Why Democrats still need secret hearings
Enlarge Image
Former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch at Friday's impeachment hearing.Stefani Reynolds/CNP/startraksph
Americans just got a great example of why Democrats are forcing witnesses to testify in secret before showcasing them before a national audience.
On Friday, Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine who was removed by President Trump, appeared at the House’s latest public hearing for their impeachment inquiry. Under questioning from the Republicans’ lawyer, the former envoy acknowledged that, in preparation for her 2016 Senate confirmation, she was briefed by Obama administration coaches about Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma.
That, as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) pointed out, shows just how concerned the Obama team was about Biden’s role. And no wonder: It was problematic. “Yet our Democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask” questions like that about Biden, noted Stefanik.
By grilling witnesses behind closed doors — as Yovanovitch had been earlier — they get to find out what subjects to try to avoid at the public show, or if there even should be a public hearing. And they have an advantage in doing that since they control the process.
Friday’s public hearing followed one Wednesday where two witnesses also testified almost exclusively to things everybody already knew, thanks to transcripts of their previous closed-door testimony.
There, Ambassador Bill Taylor mentioned a piece of information that Democrats and many in the media seized on as a “bombshell”: He said David Holmes, a counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Kiev, told him that he had overheard a phone conversation between Ambassador Gordon Sondland and President Trump.
Holmes claimed he could hear the president express interest in the investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy concern that employed Hunter Biden. That “bombshell” led Dems to call for another secret session of testimony with Holmes, which they conducted Friday.
By Friday evening, they were already strategically leaking from that “private” hearing.
Fact is, Democrats applauded themselves thunderously for moving to the public hearings stage of the impeachment process, but we are right back to having them audition witnesses behind closed doors before allowing the American people to hear what they claim to know.
Talk about kangaroo courts.
Let’s unpack this a bit. First of all Holmes’ claim that he overheard the president ask about the investigation is not a bombshell — or even a wet cherry bomb. We already knew Trump wanted Burisma investigated, because the transcript Trump himself released of his call with the Ukrainian president said so.
Alas, the case Democrats have brought thus far, whether they call it “quid pro quo,” “bribery,” “extortion,” or “being a Meany,” has not moved the needle. Those who tolerate Trump oppose impeachment; those who hate him insist on it. Clearly, Democrats need more dirt.
So back behind closed doors they went. Again, this lets them test out their new “bombshell” allegation — this time, with a firsthand (sort of) source for a change — without the fear of being laughed at in public.
Democrats can decide whether they want to give Holmes a starring role on their impeachment TV show or not. Republicans, on the other hand, will have little say in the matter, because Adam Schiff has total control over who does and does not testify.
What a charade. Democrats have yet to present any significant hard evidence for impeaching a sitting president. So they’re orchestrating a bizarre TV show to convince their American audience, complete with secret rehearsals and Republicans hamstringed.
Enough. Let’s be done with secret testimony now, with secret interviews in basement bunkers in the Capitol. Let Democrats prove they really do want a fair and open process by bringing everyone with knowledge of these events to testify, in the open.
And yes, that includes bringing Hunter Biden into the public process. They don’t get to force everyone to shove all their chips into the center of the table with grand bravado and then refuse to show their cards.
The stakes are too high. And if every day that goes by, every committee gavel that falls, makes their hopes that this inquiry will snowball into the removal of a president appear increasingly remote, well, no one told them to launch this process in the first place.
David Marcus is the New York correspondent for The Federalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment