It’s useful to remember that Nunes has frequently been a strong defender of Trump’s. In 2017, he took the lead in defending Trump after the president accused former president Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower, leaking information about the Obama administration unmasking the identities of people involved in phone calls. In 2018, Nunes’s staff drafted a document alleging abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and suggesting that the Russia probe broadly was falsely predicated.That probe overlaps with Nunes’s reference to the “Mueller report” above; specifically, to the final report compiled by then-special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which was released in April of this year. The open hearing to which Nunes refers is that in which Mueller himself testified on July 24.Nunes’s presentation of the Democrats’ “effort” to paint Trump as a “Russian agent” is political rhetoric; the Mueller hearing was focused on the special counsel’s inquiry and, largely, on evidence that Trump sought to obstruct the Russia investigation. Nunes later echoes Trump’s own rhetoric referring to the Mueller probe as the “Russia hoax,” a shorthand that glosses over what Mueller’s probe found.
This framing is a constant among Trump’s defenders, suggesting that the concern of Democrats is that Trump is president at all. The mention of “corrupt media” is an effort to cast outlets like our own as untrustworthy, so that people will be skeptical if we, say, contextualize erroneous public statements from politicians.
As Nunes notes, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the phone the day after the Mueller hearing. During that call, Trump pushed Zelensky to open politically useful investigations.What Nunes blurs is that Democrats didn’t immediately seize upon the July 25 call as problematic. Instead, that focus only emerged in mid-September, when a whistleblower in the intelligence community filed a complaint focused on concerns about Trump’s interactions with Zelensky. That complaint triggered the current probe and the emergence of evidence bolstering the whistleblower’s complaint.What Nunes is doing here, unsubtly, is framing the impeachment process itself as a function of partisanship. The next section makes that even more obvious.
- forget about Democrats on this committee falsely claiming they had “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion between President Trump and the Russians;
This is a reference in part to committee chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.). For Schiff and other Democrats, incidents like the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 establish an effort by Trump’s team to collude with Russian actors. Republicans, including Nunes, reject such claims.
The “nude pictures” comment is a reference to Schiff’s having been tricked by Russian pranksters offering purported incriminating photos of Trump. This reference, like the reference to the dossier of reports filed by former British intelligence office Christopher Steele, is meant to embarrass and undermine Schiff rather than to specifically defend Trump.
- forget about them leaking a false story to CNN, while he was testifying to our committee, claiming Donald Trump Jr. had colluded with WikiLeaks;
Nunes again tries to disparage House Democrats by suggesting that they leaked erroneous information to the press. CNN, making an error on dates, incorrectly reported that Donald Trump Jr. had received early notification about a release of documents from 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.
This is the main point: Democrats can’t be trusted to hold an unbiased impeachment inquiry. (Again, though, note that this doesn’t address Trump’s interactions with Ukraine.)Nunes continues on this line.
- After vowing publicly that impeachment requires bipartisan support, Democrats are pushing impeachment forward without the backing of a single House Republican.
True, but only in part because the one Republican who supported impeachment, Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) left the party. It’s also the case that Republicans maintained a solid front in part to be able to make this argument.
- The witnesses deemed suitable for television by the Democrats were put through a closed-door audition process in a cultlike 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.
This is broadly misleading. A review of transcripts reveals that Republicans were given equal time to question witnesses. Republicans participated in the interviews; dozens were members of committees that allowed them to do so. Both Democrats and Republicans leaked information from the depositions.
- Violating their own guidelines, the Democrats repeatedly redacted from the transcripts the name of Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee who worked with Ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump campaign, which she provided to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
- The Democrats rejected most of the Republicans’ witness requests, resulting in a horrifically one-sided process where crucial witnesses are denied a platform if their testimony doesn’t support the Democrats’ absurd accusations. Notably, they are trying to impeach the president for inquiring about Hunter Biden’s activities, yet they refused our request to hear from Biden himself.
