Observations During the Recess of the Yovanovitch Testimony


Republicans have two choices about how to respond to the ambassador’s devastating testimony.

How a Bad Advocate Responds to Devastating Testimony

He consults the thesaurus to find a bunch of words to hurl at the problem. I will help them out.

Synonyms for “sham”:

pretense, fake, fiction, imposture, fraud, pretended. false

How a Good Advocate Responds to Devastating Testimony

She advances a plausible counternarrative.

Here, the plausible counternarrative would provide

  • “evidence” that Ambassador Yovanovitch is generally a bad and ineffective ambassador—in other words, back up Trump’s alternative reality
  • “evidence” that Ambassador Yovanovitch actually gave the former prosecutor a “no prosecute” list, contrary to her denials,
  • “evidence” that Rudy Giuliani’s good bud Yuriy Lutssenko was in fact a good prosecutor, as distinguished from a detestable piece of shit.

What Happens When You Don’t Respond with a Plausible Couternarrative?

Any remotely clear thinking listener assumes the unrequited narrative is accurate.

And what’s left after that? The only possible defense is that the real narrative somehow doesn’t matter..