Impeachment narratives: a look at the arguments
Grace Kuperman looks into the ongoing media battle between Democrats and Republicans in the context of President Trump’s potential impeachment.
Over the past month, the United States House of Representatives has held public impeachment testimonies of key witnesses regarding Donald Trump’s withholding of military aid from Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky. Heading this investigation, Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, conducted several hours of testimonies for 12 members of the White House Staff and State Department.
Americans learn about national politics from ridiculous sound-bites and sensational headlines on Fox and CNN, President Trump’s tweets, or Instagram posts. Mainstream media is not only playing an increasingly influential role in shaping popular opinion, it’s becoming the main source of public information. For this reason, these impeachment hearings are not just about what is said in five-hour-long sessions, but the narratives created about them, which eventually reach the American public.
In an interview with Crooked Media, Adam Schiff described the story that witnesses intended to portray, elaborating that the Democrats were able to choose their witnesses strategically as they are the majority party. This narrative begins with the removal of career and non-partisan ambassador Marie Yavonovitch, who has served under both Democrat and Republican administrations. From there the witnesses “lay out a campaign” of obstruction and personal interests. They set up an irregular channel of information from individuals like Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, EU Ambassador Sondland and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to the Ukrainian president and his staff, rather than through the State Department.
On the second day of impeachment hearings, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, blasted the media for contributing to the disconnect between the hearings and the reporting by left-leaning outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times. He went on to say that these news outlets were nothing but the Democratic Party’s “puppets”, trying to “stoke a partisan frenzy”. Nunes’ statement was not only predictable, it indicates the Republican’s continued dependence on attacking the media and placing doubt on news outlets other than Fox.
It is crucial for us, as the public, to remember that this back and forth of support by news channels like Fox and MSNBC has been a persistent characteristic of American politics. During the Trump administration, left-leaning outlets have over-played salacious sound-bites of President Trump and his supporters. This creates a narrative of the administration that benefits them, seen most clearly in the 2018 mid-term. It seems, however, that the Republicans have forgotten their role in the campaign Fox News spear-headed during the Obama administration. The partisan-based support from the media is a staple of American politics, a tool used by politicians to get what they want. Nunes’ statement was nothing special: all it did was create noise, filling the empty space left by a spineless argument in defence of President Trump.
According to FiveThirtyEight, a website that specialises in polling and political analysis, support for impeachment is at 45.6% and support against impeachment is at 45.5% as of 23rd November. With numbers this close, congressmen are pulling every move to try and sway the testimony in their favour. This was evident during the much-anticipated hearing on Wednesday from EU ambassador Sondland, a long-time Republican, Trump donor, and someone closely involved in the phone calls, meetings, and pressure campaign against President Zelensky. Sondland amended his closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee a few days before his public hearing, causing a sense of uncertainty across party lines as to which way his testimony would lean. Would he support the Republicans and protect his career, or would he throw his colleagues under the bus?
Sondland’s opening statement has been hailed as a win for Democrats. Not only did he assert that there was a quid pro quo, he believes witnesses are misinforming the committee in saying that only a few people were aware of the pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Outlets like Politico and CNN took this as a “win”, a news-worthy headline to grab audiences, but it failed to accurately portray the proceedings. Sondland also stated that the State Department prevented him from accessing official documents that would have specific information on emails, phone calls, and meetings from the time period in question. This did not stop Democrats questioning Sondland on his conversations with almost all of President Trump’s top aides, who he argued were aware of the involvement with Ukraine. Democrats again took this in their stride, trying to link Sondland’s work with Giuliani, Perry, and Volker as synonymous with taking direct orders from the President to get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens.
The Republican narrative, on the other hand, has changed considerably between the hearings on Monday and Wednesday. On Tuesday, Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council Aide, was picked by Republican council members to testify as they believed he would support the absence of a quid pro quo. Morrison, however, only created a foundation on which Sondland’s testimony would lie, as he was able to recall specifics that Sondland couldn’t. Their argument now rests on the lack of clear orders, and evidence thereof, from Trump to Sondland. Nunes then attempted to link the Democrats’ need for a quid pro quo to the “failure” of the Russia Investigation and a desire to discredit the Trump administration in order to gain seats in the 2020 election. It looks as if Republicans will fall back on their argument from the Russia Investigation; that the Democrats hate Trump, and they will do anything to see him out of office and win as many seats as possible in the next election. Although true to an extent, it’s important that Democrats don’t get too ahead of themselves, as an impeachment vote is unlikely to be passed in the Republican-held Senate.
Both parties tried to use Sondland’s testimony to their advantage, but it is the headlines generated from his hearing that we need to keep in mind. Partisan allegiances are at their strongest in decades, but what matters is that people do the jobs they were elected and appointed to do. Narratives blind us to how officials are using this inquiry to further their careers, rather than uphold the sacred “American values” they hold so dear. It is crucial to remember that both Fox News and CNN turn a blind eye to accurate reporting, favouring their ratings over anything else. If Democrats want to see this trial through, they will need a narrative that compels the American public to support impeachment more than they currently do, to the point where Republican lawmakers would be scared to lose their seats if they voted against it.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body - if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.