Trump impeachment: Republican strategy relies on conspiracy theories — and calling the whole thing boring

Analysis: From bringing up Obama to cryptic mentions of black ledgers, Republicans refuse to bother with the evidence placed before them

Republicans dredged up conspiracy theories and tall tales during first public impeachment hearings (Getty Images)

While Democrats have focused on evidence provided by the two witnesses called before the House Intelligence Committee’s first public impeachment hearing, Republicans had a much different strategy.

Instead of paying heed to observable realities, Republicans focused almost immediately on undermining the whole process, and giving national airtime to baseless conspiracy theories and distractions akin to the type of opinion coverage Americans have come to know well from conservative media personalities like Fox News’s Sean Hannity.

From the outset, the tone from Republican counsel Steve Castor and ranking member Devin Nunes was markedly different from the otherwise sober approach of congressman Adam Schiff, Democrats and their chosen counsel.

Let’s take a look at some of the most prominent examples:

“We should forget about them reading fabrications of Trump-Russia collusion from the Steele dossier into the public record. We should also forget about them attempting to obtain nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials. We should forget about them leaking a false story to CNN while he was still testifying to our committee claiming that Donald Trump Jr was colluding with WikiLeaks. And forget about countless other deceptions large and small that make them the last people on Earth with the credibility to hurl more preposterous accusations at their political opponents.”

There are quite a few accusations here, and none of them are directly related to whether the president sought to coerce the Ukrainian government to investigate his rivals for him:

Among the accusations is an apparent attack on the Trump-Russia statements from Democrats, many of which were supported by a lengthy investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. The second one is a reference to an attempt by comedians who obtained Mr Schiff’s personal phone number and offered him nudes — only to be told by the Democrat to speak to the FBI. And, that final accusation is that the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, colluded with the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks (a group Mr Trump Jr himself has admitted having had correspondence with).

Later in his opening statement, Mr Nunes accused Democrats of fostering a “cult-like atmosphere” as he continued his effort to undermine the hearing to protect Mr Trump.

“What about the additional six witnesses?” … “Mr Chairman will you be prohibiting witnesses from answering members’ questions as you have in the closed door depositions?"

Early on, Republicans sought to derail the proceedings with interjections and procedural points of order. These questions came from congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who suggested with them that Democrats are not allowing Republicans on the committee to freely ask their own questions and bring forward their own witnesses that may help Mr Trump.

Mr Schiff responded to Ms Stefanik saying that Republicans are allowed to call on their own witnesses, and that he only stopped questioning during the closed door testimony when Republicans were riding dangerously close to publicly identifying the whistle blower whose complaint sparked the investigation.

The whistleblower’s identity is protected by federal law.

Speaking of the whistleblower: Republicans Mike Conaway and Jim Jordan also attempted to focus the hearings on the anonymous official, with Mr Conway asking that they subpoena them for private hearings, and Mr Jordan asking when they might vote on that measure.

“... about the Manafort black ledgers in August of 2016. The very day that was published Mr Manafort resigned from the campaign, correct?” … “Certainly that gives rise to some concern that there were elements of the Ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president, that’s a very reasonable belief of his, correct?” … “In the run up to the 2016 election, there is many facts that remain unresolved, agreed?”

Mr Castor is here referring to a ledger that listed $12.7 million in secret payments made to Paul Manafort — Mr Trump’s former campaign chairman — from his client Viktor Yanukovych, the Russian-aligned oligarch who ruled Ukraine until 2014. Mr Manafort is now in jail in part because he failed to disclose or pay taxes on that income out of Ukraine. Russians, now, have begun to portray Mr Manafort as a victim of plotting on behalf of Serhiy Leschenko, who played a key role in bringing that ledger forward.

What’s important in this context is that the witness being questioned, Mr Taylor, appears to have little idea how to respond to these questions, which go much beyond the allegations (which have largely been corroborated by witnesses and evidence) against Mr Trump.

That may be in part because it falls far beyond the bounds of the impeachment inquiry. Also because Mr Taylor, who became the chief US diplomat to Ukraine earlier this year, had previously left his office as US ambassador to Ukraine in 2009 (well before these black ledger concerns were disclosed).

Noting that Mr Zelensky has claimed publicly that he did not feel pressure to investigate Mr Biden, fearing the withholding of US aid: “That’s not second hand information, it’s not hearsay, that’s not something that someone overheard ambassador [Gordon] Sondland say that was his direct testimony Mr Taylor did you have any evidence to assert that president Zelensky was lying when he said those things.” … “So, in this impeachment hearing today where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offence in that call, are either of you here to day to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out. Anyone?”

This line of questioning came from Republican congressman John Ratcliffe, who is known for his fierce defence of Mr Trump.

There are a couple things worth noting here. First: It’s not hard to imagine a foreign leader putting a smiling face on while addressing the world press, and that Mr Zelensky may not have seen the moment as the best to accuse Mr Trump of the exact scandal that is currently rocking his presidency.

Beyond that, it’s hardly the acting US ambassador to Ukraine’s role to determine what is and is not an impeachable offence. That power lands on the shoulders, actually, of folks like Mr Ratcliffe — meaning, that’s up to Congress.

Mr Ratcliffe also made the whole thing personal to Mr Zelensky in referencing those statements, saying that impeaching Mr Trump amounts to calling Mr Zelensky a liar.

"Now we understand what president [Barack] Obama meant when he told Russian president [Dmitri] Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after his election. Maybe that flexibility was to deny lethal aid to the Ukraine allowing Russia to march right in and kill Ukrainians. Again in your deposition you urged the Obama administration to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression. And now they have that under this administration, don’t they, mr ambassador?”

This question, from Republican congressman Brad Wenstrup, is referencing a 2012 conversation between Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev that was captured on a hot mic, in which the American suggested he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate nuclear missile defence agreements between the two countries. It had nothing to do with allowing Russia to annexe Crimea, which it did in 2014 — resulting in a swift response from the Obama administration, including sanctions.

Mr Taylor, who was being asked the question, did note that Javelin anti-tank missiles have been provided to Ukraine under the Trump administration. Mr Obama’s administration placed limits on what it considered “offensive lethal weaponry” like the Javelins — though it did provide radar and communications equipment.

But, beyond these pesky facts — this hearing is about Mr Trump allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate his rival. Mr Trump, it is worth noting, has been much warmer with Russia than Mr Obama.

“This sham hearing is not only boring, it is a colossal waste of taxpayer time & money.”

This was White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham’s take on the hearings, though she was not in attendance.

Mr Trump himself suggested in the Oval Office that wasn’t even watching the hearings: “I’m too busy to watch it. It’s a witch hunt, it’s a hoax, I’m too busy to watch it. So, I’m sure I’ll get a report. There’s nothing — I have not been briefed. There’s nothing there. I see they’re using lawyers that are television lawyers, they took some guys off television. You know. I’m not surprised to see it, because Schiff can’t do his own questions.”