Since the resolution by the House of Representatives formally initiating an impeachment investigation, the process has begun to accelerate noticeably. How it will actually play out, however, is far from clear. One point that has received little comment is that the case against Trump differs from the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton in at least one fundamental respect. Trump, unlike Nixon and Clinton, has a counter-narrative to offer, at least in the case of an Article of Impeachment based on his threats and inducements to Ukraine.
Trump’s counter-narrative is that a) he had a genuine and legitimate interest in combating corruption in Ukraine, and b) such corruption happened to involve both the 2016 election and the activities of Joe and Hunter Biden. While Trump’s counter-narrative appears to have little merit or credibility, it contains bits and pieces sufficient to nourish his base and sow confusion in others. It is essentially the tale that Rudy Giuliani was seen endlessly trying to promote over the airwaves for many months. Giuliani’s recitations were often cryptic and almost always incoherent, and it is unlikely that he will be a counsel to House Republicans during the impeachment inquiry or be Trump’s counsel at an impeachment trial in the Senate. Apart from the unimpressive nature of Giuliani’s television appearances, he would have a major conflict of interest since he is potentially an important witness himself. Finally, there is the inconvenient fact that Giuliani is now under criminal investigation.
As a witness, Rudy Giuliani has potential risks and rewards for Democrats and Republicans alike. For Democrats he was the central figure in Trump’s corruption of the State Department through his campaign of pressing Ukraine to undertake the investigations he sought. How could they not call him? On the other hand they might feel they have sufficient evidence from other participants to avoid the risk that Giuliani might suddenly become a coherent and persuasive witness, complicating their own narrative. For Republicans, Giuliani is the principal author of the counter-narrative, and he doubtless knows more about it, and its welter of confusing names and events, than anyone else. On the other hand, there is the risk that he would disintegrate at the hands of a competent cross-examiner and severely discredit Trump’s defense.
Apart from calling Giuliani as a witness, it remains to be seen how aggressively Republicans will attempt to press Trump’s counter-narrative. In the transcripts of interviews by the House Committees that have been released so far, Republicans have made little attempt to promote the counter-narrative in questioning State Department witnesses, but it may reappear at a later stage. It is certain that Trump and his enablers will not “go gentle into that good night,” and the question is whether they will seek to create a cloud of confusion to discredit the entire process in the eyes of the public.
As the last blog noted, even Giuliani has disowned the “CrowdStrike theory” that Ukraine, rather than Russia, had hacked the DNC computers during the 2016 campaign. But since Mick Mulvaney referred to CrowdStrike in his unfortunate press conference, we may assume that it still exists in the Trumpian mind. Pursuit of the theory may depend on whether some witness, any witness, could be found to endorse and explain it. Reportedly, Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign manager, was an enthusiast of the theory but, as a current resident in a federal penitentiary, he is presumably unavailable.
Setting aside CrowdStrike, Giuliani’s argument, so far as it can be understood, appears to involve a complicated scheme involving Hillary Clinton, the DNC, various Ukrainians and George Soros. At the center of the scheme was the Anticorruption Action Centre (AntAC), a Ukrainian anti-corruption group that has received funding from Soros’s Open Society Foundation. The object of the scheme, in this view, was to find information discrediting Trump and his campaign. One of Giuliani’s grievances against Ambassador Yovanovich, whose dismissal he sought and obtained, was the claim that she had discouraged Ukrainian prosecution of Soros and AntAC. A central element of this theory has been the 2016 disclosure by a Ukraine legislator of a “black ledger” showing undisclosed payments to Manafort by the pro-Russian party in Ukraine of deposed President Viktor Yanukovych. The disclosure of the payments led to Manafort’s resignation as campaign manager, but the authenticity of the ledger was not challenged at his subsequent trial.
Another strand of the “Ukrainian collusion” theory involves research into Manafort’s activities by Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian American consultant to the DNC. Her efforts during the 2016 campaign involved contact with the Ukrainian Embassy, but although the Embassy reportedly received her with some sympathy, her efforts do not appear to have had any substantive results. Nevertheless, after a 2017 article in Politico, also posted on Facebook, Chalupa’s work has been a focus of great and continuing interest among right-wing media and Trump insiders. As reported in a November 4 article in BuzzFeed, the Politico story became a foundation of the “Ukrainian collusion” theory. Indeed, BuzzFeed noted that the article was referred to by Republican staff counsel, Steve Castor, in questioning Ambassador Yovanovich in her recent testimony to House committees.
So far as the Bidens are concerned, the most interesting question may be whether Republicans seek to call either or both Hunter and Joe Biden as a witness. During the impeachment proceeding in the House, Democrats control who Republicans may call as witnesses, but in the Senate the decision would be up to the presiding official, Chief Justice John Roberts. It is fair to say that calling Hunter Biden as a witness would provide a serious distraction to his father’s campaign and calling Joe Biden himself would be a very serious distraction.
There is overwhelming evidence that Joe Biden’s pressure to fire a Ukrainian Prosecutor General reflected the policy of not only the United States but numerous other governments and international organizations who found the prosecutor’s efforts to fight corruption quite inadequate. Nevertheless, the former prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, has filed an affidavit in European litigation asserting that “I was forced out because I was leading a wide ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings (“Burisma”) a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors.” It is unlikely that Republicans will bring Mr. Shokin to the United States to testify, but they might seek to introduce his affidavit or even take his deposition in Europe.
In the end, the Ukrainian collusion and Biden theories are not likely to amount to much in the eyes of an objective observer. But objective observers in impeachment proceedings may be few and far between. Moreover, the goal of Republicans would not necessarily be to persuade Senators that there was in fact Ukrainian collusion, or illegal activity by the Bidens, but rather to meet the lower bar of showing that Trump had reasonable grounds for insisting that Ukraine investigate those matters.
Finally, as impeachment proceeds, there is another partly overlapping narrative that might emerge from the investigation commissioned by Attorney General Barr to explore the origins of the FBI’s Russian probe. Although the investigation is formally led by a respected US. Attorney, John H. Durham, Barr is not only supervising it closely, but is actively participating in it, personally seeking information from foreign governments. While the principal focus of that probe is on other matters, such as the application for a FISA warrant by the FBI, it could well expand into Ukraine issues. It will be recalled that in his telephone conversation with President Zelensky, Trump mentioned Barr’s name several times.
Moreover, even in matters unrelated to Ukraine, the Barr probe could provide a significant counterpoint to the impeachment proceedings. It has now been designated as a criminal investigation and criminal charges against FBI personnel Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe could be in the offing. Indeed, there can be little question that Trump would like nothing better than to reach higher, even to former FBI Director, Jim Comey, former DNI, James Clapper, and former CIA Director, John Brennan, all of whom he has savaged in tweets. While that may strike some as far-fetched, there are few bars to an unprincipled president abetted by an eagerly compliant Attorney General.