Will Nunes' Bizarre Impeachment Talking Points Be Enough to Save Trump?

Devin Nunes, US Congress photo

Devin Nunes, ranking minority member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, gave an opening statement at the impeachment hearing yesterday to set the tone of the Republicans’ defense of President Trump. Unlike Adam Schiff, who asked cogent questions and narrated documentable events, Nunes attacked process and launched personal attacks. The old saying is that if the facts aren’t on your side, attack process. Or, worse, if the facts aren’t on your side, attack the people. 

Logically, Nunes offered an incredibly weak defense. Rhetorically, however, he aligned himself with President Trump’s core supporters. Many Republican voters believe exactly the unsupported conspiracy theories that Nunes offered, and therefore he was addressing the audience he needed to address. Impeachment is in part a political process, and all the Republicans need to do to keep President Trump in office is to make sure that Republican senators hold the line during a Senate trial. Sadly, most politicians only care about getting reelected, so public opinion drives their votes. Keeping core Republican voters together is all Nunes needs. (Similarly, in a criminal trial, all a defense attorney needs to do to protect a guilty criminal is to convince one juror to vote for acquittal.)

Let’s look at a few examples, starting with attacks on the process. Nunes said, for example:

“Anyone familiar with the Democrats’ scorched-earth war against Presiden Trump would not be surprised to see all the typical signs that this is just a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign. For example:

• ·                     “After vowing publicly that impeachment requires bipartisan support, Democrats are pushing impeachment forward without the backing of a single House Republican.
• ·                     “The witnesses deemed suitable for television by the Democrats were put through a closed-door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of the Capitol, where the Democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks, and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner.”

One notices, first, the use of highly-loaded language: “carefully orchestrated media smear campaign,” “carefully staged,” or “cultlike atmosphere in the basement of the Capitol.” That language reinforces the thinking of people who believe in unsupported conspiracy theories: “cultlike,” “closed door,” “basement,” “carefully orchestrated.” Such terminology is familiar to anyone who pays attention to Alex Jones’ or Sean Hannity’s conspiracy theorizing. Also, however, Nunes complained about leaks and a “selectively released transcript.”

Further, Nunes reviewed the history of the Russian investigation, accusing Democrats of pursuing a false narrative in that case. He then said that the Ukraine call investigation was a continuation of what he called the discredited narrative about Russia. For example:

“I’ve noted before that the Democrats have a long habit of accusing Republicans of offences they themselves are committing. Recall that:

• ·                     “For years they accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia when they themselves were colluding with Russia by funding and spreading the Steele dossier, which relied on Russian sources.
• ·                     “And now they accuse President Trump of malfeasance in Ukraine when they themselves are culpable. The Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election meddling, and they defend Hunter Biden’s securing of a lavishly paid position with a corrupt Ukrainian company, all while his father served as vice president.”

That passage brought out several themes from conservative media: that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans (as if, even if that is true, it could be some sort of excuse), that the Steele dossier was corrupt, and that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election. Nunes didn’t refute the Democrats’ accusations; instead, he attacked their motives.

Repeating a common (but dubious) Republican talking point, Nunes defended Trump’s policy toward Ukraine, saying that Obama only gave blankets. In real life, Obama provided significant aid to Ukraine, although he did fall short of providing live weaponry:

“Despite all their dissatisfaction with President Trump’s Ukraine policy, the President approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine, unlike the previous administration, which provided blankets as defense against invading Russians.”

Nunes could have made his point more strongly if he had stuck to the facts, which he might have used to show that Trump was more helpful to Ukraine than Obama, but, instead, he repeated a false talking point. Several of Nunes’ accusations failed elementary fact checking. For example, Nunes accused the whistleblower of coordinating with the Democrats. What seems to have happened in real life is just that the whistleblower contacted Schiff’s committee staff and was told to go to the Inspector General instead. But conspiracy theorists don’t much care about contrary facts, do they?

Schiff’s opening statement narrated the facts and refuted the expected Republican talking points. In contrast, Nunes offered forceful but dubious attacks on process while twisting facts to support bizarre conspiracy theories. Not good, but never underestimate the power of unsupported conspiracy theories. The difference, by the way, between a conspiracy theory and a real conspiracy is evidence. Schiff gave evidence suggesting that Trump is guilty. Nunes presented no evidence to the contrary and gave little evidence to support his accusations.

So, paranoia, diversions, false accusations, and personal attacks. Logically and legally, Nunes offered a pathetic defense. However, if conservative media purvey the same talking points, Nunes’ tactics might be just enough to do save Trump’s presidency.

P.S. I have talked several times about how dangerous it is for speakers to rely on talking points that they don’t really understand. I call this “talking points disease.” Good policy and legal rhetoric depend on research. Nunes’ tactics might work, but, then again, they might fall apart like the house of cards they are.