Radio Recap: An Impeachment Built on Hearsay, Presumptions, and Policy Disputes

It appears as if it’s the final day of the public impeachment hearings – an impeachment built on hearsay, presumptions, and policy disputes, but absolutely no facts, and no certainties.

On today’s Jay Sekulow Live we discussed what appears to be the last day of the public impeachments hearings. Fiona Hill, a former member of the National Security Council - and David Holmes - the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine -  testified.

Could it be true? Could it be the last day that we have to hear these people give their opinions, their presumptions, their policy analysis, their policy disagreements with President Trump? Could we be coming to the end? It appears that we are. There have not been, as of today’s show, more witnesses subpoenaed to testify.

This final day brings us just two more bureaucrats talking about their policy disputes with President Trump. There were no major revelations at all, except for the fact that the guy who “overheard” the call with Ambassador Sondland took no notes on that. Everything he’s saying is just what he claims to remember from a call that took place months ago, that he only overheard. The call wasn’t even on speaker.

There were no facts presented during these hearings. We heard a lot of “I presumed,” “I assumed,” and “I heard.”

ACLJ Director of Government Affairs Thann Bennett made the following point:

It might be too kind to call this based on hearsay. I would call it hearsay that conflicts with other hearsay that came forward. If you were putting this case on, would you call more witnesses to testify to hearsay that conflicted with the original hearsay? I wouldn’t do that.

ACLJ Senior Counsel and Director of Policy Harry Hutchison furthered Thann’s point:

I think if you look at the testimony so far we have presumptions plus presumptions which equal zero facts. Secondly, we have an alleged note taker who failed to take notes. Thirdly, Fiona Hill who is testifying today has been a very inconsistent witness. If you go back to 2015, she was urging caution in arming the Ukrainians. Now, apparently in a policy dispute with President Trump, she claims to be an advocate in arming the Ukrainians. It is very possible that all we have in front of us is a policy dispute masquerading as an impeachment inquiry.

This week of hearings was just more testimony from mid-level bureaucrats who don’t like the President’s foreign policy. Tough luck.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi did appear to back away from a conclusion on impeachment during a press conference that took place while we were on the air:

We aren’t finished yet, the day is not over, and you never know what testimony of one person might lead to the need for testimony from another as we saw with Ambassador Taylor at the beginning of last week bringing forth Mr. Holmes today. So again that will be a judgment made by the committees of jurisdiction.

We’ll keep you updated as this situation continues to unfold.

You can listen to the entire episode here.