11/13/19: The House of Representatives holds its first day of public testimony in the impeachment inquiry. Aides insist the president isn’t going to watch a single second, because it’s all a witch hunt and a hoax, a swindle, a fraud, a trick, a ruse, a joke and a goddam con. Besides Mr. Trump will be too busy working on making America great again. Or keeping it great.
Whatever.
____________________
Best of all, we learned that there were people in government
who might still make us proud.
____________________
What did we learn if we weren’t “too busy working” to watch? We learned that Rep. Jim Jordan is always angry when cameras are running and probably likes to yell even when ordering from a menu. We learned that Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican in the hearings, hates the way “Shifty Schiff” is running the show, mostly because he’s making Trump look terrible. We learned that Rep. John Ratcliffe had no idea how diplomacy plays out – but that his plan to defend the president boils down to harassing witnesses, in hopes that stupid people watching will believe Trump could do no wrong – had in fact been wronged, instead.
We heard from almost every Republican on the panel that the
first two witnesses seated before them had no “firsthand knowledge” of events
and so, it was a crime for Democrats to want to listen.
Best of all, we learned that there were people in government who might make us proud. We learned that George Kent, Deputy Assistant for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Ambassador Bill Taylor were men of honor and integrity. We learned that they, unlike Nunes and Jordan and Trump, were decent men. They had come forward to tell their stories under oath because they were concerned for the safety and security of the United States. They would stick to the facts, as they understood them, and tell us what they knew.
Taylor made it clear, in the face of Nunes’s attack, that he was not there as a witness for any political party or partisan group. He was there to tell the truth. Both he and Kent smiled wryly at times, as Republicans postured and tried to undercut the testimony they were presenting. At least one Republican, allotted five minutes to question the witnesses, per committee rules, wasted all five rambling on about why the Democrats should all burn to a crisp in political hell. Kent kept listening for an actual question, puzzlement growing, until the lawmaker ran out of time and his harangue ended in a fizzle. I don’t think in the four hours of testimony that I was able to watch, that a single GOP lawmaker asked a single question about anything President Trump might have done wrong. They came in with their minds closed, their mouths loosely hinged, and their ears stoppered with wax.
I admit, however, that I usually muted Rep. Jordan when he started to yelp. If you’ve never watched him in these hearings, he looks as if at any moment he’s going to get so angry he’ll suffer a stroke.
*
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF opened proceedings by calmly laying out what he believed was at stake. Congress must decide whether or not the President of the United States denied the Ukrainians a meeting in the White House and military assistance for purely selfish political reasons.
Did Donald J. Trump pressure U.S. allies to dig up dirt on an opponent and thereby help him win the 2020 election?
Had he placed U.S. national security at risk for no other reason than to get the foreign help he wanted?
No hope for Nunes.
Rep. Nunes tipped the entire GOP plan in his opening statement. This wasn’t going to be a hearing where testimony mattered. First, he cast doubt on the integrity of the more than a dozen men and women who had testified behind closed doors and under oath. He felt compelled to bring up the Mueller investigation. That investigation, he insisted, had been “a three-year long operation by Democrats, the corrupt media, and partisan bureaucrats to overturn the results of the 2016 election.”
The “Russian hoax” imploded on July 24, Nunes said, on the day Robert Mueller testified publicly under oath. It was a hoax during which “any Republican who ever shook hands with a Russian” was denounced.
You knew right away, there was no hope for Nunes – for people like Nunes – or for people who liked people like Nunes. There was going to be no admission that the Mueller Report cited ten examples of what was almost surely obstruction of justice by the president and his sleazebag crew. Nunes wasn’t going to admit that half-a-dozen members of the Trump 2016 campaign had been convicted of, or pled guilty, to felonious activities during that campaign. Not one had been sent to prison for simply shaking a Russian’s hand.
I found myself wishing Chairman Schiff might put a palm in front of his mouth and fake-cough: Cough. Roger Stone. Cough, cough.
That would have been fun.
(Two days later, a jury would find Stone guilty on seven
felony counts, for his fine work on behalf of the president.)
Devin Nunes was there for one reason, which had nothing to do
with examining the facts. He was there to attack Democrats, even though no
Democrat had been accused of pressuring any Ukrainian to provide help in the
U.S. election scheduled next year. He couldn’t defend what President Trump had
done. So, he must attack. The Democrats, he alleged, had previously stooped so
low as to try to get “nude pictures of President Trump from Russian
pranksters.” Yes, “pranksters.” Harmless jokers. In point of fact, Russian
intelligence agents interfered extensively in the 2016 election – and Mueller
and his team had indicted thirteen Russians, including Konstantin
Kilimnik, a pal of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
(Kilimnik avoided indictment in related matters by hopping a flight to Moscow, before he could be arrested.)
