It is not enough for newsrooms to report simply on the professional and personal backgrounds of the House’s key impeachment witnesses, including Ambassador William Taylor, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.
Reporters and commentators have taken it upon themselves to also act as character witnesses for these supposedly faultless public servants, praising them up-and-down for their allegedly “impeccable” credentials and records.
Get used to that word, “impeccable.” You are going to see that a lot in the following paragraphs from not just members of the press, but also Democratic lawmakers.
CNN commentator and former Department of Homeland Security official Jack Tomarchio, for example, said on Oct. 23 that Taylor’s record is “impeccable.”
MSNBC co-host Mike Barnacle said the next day that Taylor has “impeccable credentials.”
“Bill Taylor, Marie Yovanovitch — people whose reputations remain impeccable,” NBC News’ Peter Alexander declared on Oct. 24.
The Daily Beast’s Jonathan Alter said two days later that Taylor had an “impeccable career.”
Vindman is a man of “impeccable character,” MSNBC commentator and former assistant U.S. attorney Mimi Rocah said on Oct. 28.
CNN’s Don Lemon declared that same day that Vindman has “impeccable credentials.”
The New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman said on Oct. 29 on CNN that Vindman’s credentials are “impeccable.”
“He seems like an impeccably credentialed … person,” the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin agreed.
Let’s pause here to focus on the fact that this “impeccable” language mirrors exactly how Democratic lawmakers have promoted their impeachment witnesses.
Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, for example, said on MSNBC on Oct. 22 that Taylor has “impeccable credentials.”
The impeachment witnesses, and foreign service agents in general, have “impeccable records of honesty and scholarship,” Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee said on CNN on Nov. 6.
On Nov. 11, Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York said on CNN that Taylor is a diplomat of “impeccable credentials.”
On CNN, Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York said on Nov. 13 that the impeachment witnesses have “impeccable records.”
Now, back to the matter of the national press and its portrayal of Vindman and company. (Fox News, of course, represents the odd man out. It is the only network whose hosts and guests routinely question the motives of the impeachment witnesses. CNN’s Sean Duffy also attacked Vindman’s character, for which Duffy was savaged by his colleagues.)
Newsweek noted on Oct. 29 that Vindman’s testimony regarding President Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden was expected to carry a great deal of weight given the lieutenant colonel’s “impeccable resume.”
Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll and Amy Mackinnon reported around that time that Vindman is a man with an “impeccable resume.”
Washington Times columnist Donald Lambro said on Nov. 1 that Vindman has an “impeccable career record.”
CNN senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson said on Nov. 7 that those who have come forward to testify against the president have “impeccable credentials.”
Taylor has an “impeccable resume,” stressed CNN legal analyst Michael Zeldin on Nov. 10.
The next day, the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg stated on MSNBC that the four key witnesses, Kent, Taylor, Vindman, and Yovanovitch, are “people with kind of impeccable national security credentials.”
On Nov. 13, CNN contributor Julian Epstein said Taylor’s and Kent’s credentials are “impeccable.”
The same day, CNN’s Henderson declared once that the impeachment witnesses “obviously” have “impeccable resumes.”
The Associated Press’ Jonathan Lemire declared the next day on MSNBC that the impeachment witnesses have “impeccable reputations.”
The New York Times’ Goldberg wrote on Nov. 14 that Taylor and Kent are two State Department officials with “impeccable credentials.”
On Nov. 15, MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace declared that Yovanovitch is an “impeccable witness.”
Three days later, NBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos said the four witnesses “generally have impeccable credentials.”
It is possible that members of the press decided independently of one another to use the exact same language as Democratic lawmakers to defend all of these impeachment witnesses. It is far more likely that one person in the media heard a Democrat use the term “impeccable” in relation to Vindman and company, and then groupthink, which plagues newsrooms from here to Los Angeles, did the rest.
