Nunes brands hearing ‘low-rent, Ukrainian sequel’ to Russia collusion

Here’s how Nunes kicked off, because this pretty much sums up the entire Republican case.

The call summary for which the Democrats want to impeach President Trump is dramatically different from their nefarious depiction of it. What it actually shows is a pleasant exchange between two leaders who discuss mutual cooperation over a range of issues. The Democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery and a host of other monstrous crimes being committed against President Zelensky. Yet President Zelensky himself insists there was nothing improper whatsoever about the conversation.

Indeed the routine nature of the call helps to explain why in this committee's last public hearing, Democrats recited a fictitious version of the call instead of reading the actual transcript. The Democrats depicted the president saying, quote, I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. On this and on that, unquote. The transcript did not show President Trump saying anything remotely like that. The president did not ask Ukraine to make up dirt on anyone. But the Democrats are not trying to discover facts. They're trying to invent a narrative. And the facts they need do not exist, then they'll just make it up. Not only does President Zelensky deny the Democrats' characterization of the call, but as Ambassador Taylor testified to this committee, the Ukrainians did not even know at the time of the call that a temporary delay was put on the security assistance for them.

Furthermore, as the ambassador testified, these holds occur from time to time. Both he and Ambassador Volker were confident the delay would be lifted.
In fact, military aid to Ukraine has actually substantially improved since President Trump took office. Ambassador Taylor testified that President Trump was the first president to see that Ukraine was afforded Javelin anti-tank weapons. This was a very strong message that Americans are willing to provide more than blankets. This was the Obama administration's approach. Note this important fact, the security assistance was provided to Ukraine without the Ukrainians having done any of the things they were [supposedly] blackmailed to do. So we're supposed to believe President Trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred and which the supposed victim denies ever happened. I'd like to briefly speak to the core mistruth at the core of the Democrats' impeachment drive. They claim the president tried to yet the Ukrainians to, quote, manufacture dirt against his political rivals. This is supported by precisely zero evidence.

Once again, the Democrats simply made it up. But let's consider the broader question about why President Trump may have wanted answers to questions about Ukraine meddling in 2016. The Democrats downplay, ignore, outright deny the many indications that Ukrainians actually did meddle in the election. A shocking about-face for people who for three years argued that foreign election meddling was an intolerable climb that threatened the heart of our democracy. While the brazen suddenness of this u-turn is jarring, this denial is a necessary part of their argument.

After all, if there actually were indications of Ukraine election meddling and if foreign election meddling is a dire threat, then President Trump would have a perfectly good reason for wanting to find out what happened. And since the meddling was aimed against his campaign, he'd have good reason for sending his personal attorney to make inquiries about it. What's strange is some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions, who express alarm about these inquiries, were remarkably uninformed about these indications of Ukrainian election meddling and why the president may have been concerned. By them.

For example, I noted previously, Alexandra Chalupa admitted to Politico she worked with officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C., to dig up dirt on the trump campaign, which she passed onto the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. She revealed Ukrainian officials themselves were also working directly with reporters to trade information and leads about the Trump campaign. Ambassador Kent, you didn't seem to be too concerned about it in the last round of questioning, so I'll just skip you because we know that wasn't a concern.

And, finally, his only question:

Ambassador Taylor, you testified to this committee that you only recently became aware of reports of this cooperation between Ukrainian embassy officials and Chalupa to undermine the Trump campaign. From your last deposition. Is that correct?