What Went Down On Day 1 Of The Impeachment Hearings

Yeah, Amelia, it’s sorta sad that that is the GOP’s best option politically, as (again) we’re talking conspiracy theories. But still, do I think the GOP can convince 40 percent of voters that “maybe Ukraine interfered”? Yes, I do. And that’s probably enough to mean that acquittal will remain certain in the Senate. (Though it’s likely not enough to win re-election?)

In his opening statement, Nunes isn’t just attacking the process. He’s also contending that Trump had good reasons to be worried about Ukraine having interfered with the 2016 election. And as Micah said, I think that’s probably a smart move, given Republicans’ limited options. He’s delving pretty far into some unproven conspiracy theories, which isn’t great, but strategically it’s probably better than doubling down on “no quid pro quo,” which seems like an increasingly indefensible position.

From the start, Nunes is not challenging the idea that the U.S. should strongly support Ukraine against Russia. Indeed he is arguing that Trump has acted in line with that policy. It’s notable that challenging that foreign policy position in this hearing seems to be a bridge too far Nunes, even though reporting about Trump’s views and the witness testimony this morning conflicts with that.