Where are the Republicans’ exculpatory witnesses? As the Impeachment hearings get underway, I’m surprised the Republican party doesn’t have a better defense. I think they need to get moving.
The hearing started with Intelligence Chair Rep. Adam Schiff’s statement. He made an impassioned and persuasive speech about the evidence. Then ranking member Devin Rep. Nunes rolled his eyes theatrically and seemed to squawl about… well, I’m not sure. Nunes wasted his whole opening remarks on bunkum and claptrap. There wasn’t anything in Nunes’ remarks to convince anyone who wasn’t already a true believer.
Overall, the Democrats presented carefully organized testimony and evidence of blatant extortion, bribery, and abuse of power. In response, Republicans spent half their time using legal arguments to pry out room for misunderstanding. They spent the rest of their time on one-sided pontificating and out-of-scope conspiracy theories. ( I might be optimistic about the proportions.) Spying on the Trump campaign? Ukrainian plots to support Hillary? Vicious coordination with the whistleblower’s lawyers? Really?
The staff questions were the most cohesive. Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman’s questions were broad and easy to follow. Republican counsel Steve Castor had a tougher task. To his credit, he focused on finding legal counterarguments about certainty and possible misunderstandings. Unfortunately for him, the witnesses were specific and knowledgeable, gently correcting the deliberately overbroad generalizations and blatant misstatements.
Then the committee started direct questioning. Most Republicans postured and posed. They’d preen, ask one or two things, then yield their time to Reps. Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe, the GOP designated hitters. Democrats gave some of their time to Chairman Schiff, although less often.
I liked the Democratic questions better. There was some posturing, but not as much. More, Democrats asked more open-ended questions that let the witnesses explain the issues. The Republican “questions” were mostly posturing about process injustice and the unfairness of any impeachment. Some Republicans spoke through all their five minute periods, barely asking questions. They seldom asked questions that needed more than a syllable to answer.
In theory, we expected the Republican ringers — Reps. Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe — to be the most effective. The results today didn’t pan out that way. I can only watch Jim Jordan shout nonsense without evidence.
What you heard did not happen. It’s not just could it have been wrong, the fact is it was wrong because it did not happen.”
Rep James Jordan, House impeachment investigation, Nov. 13, 2019
And that was true because… because Trump said so?
Ratcliffe was sometimes better, but he couldn’t stop himself from sliding into ideological soliloquies and bad-faith arguments.
The legal arguments were more useful. The Republican counsel tried his hardest to make room for confusion or misinterpretation. Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent kept their testimony to what they knew, and what they’d heard (and who said it). It didn’t leave much room. The facts have been hard to deny. Republicans insisted on attacking the whistleblower, which was weird. Mr. Wells and Ambassador Taylor had just testified that the whistleblower’s accusations aren’t only correct, the reality was even worse.
What I never saw from Republicans? A plausible argument about why the accusations were incorrect. The closest the Republicans got was to get the witnesses to admit they couldn’t absolutely guarantee that the hearsay testimony might not be 100 percent accurate. That’s thin gruel against horrible accusations, obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, and damning evidence.
Republicans nominated witnesses, but only as stunts. No, neither of the Bidens will testify. No, you can’t have the whistleblower testify. Besides, their testimony isn’t required. Every accusation has already been validated, and sometimes by Trump himself. In writing.
Don’t Republicans have exculpatory evidence? Won’t anyone speak for the President of America? Will anyone defend Rudi Giuliani? An advocate for AG William Barr? We’re talking about the Republican party of Trump. Why can’t they present at least a little counter-evidence? All they have left are a mix of “You must be mistaken,” and “But what about those other crimes possibly committed somewhere else?” They only had distractions, unlikely conspiracies, and bad faith arguments.
That should be important, right?
