So on Friday, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch (“an authority on authoritarianism” quipped Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi) testified about how Trump had unceremoniously removed her from office, and the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, by and large, acted confused that she was there.
It went something like this:
Chairman Adam Schiff (D): Would you say you are exactly the kind of person we would like to have in government, that your record is flawless, and that you have served for years with honor and distinction?
Yovanovitch: As a professional diplomat, I know better than to say that many positive things about myself, which might be off-putting, but other people have said that they are accurate.
Schiff: And was it good for the country that you were suddenly forced to leave your job?
Yovanovitch: I don’t think so, no. It seems like it sends the wrong message. Shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American ambassador who does not give them what they want.
Schiff: And now for something completely different.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R): I am upset that we are here, talking to this woman, and I will be even more upset when we stop talking to her and talk to someone else. I don’t think she has ever talked to President Trump, correct? Then why would we interview her? Why are we wasting America’s time. I hope that at least she can help us get to the bottom of the Bidens’ dealings with Burisma, the real subject of these hearings.
Schiff: I’m sorry, while this was happening, the president tweeted that Ambassador Yovanovitch brought blight and pestilence wherever she was posted and was despised by the president of Ukraine, and furthermore that he has the right to fire anyone he wants. Take that! I am pretty sure this is witness intimidation.
Republican: Objection! If you had not read her the intimidating statement the president made to this witness, she would not have been intimidated! Really, this is on you.
Schiff: Would you describe yourself as intimidated?
Yovanovitch: I don’t like to talk about myself, but I would describe the tweet as intimidating.
Republican: So, you left the Ukraine (booo), a wretched hive of corruption and villainy, and now you’re at Georgetown, correct? Am I wrong that Georgetown is a wonderful place? An elite institution?
Republican: And your colleagues, they still respect you, right? They don’t ignore you in the cafeteria?
Republican: So, wouldn’t you say this was all a blessing in disguise?
Rep. Mike Quigley (D): Yes, you’re at Georgetown, so it all worked out! Like a Hallmark movie! Specifically, “Happy Recallidays” (2007) where a work-a-holic ambassador played by Erin Krakow is forced to return home to sleepy Washington, D.C., and remember the reason for the season, and sparks fly as she reconnects with the minority chair of the committee impeaching the president (Jesse Metcalfe). Or “Quid Pro Snow,” the same plot but Lacey Chabert, and she has a cat (Kimberley Sustad) who turns human when she … blows a magic whistle?
Yovanovitch: Not like that.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R): Please allow me, out of order, to read 35 headlines into the record in which Adam Schiff PROMISED WE’D HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
Schiff:: The gentlewoman is not recognized.
Stefanik: This is just typical of the kind of shady, star-chamber process of Mr. Shady Schiff that would SILENCE, indeed MUZZLE, a woman such as myself! The Democrats claim to respect women, and yet they will not let me speak out of turn to demand that the whistleblower testify openly. Hypocrisy, much?
Nunes: We’ve heard enough. Now we are going downstairs to our secret room, to hear more. I despise this and all things!
Shouted question, to gaggle of congresspersons: Excuse us, was the president’s tweet witness intimidation?
Stefanik: We are not TALKING about tweets. We are talking about the most somber subject of all: impeachment, and how dare you sully this inquiry by mentioning tweets. Good day, sir.
“The Christmas Subpoena” airs Saturday at 9 p.m.
Read more from Alexandra Petri: