Dear America,
I've been listening to the testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, though the station I was listening to on my internet radio had technical problems that prevented me from hearing her opening remarks. Having heard her testimony after that, I have to say that I am rather unimpressed with the Democrats' inquiry in that it is almost entirely related to the states of mind of others. In fact, Yovanovitch seems often to barely know how to respond when asked, for example, why Donald Trump did something because she doesn't know what Donald Trump was thinking when he removed her from her post as ambassador to Ukraine, or when he said one thing or another. In fact, no one knows what he thinks, or even if he thinks, after he says many of the preposterous things publicly avers. Daniel Goldman, the interlocutor chosen by the Democrats, has asked these questions and some that were actually ridiculous. For example he asked the ambassador how she felt when she heard that Trump stated that she was about to "go through some things" and she said, threatened. He then asked her, "Did you feel threatened?" and then followed up by asking her why, to which she could only say that Trump's statement about "some things" didn't sound good. The question was redundant, and maybe even nonsensical given the questions and answers that had just preceded it. Add that to Chairman Schiff's narratives masquerading as questions and you wind up with ammunition for the Republicans in their claims about the validity of the entire inquiry.
To be candid, between the questioning of the Republicans based on their dissembling and contorted reasoning designed to defend the indefensible and the incompetence of the Democrats' lawyers, who should know how to conduct the inquiry of a witness but don't seem to have any idea about doing so, the conclusion I reach is that all of them are just trying to stay in touch with whatever audience these hearings are garnering. I watched as much of the Watergate hearings as I could, and by comparison, they were conducted by a bunch of Clarence Darrows, whereas the current inquiry is being conducted by Elmer Fudd and his identical siblings. And meanwhile, Trump himself is making absurd points about Yovanovitch's tenure in Somalia as if the chaos there was her fault by twitter. Frankly, yesterday's utterances by the Republicans, Jim Jordan in particular, are rather revealing of the desperation they are starting to feel.
Jordan made a couple of completely preposterous defenses on NPR when he was interviewed last evening. He said that since the military aid in question was eventually released and Ukraine's president never did announce an investigation, there couldn't have been anything improper in about withholding the aid as long as Trump did regardless of the reason he did so. That's absurd, just as is the claim that because Trump failed in his effort to coerce Ukraine's president to announce an investigation, he isn't guilty of coercion. It's like saying that if the president actually did shoot at someone on fifth avenue but missed, he couldn't be charged with a crime, and that is relevant because Trump himself talked about his impunity if he did shoot someone on fifth avenue. Failure is not a defense to a charge of attempting a crime, or for that matter a high crime or misdemeanor.
Similarly, the fact that Yovanovitch's recall from Ukraine was the right of the president--another point that Jordan thinks vindicates Trump--doesn't refute the allegation that she was withdrawn for improper reasons; his reasons for doing so, not his right, are the reason for calling her. The fact that Trump recalled her when she pressed for investigation of corruption however, is evidence of his devious motivations. They are the issue that her testimony as a witness is intended to prove, and they seem to be doing so. Similarly, the "whistle blower" isn't needed by either side; the Republicans' insistence on ratting him out is as pretextual as the rest of their defense.
I hope that the Democrats reassess their goal of staying on television for as long as possible and try instead to adduce the proof of impeachable offenses rather than dispersing vituperative opinions. Less smoke and more fire, I say. Less is more. As a retired lawyer I can tell you this. If the Democrats had inquired of the ambassador properly for ten or fifteen minutes, but done it properly, they would have gotten closer to their goal than they did with their rambling and ill-crafted questioning of a witness who could have been devastating if they could have just let her do so simply and briefly. I gave this advice more than once when I was practicing law. Democrats, you need a good lawyer.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment