As key envoys testified in an open session, Democrats hoped to overcome the polarization that has defined Trumps presidency
Shortly after 10 am on Wednesday, a single abrupt hip-hop of the gavel propelled the House intelligence committee’s first public hearing into the impeachment of Donald Trump, the 45 th president of the United States.
In the vaulted assemblies of the ways and means committee, the House’s grandest and most ornate meeting room, the day’s witnesses– William Taylor, the top American envoy in Ukraine, and George Kent, a elderly state department official in charge of Ukraine policy- rose to their feet and solemnly grew their right hands to be sworn in.
” There are still few activities as consequential as the impeachment of a chairman ,” Schiff said.” While the Founders did not intend that impeachment be employed for mere differences over program, they also made impeachment a constitutional process that the Congress must implement where needed .”
For Democrats, the hearing was their first opportunity to make their case to the American people that Trump had used the capability of the presidency to employ a foreign government of providing assistance against domestic political contenders. Republicans verified themselves as Trump’s followers, injecting unfounded hypothesis and wild accusations to distract from the mounting evidence of wrongdoing by the president.
But Trump’s fate will not be decided inside the columned walls of office 1100 of the House Longworth building. Rather, it will depend on whether Democrats can thrust the deep political polarization that has cleaved the country and defined Trump’s presidency. This, they feel, is their best chance to break through the backer repetition cavities and captivate the nation’s attention, as happened during the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.
Roughly 48% of Americans say they support impeachment in one form or another, according to FiveThirtyEight’s impeachment polling tracker, while 44.4% say they do not support it. But all participating in the Capitol Hill drama on Wednesday were keenly aware of the fact that open hearings have the power to sway public affection: support for the impeachment of Richard Nixon climbed swiftly, Pew Research has noted, after the process was televised and numerous Americans was informed about the occasion in detail for the first time.
” This is a very serious affair in our country ,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, told her caucus, like a general steeling her troops for combat.” We care it could have been avoided. None of us came here to impeach a chairperson .”
The more than five-hour spectacle was at once striking and dreary- staggering brand-new testament be held following long bouts of rote questioning.
Taylor, a Vietnam war veteran with a utter that beholders agreed announced like late broadcasting mythology Walter Cronkite, was unflappable and measured as lawmakers tried to goad him into making a political statement. He smiled, rarely tittered, and rebuffed the assertion that he was a” virtuoso witness “:” I’m not here to take one side or the other or to propose any particular outcome .”
Early in the questioning, Daniel Goldman, a onetime “prosecutors ” who asked questions of the eyewitness on behalf of the Democratic chair, expected Taylor:” In your decades of military service and diplomatic service representing the United District around the world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid provisioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the United Nation ?”
Taylor shook his head.” No, Mr Goldman, I have not .”
In a last-minute exchange, the Republicans’ congressional investigate, Steve Castor, peppered Taylor with questions about Rudy Giuliani’s role in influence American foreign policy with Ukraine, queried:” In fairness, this irregular channel … isn’t as preposterou as it could be, correct ?”
” It’s not as preposterou as it could be ,” Taylor chuckled.” I agree .”
The hearing room was icy freezing, and as the hours clicked by, reporters attracted on wintertime coatings and scarves. Lawmakers not on the intelligence committee filtered in and out of the hearing room, taking notes and documenting the background on their camera phones. Republican rarely scorned when Schiff spoke.
Devin Nunes, a Republican from California and a close ally of Trump, was not as earmarked. Angry and conspiratorial, the committee’s higher-ranking representative alleged Democrat of a follow a “scorched-earth war” against Trump and called the investigation a” carefully orchestrated media smear campaign “.
Behind him, a trio of placards, orientation behind the dais and hoisted high enough to appear in any viewfinder any time a Republican spoke, clashed with the stately backdrop. An out-of-context quote from a Democrat, a tweet from the whistleblower’s lawyer and an accusation that the chairman rejected as patently fraudulent were par for the course in an atmosphere of unrestrained political warfare.
The Democrat strained to show that they understood the gravity of their project, modeled by Schiff, who sat ramrod straight with a gaze determined on the eyewitness. Republicans tried a different tacking, at times appearing to play more to the cameras in the office than the evidences who were present to answer their questions.
Following a dispassionate order of questioning from Democrat, the Republican congressman Jim Jordan, one of Trump’s most relentless attack dogs, who was just added to the committee, jolted the apartment by unleashing a litany of grievances that he properly expected would boomerang across republican media last-minute that evening.
Read more: http :// www.theguardian.com/ us