Mostly ho-hum public impeachment hearings "enlivened" by squabbling between Sondland and Hill

If the public impeachment hearings have proved anything, it is that when “revelations” of wrongdoing are kept “secret” and released piecemeal they seem a whole lot worse. Take for example acting Ukraine ambassador William Taylor’s initial deposition. It seemed to many people that what was revealed to the press “sealed the deal” on Donald Trump’s eventual impeachment when Taylor all but confirmed that Trump—through Rudy Giuliani and Gordon Sondland—was  demanding a politically-advantageous and likely entirely fictitious “investigation” of Joe Biden, who according to polls at the  time had the strongest chance of defeating Trump in 2020, as well as his son Hunter Biden. 

For people like me, there is no question that Trump should be impeached, even if just as a symbolic gesture; this is a man so unfit for his office that even his opponents had to take “pity” on him  the other day as he looked pathetic while desperately trying to make out the simple-minded talking points he had scrawled on a note pad, the contents of which were recorded on camera by a press photographer. The “real” Trump, of course, took to twitter and acted like a barely literate child, calling Democrats “human scum” again, which only underscored the reason why so many people despise him as an alleged “human being.”  

Had the public hearings been the first airing of Trump and his familiars’ activities in regard to Ukraine, the effect would have been enormous—particularly with the scene of Republicans flailing about helplessly and stupidly in the face of it. Taylor’s testimony, as for most of the witnesses to date, now seems anti-climactic, save for his new revelation concerning Sondland’s previously undisclosed July 26 call to Trump—in which Sondland told Trump that the Ukrainians “loved his ass” and were willing to do his bidding on the investigations he wanted—which was significant in that it produced more witness testimony by the persons who did hear it first hand. There were other bits and pieces of “new” allegations, such as State Department official David Holmes agreeing that Burisma was a “code word” for the Bidens. Holmes also insisted that despite the release of aid after Congress learned of the hold, Ukrainian leaders continued to feel pressure to “cooperate” with Trump’s desires to stay in order to remain in his “favor.” 

Republicans meanwhile have mostly refused to ask questions pertinent to allegations against Trump and his familiars, instead engaging in either denial, personal opinion and “whataboutism”—the latter including an attempt by Devin Nunes to construct a story around a Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who reportedly attempted to enlist Ukrainian embassy officials in investigating Paul Manafort and his “off the books” dealings with pro-Russian elements in the Ukraine, including former president Viktor Yanukoviych, whose ouster by a popular revolution led to a Russian military  pressure campaign against Ukraine’s newly-installed “unfriendly” government (the Russians had already attempted to poison anti-Russia president Viktor Yushhchenko) and the “annexation” of the Crimea. There is no evidence that anything came of that, and when the effort came to light in 2017 (now a two-year-old story), Republicans had then insisted that the Ukrainian-American Chalupa was a “secret” Ukrainian operative working for that country, not in any election-influencing campaign. Democrats are now throwing their own “whataboutism” into Nunes’ face, after revelations that Nunes was working with Lev Parnas, one of the indicted Russians who conspired with Rudy Giuliani in various nefarious activities.

The ho-hum nature of the public impeachment hearings have been enlivened a bit by the apparent bad-blood between EU ambassador Gordon Sondland and British-born NSC official Fiona Hill, with both engaging in a bit of tit-for-tat, with Hill in particular seemingly desiring to be the “star” witness, a tough proposition after Sondland’s “updated” testimony yesterday. Sondland “recalled” many previously unrecollected events, the memories of which were “jogged” by the testimony of others. Sondland testified that “everyone”—including Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney and even former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, whose resignation coincided with the revelations of his potentially corrupt dealings in the Ukraine—were “in the loop” in regard to his and Giuliani’s attempts to coerce that special “favor” for Trump. 

Sondland, however, claimed that whatever knowledge of a “quid pro quo” he had came not from Trump himself, but what he was told by Giuliani. While he knew that Trump wanted “investigations” as a prerequisite for a meeting and a phone call, he only “assumed” that the investigations were in relation to the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian election interference, which after some prodding he admitted were likely for the benefit of Trump politically. While Trump and his supporters pointed to Sondland’s claim that Trump told him “no quid pro quo”—it seems that only Giuliani knows for “certain” what was Trump’s personal desire, which likely reflected Giuliani’s own conspiracy theories—we should recall Michael Cohen’s testimony in which he stated that Trump would frequently assert that he didn’t want a specific thing done, but you knew by a wink and a nod that it was what he wanted you to do for him. 

Sondland would also assert that he was unaware of any “dispute” during a meeting in the White House with Ukrainian officials as described by Hill, which she described as being “cut short” by John Bolton after Sondland tried to interject an “improper” political agenda. Sondland had described Hill as being "pretty upset about her role in the administration, about her superiors, about the President. She was sort of shaking. She was pretty mad." The suggestion of her conceits apparently set off Hill into turning it into another tiresome gender politics tirade. Hill is claiming that descriptions of her “female” anger is “sexist” and “misunderstood,” although one could infer that by her own testimony that she had a “bit of a blow up” and a “couple of testy encounters” with Sondland, where “I’ll admit I was a bit rude” that he may have had reason to believe that there was reason to “interpret” Hill’s own behavior as “problematic.” 

Hill certainly tried to make the case today that her testimony was more “important” that Sondland’s.  She peppered her testimony with press-ready one-liners (Sondland was in engaged in a “domestic political errand”), although like in her previous deposition she seemed unaware that she, Bolton and others were not “in the loop.” Hill asserted that she, Bolton and Timothy Morrison didn’t believe that Sondlund was “in charge” of Ukraine policy. They may have been partly right—Giuliani more likely was “advising” Trump and instructing Sondland on how to proceed—but Bolton was clearly wrong in believing that he was in charge of Ukraine policy. Hill confessed to finally quieting down when Sondland told her he was acting on Trump’s “personal” authority. 

As I stated before none of this really was a “game-changer” in regard to one’s belief in the impeachment process. In fact, one could come away from it disappointed that it didn’t do more to persuade “fences sitters” or “moderate” Republicans of the need to get Trump out of the White House, the sooner the better.