019.</s>SCHIFF: Without objection.</s>TURNER: I have a unanimous consent request. An article entitled, "Whistleblower Reportedly Agrees To Testify Before House Intelligence Committee," reported by Schiff, Huffington Post, September 29th, 2019.</s>SCHIFF: Without objection.</s>TURNER: I have a unanimous consent request. An article entitled, "Schiff: Panel will hear from whistleblower," Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, September 29th, 2019.</s>SCHIFF: Without objection. The time of the gentleman has expired. I now recognize Ms. Sewell.</s>SEWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, and your prior testimony you spoke so movingly about your family background. You stated that your parents fled communists and Nazi regimes and that they valued freedom and democracy offered in America, having experience to totalitarian regimes. Did that have any effect on your desire to enter into the United States Foreign Service?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes, it did.</s>SEWELL: Did you always know you wanted to be in the Foreign Service? I look at your background and it is perfectly suited for what you are doing. I note that you studied at the Pushkin State Russian Language Institute in Russia to learn Russian?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>SEWELL: That you have -- do you also have an MS from the National Defense University, National War College?</s>YOVANOVITCH: Yes.</s>SEWELL: I even -- I even noticed that you earned, your undergraduate degree in history and Russian studies, in college and coincidentally, that was also my college. But I wanted -- you definitely are doing Princeton and the nation's service by (inaudible) what you do every day. But I really want to know how it felt to have your reputation sullied, not for state and nation, but for personal gains? You spoke about how your service is not just your own personal service, it affects your family, and today we have seen you as this former ambassador of this 33 year veteran of the Foreign Service. But I want to know about you personally and how this has affected you personally and your family.</s>YOVANOVITCH: It's been a difficult time. I am a private person, I don't want to put all of that out there, it's been a very, very difficult time because the president does have the right to have his own, her own ambassador in every country -