But Nunes was worried about “nude pictures” of poor Donald. Even the First Lady probably wouldn’t want to see those.
What we had before us, Nunes insisted, was part of an “orchestrated media smear campaign.” These witnesses, suitable for television, had been “put through a closed-door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of the Capitol, where the Democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks, and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner.” The Democrats rejected witnesses the Republicans wanted to hear from and the whole process was a crime and a sham.
The real issues, according to Rep. Nunes, were,
First, what is the full extent
of the Democrats’ prior coordination with the Whistleblower and who else did
the Whistleblower coordinate this effort with?
Second, what is the full extent
of Ukraine’s election meddling against the Trump campaign?
And third, why did Burisma hire
Hunter Biden, what did he do for them, and did his position affect any U.S.
government actions under the Obama administration?
Nunes went on to tell the packed hearing room and millions watching on TV, that what they were about to see was a “theatrical performance staged by the Democrats.” He insulted both witnesses, seated before him, ready to swear to tell the truth, so help them, God. “Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent,” he said with a smirk, “I’d like to welcome you here, and congratulate you for passing the Democrats’ Star Chamber auditions. It seems you agreed, wittingly or unwittingly, to participate in a drama,” he continued. “But the main performance – the Russian hoax – has ended, and you’ve been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.”
And with that, we were off!
Remember: the witnesses were under oath.
*
THE ESSENCE of the Republican strategy for the first day of public hearings was to howl about the first “whistleblower” who touched off this whole inquiry, and demand that he or she be unmasked. If Taylor, the witness before them, gave testimony damaging to the president, they howled. If Kent spoke up, they bayed. Where was the whistleblower! They wanted the whistleblower to testify at once! Occasionally, they would stop attacking Chairman Schiff and the media and try to pick at bits and pieces of the previous closed-door testimony of Taylor and Kent (almost 700 pages of transcripts, combined) and quibble about details of what they had said. For example, Rep. John Ratcliffe wanted to know if either man had ever met President Trump?
No, said Kent.
No, said Taylor.
Ah, no firsthand knowledge! See! You almost expected Ratcliffe to leap out of his chair and dance a jig.
Putting U.S. and Ukrainian national security at risk.
Then again, if you had a brain larger than a peach pit, you could go to the transcripts and start reading, first Kent and then Taylor. If you did, you could find countless examples of firsthand knowledge, which the witnesses had laid out. Or a lawmaker of average intelligence, or an ordinary American, could listen for at least part of the five hours of televised testimony. Taylor explained that he had talked to Ambassador Gordon Sondland. Sondland, Taylor had testified and now testified again, told him during a phone call that “everything” the Ukrainians wanted – a White House meeting – critical military aid – was predicated on their agreeing to investigate Hunter Biden and his dad. That meant Sondland believed there was a quid pro quo.
Taylor could cite the email he sent to Sondland in response: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” He could explain that withholding vital military assistance put both U.S. and Ukrainian national security at risk. He could tell the panel and the television audience that he threatened to quit his post, rather than undermine the safety of the two nations.
That would all be firsthand knowledge.
And if Nunes and his crew wanted even more firsthand
knowledge, Sondland would be testifying publicly, next week.
As surely as you were seated before the TV, you knew that as soon as Ambassador Taylor finished his answer, another Republican was going to spend his or her five minutes insinuating that the Deep State was out to bring a choirboy president down.
Mr. Trump had already described these witnesses and all the others who had testified under oath, as “Never Trumpers.”
Or, much worse, as “human scum.”
You might have imagined that some Republican on the panel, possessed of common decency, would bring that up and admonish the president as a result.
None did.
*
IF AMERICANS retain the freedoms we currently enjoy, a hundred years hence, if an amoral president and his sycophant friends don’t win this critically important game, then not a word Nunes or Jordan or the other GOP lawmakers say this day will be remembered at all.
The bravery of Kent and Taylor will stand out. The only bombshell of the day comes when Taylor reveals that another important phone call, not previously known, had taken place. Since he had testified in closed door session, some weeks back, an aide had informed him of a call that took place on July 26.
That was the day after the call between President Trump and President Zelensky, which touched off this inquiry.
Taylor offers, in part, a firsthand account of what happened that day. He and Ambassador Kurt Volker had gone to the frontlines, to observe Ukrainian forces which were battling Russian aggression at the time.
(And still are.)
