When National Security Council staffer Tim Morrison privately testified to House investigators last month, Republicans touted the fact that he said he didn’t see anything illegal in President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. At the time, Democrats rightfully argued that his legal opinions on the call were not important. Instead, what mattered is that he affirmed his understanding that Ukraine was notified that security aid would be released if the government committed to investigations Trump wanted.
In doing so, they set out a principle.
“The only thing we’re interested here is figuring out what the facts are, not the various opinions of people but what the facts are with respect to the president’s conduct,” Democratic New Jersey Rep. Tom Malinowski was quoted as saying. “Did he pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival? … It’s for us to judge whether that’s appropriate or not.”
Yet, they appear to have changed their tune. House Democrats spent a good part of Wednesday’s impeachment hearing trying to nudge their star witnesses into offering damaging assessments of President Trump’s actions rather than focusing purely on the facts.
Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell pressed the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, for his reactions to parts of White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press conference. He noted that Taylor had described, in a text message, any effort to withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations as “crazy.” Swalwell then asked, “Can we also agree that it’s just wrong?”
Another Democrat, Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, asked Taylor, “Is there a ‘new normal’ that you fear that a president — any president — can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that is in his interest, but not the public interest?”
Democratic Illinois Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi focused on how Taylor had expressed concerns about the Ukraine policy several times in his testimony. He then prompted both Taylor and George Kent, of the State Department, to react to Trump’s characterization of his call with Zelensky. “You don’t think the July 25th call was perfect, did you?” he asked.
If Morrison’s impression of the call as illegal is not relevant then neither is Taylor’s or Kent’s.
As I noted earlier, Taylor’s opening statement did include a damaging factual claim that his staffer overheard a phone call in which Trump was myopically focused on the investigations as the focal point of Ukraine policy. His testimony will require follow-up questioning of the other party on the call, Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, who previously claimed the call was “nonsubstantive.” If the account Taylor conveyed via his staffer turns out to be further corroborated, that’s important.
But as we evaluate the Ukraine story, we should stick to one standard in which witness impressions and opinions are not treated as relevant to getting to the truth.
