‘I have been in those depositions, and I can tell you there is contradictory information…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC, one of President Donald Trump’s staunchest congressional allies, shredded a CBS reporter‘s claim that all of the witnesses from secretive House impeachment hearings had supported Democrat allegations of a quid-pro-quo with Ukraine.
“That’s not correct. You–your characterization is so inherently wrong and—and biased—I can tell you,” Meadows told CBS congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes during a break from Wednesday’s public hearing.
Rep. Mark Meadows blasts CBS News reporter Nancy Cordes
Cordes: “I have read all the depositions”
Meadows: “You have not read all the transcripts”
Cordes: “Yes, I have”
Meadows: “I beg to differ because they haven’t all been released so there’s no way you read them all” pic.twitter.com/u9vowgMDxd
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 13, 2019
Cordes had tried to press Meadows on the claims by saying “every single witness who has testified, more than a dozen of them would have to be either lying” in order to debunk the Democrats.
The framing of the question itself—the presumption that Trump’s desire for a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged misconduct is inherently criminal—raises a major point of contention in the narrative that Democrats and their media allies have sought to craft.
On top of that, however, Meadows said it did not align with the facts, which Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and others have carefully curated in a desperate bid to sway public sentiment.
Many have speculated that the episode in political theater is more about influencing the 2020 election than about conducting serious oversight that could lead to removal of the president from office.
Meadows told Cordes that it was impossible for her to have read all the transcripts since Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had only selectively released those that favored the Democrats’ argument.
Congressional Democrats have imposed tight restrictions on their political adversaries’ ability to call and interrogate witnesses, with Schiff exerting final authority in most cases.
He has claimed that he is doing so to protect the identity of a CIA whistleblower, although the informant has been named by many media as Eric Ciaramello, who has a history of partisan activism and connections with many of the key players involved in an interwoven series of strategies to smear Trump.
Meadows hinted that some of the information Schiff had suppressed told a much different story, which is likely to emerge in the public hearings and subsequent Senate trial, should the House pass articles of impeachment as anticipated.
“I have been in those depositions, and I can tell you there is contradictory information,” Meadows told Cordes. “This president had not put any condition on the aid, and certainly when we talk about impeachment why are we doing this?”