He could tell lawmakers, because he was there, what a Ukrainian commander said to him. He explained why U.S. military aid was critical to our ally’s defense. He mentioned that thousands of Ukrainians had already died fighting Vladimir Putin’s forces. One Ukrainian was killed that day, and four wounded. Taylor was a decorated combat veteran himself. He knew what was at stake.
Rep. Nunes, of course, had never served in uniform. Like the president, neither had Rep. Jim Jordan.
If they cared about Ukrainians dying, they hid their feelings well.
Here’s how Ambassador Taylor told the story of the newly revealed meeting – and this would not be firsthand knowledge – meaning Republican lawmakers would have to howl again. “While Ambassador Volker and I visited the front, this member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondland” to a meeting with a top Ukrainian official in Kyiv [Kiev].
Following that meeting, in
the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President
Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv. The member of my staff could hear
President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about “the
investigations.” Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians
were ready to move forward.
Following the call
with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what
President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that
President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani
was pressing for.
Nothing but hearsay, Rep. Jordan spent the next four minutes, loudly and angrily, pointing out.
Then he “yielded back” his remaining minute and Rep. Elise Stefanik waved a copy of the transcript of the July 25 call. Read it she said, speaking to the American public. This four-page document proved that Trump was innocent of all crimes, at all times, past, present and to come. Did Trump mention a quid pro quo in that call? No, he did not. Stefanik insisted that the transcript be entered into the record.
I missed exactly what Chairman Schiff said. I think he mentioned that it had already been entered.
That seemed to make Rep. Stefanik angrier still.
*
President Trump is welcome to come in and take a seat.
THE POINT Nunes and the president’s other enablers were hoping to obscure was clear. If Taylor’s story of another questionable call was correct, then the Ukrainians knew that they were expected to investigate the Bidens if they wanted any help from the United States. And they knew it no later than the end of July. And it would seem clear Trump didn’t care about “cleaning up corruption” in Ukraine, as he and his enablers claim, or even safeguarding U.S. national security. He just wanted the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Bidens. He wanted to be re-elected.
He didn’t care at what cost.
Not one Republican lawmaker, as far as I could tell, asked a single follow-up question about that newly revealed July 26 call. Not even Rep. Will Hurd, normally a voice of reason and sanity, seemed to dare. Rep. Ratcliffe only wanted to know why Chairman Schiff shouldn’t be called as a witness himself. Jordan barked again. Only Schiff, he claimed, knew who the whistleblower was. And, by God, the whistleblower should have to come forward and testify too!
Schiff said that he did not know who the whistleblower was, and that Jordan’s statement was false.
He did not shout.
Instead, he calmly announced that David Holmes,
the aide who had heard Trump’s voice on the phone, and who had asked Sondland
what the president said, would now be issued a subpoena.
It didn’t matter that fresh witnesses were coming forward and were willing to testify under oath. Jordan insisted again, at a high decibel level, that the person responsible for this whole mess should be called to testify publicly, should be unmasked, his or her identity exposed. He meant the whistleblower, of course.
Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat, was ready with a quick retort. “I’d be glad to have the person who started it all, come in and testify. Uh, President Trump,” he said, waving his hand toward the TV cameras and witness table, “is welcome to come in and take a seat right there.”
Welch then went on to add that if his GOP colleagues really wanted firsthand information, perhaps they could convince President Trump to stop telling most of his top aides not to testify or hand over any documents whatsoever to Congress, despite a series of subpoenas already issued.
As for the president, himself, reporters later asked if he remembered that July 26 call. Trump wore the same blank expression a husband accused of cheating by his wife would try to adopt.
We know he’s had practice trying that expression on.
I know nothing about
that. First time I’ve heard it. The one thing I’ve seen
that Sondland said is that he did speak with me for a
brief moment and I said, “no quid pro quo under any circumstances.” And
that’s true. But I’ve never heard this. In any event, it is
more secondhand information, but I’ve never heard it.
*
WHAT DID we learn by the time testimony was done on Day 1? The Republican position was set in concrete. No parade of witnesses was going to change any GOP minds. Generally speaking, Americans who watched thought Mr. Kent’s bowtie was cool and marveled at the gigantic water bottle from which he occasionally swigged. Kent explained that he had worked for three Republican presidents and two Democratic presidents during his 27-year career. His job was to implement U.S. foreign policy. That’s what he tried to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
We learned that Ambassador Taylor was most proud of his
“combat infantry badge” which he earned by fighting in Vietnam, and that he
graduated fifth in a West Point class of 800. We learned that both men were
entirely credible witnesses. We learned that their testimony in no way helped
President Trump.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment