During his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 13, Ambassador William Taylor described our diplomatic relations with Ukraine in terms of two channels. The first emanates from the Department of State and is managed by diplomats and staffers under the oversight of the ambassador and secretary of state.

The second, as described by Taylor, Russia expert Fiona Hill, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and other witnesses, was a “highly irregular” channel operated by an ad hoc team comprised of Ambassadors Sondland and Kurt Volker and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, all under the guidance of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

But, asked Stephen Castor, the lawyer charged with questioning the witnesses on behalf of the Republicans, “In fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, it’s not as outlandish as it could be. Is that correct?”

Well, yes, the irregular channel could have been more outlandish. Volker, Sondland and Perry, “The Three Amigos,” might have actually attended embassy dinners dressed in black mariachi outfits and sombreros. Now, that would be outlandish!

Instead, all The Three Amigos did was jeopardize the fledgling, reform-minded government of an important ally, undermine that nation’s effort to defend itself from an aggressive adversary and strengthen the hand of international bad actor Russia, all in an effort to gain a domestic political advantage for Trump.

Certainly any outlandish scheme can be more outlandish. But the peculiar weakness of this argument exemplifies the transparency of the defense that the Republicans gamely mounted during more than 30 hours of testimony.

Same arguments

Mostly the Republicans made the same arguments over and over. The Democrats, they asserted, began their campaign to impeach Trump even before his inauguration; some testimony was taken in closed-door sessions; the military aid eventually reached the Ukrainians so there can’t have been anything fishy going on; Chairman Adam Schiff isn’t being fair; where’s the whistleblower?

All of these claims are either irrelevant or highly disputable. Nevertheless, they were stubbornly repeated virtually every time the Republicans had the stage.

As the hearings wore on, Republicans tried to pick away at the case against the president by attacking the witnesses themselves. Without evidence they impugned the loyalty of foreign-born Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman. They even questioned why he, a full-time officer and combat veteran, was wearing his military uniform.

Without evidence, Republicans suggested that David Holmes, the political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine who overheard the awkward phone conversation between Sondland and Trump, had mishandled sensitive information. They as much as accused him of perjuring his testimony — again, without evidence — even though, in large part, it was corroborated by Sondland’s testimony.

If the Republicans had better arguments they wouldn’t have to rely on flimsy ones such as these, nor would they have to repeat them.Courage is contagious. The public integrity of only a few Republicans could change the arc of this sorry episode back toward the stringent accountability required by the Constitution of those in public office.

Get Unlimited Access
$6 for 6 Months
Subscribe Now

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.