Democrats, who hold the majority in the House, did reject several witnesses proposed by Republicans. One rationale is that witnesses like Hunter Biden, former vice president Joe Biden’s son, would have little to offer on Trump’s interactions with Ukraine — the focus of the inquiry.
- The whistleblower was acknowledged to have a bias against President Trump, and his attorney touted a “coup” against the president and called for his impeachment just weeks after his election.
Republicans have seized on the bias of the whistleblower — revealed by the inspector general for the intelligence community — as being disqualifying. The whistleblower’s complaint, however, has been broadly confirmed by subsequent testimony.The comment about a “coup” is from a tweet at the beginning of Trump’s administration. Republicans displayed an oversize version of the tweet during the hearing. Embracing a tweet from a lawyer for a whistleblower seems somewhat at odds with the long-standing complaint from Republicans that the impeachment inquiry relies on secondhand information.
- At a prior hearing, Democrats on this committee read out a purely fictitious rendition of the president’s phone call with [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelensky. They clearly found the real conversation to be insufficient for their impeachment narrative, so they just made up a new one.
Trump has also focused on this “fictitious rendition” — a paraphrasing of the call by Schiff — as problematic.
Nunes is again attacking Schiff, suggesting impropriety in his interactions with the whistleblower (also a Trump focus). Outreach to congressional committees is, however, an acceptable part of the whistleblower process. There’s no indication Schiff knew who the whistleblower was or what the complaint was centered on before its being filed.
- For years they accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia when they themselves were colluding with Russia by funding and spreading the Steele dossier, which relied on Russian sources.
Again a conservative-media talking point. The Steele dossier is used as a rebuttal to questions about Trump’s interactions with Russia, despite that rebuttal centering on the idea that doing research involving Russians is equivalent to allegations about Russia trying to integrate with Trump’s 2016 campaign.
- And now they accuse President Trump of malfeasance in Ukraine when they themselves are culpable. The Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election meddling, and they defend Hunter Biden’s securing of a lavishly paid position with a corrupt Ukrainian company, all while his father served as vice president.
The “Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election meddling” line links back to the Democratic National Committee contractor mentioned earlier, Alexandra Chalupa. A 2017 Politico article reported on Chalupa’s efforts to get information on Paul Manafort in 2016. Manafort was then Trump’s campaign chairman and had worked in Ukrainian politics for years. There’s no indication that the Democratic Party broadly or the Ukrainian government was part of the effort.
- 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?
Observers might consider those questions in a different light: What might their answers reveal about Trump’s apparent efforts to pressure Ukraine into launching politically useful investigations?The question at the center of the impeachment inquiry is what Trump did and whether he leveraged his power appropriately. If there were evidence that Ukraine interfered in 2016 (which there isn’t) or that Hunter Biden violated the law (which there isn’t), perhaps Trump’s position would be stronger. It would not necessarily be exculpatory.
It is certainly true that faith in government has eroded over time.
- After expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about foreign corruption on the campaign trail, President Trump outraged the bureaucracy by acting skeptically about foreign aid and expressing concerns about foreign corruption.
Trump didn’t mention corruption at all in his conversation with Zelensky, instead focusing only on the hacking of the DNC in 2016 and on Biden and his son.
- Officials’ alarm at the president’s actions was typically based on secondhand, third-hand, and even fourth-hand rumors and innuendo.
But not always. Several witnesses testified to firsthand interactions with others or with the president.
- They believed it was an outrage for President Trump to fire an ambassador, even though the president has full authority to retain or remove diplomats for any reason at any time.
- Officials showed a surprising lack of interest in the indications of Ukrainian election meddling that deeply concerned the president at whose pleasure they serve.
Again, these indications are flimsy.
- Despite all their dissatisfaction with President Trump’s Ukraine policy, the president approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine, unlike the previous administration, which provided blankets as defense against invading Russians.
Nunes himself has been at the forefront of raising questions about U.S. intelligence institutions as part of his ongoing defenses of Trump, on whose presidential transition team he served.
It’s a minor nit, but an important one: Presidential impeachments don’t depend on the commission of a crime.