Democrat Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) used the term “epic mansplaining” to describe Rep. Mike Turner’s (R-OH) remarks during the seventh public impeachment hearing on Thursday featuring Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, and David Holmes, a political officer at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine.
Maloney began his line of questioning by condemning the remarks from Turner, describing them as a bout of “epic mansplaining” – a term progressive feminists use to describe what they interpret as condescending remarks made by a man and issued toward a woman.
“Dr. Hill, first of all, I thought that was some epic mansplaining that you were forced to endure by my colleague Mr. Turner, and I want you to know that some of us think it was inappropriate. But I appreciate your forbearance,” he said.
During the hearing, Turner ripped the Democrats’ rocky basis for the entire inquiry, noting that the witnesses have failed to demonstrate wrongdoing by the president and highlighting the problem with hearsay evidence, which the inquiry overwhelmingly relies on. He said:
Even if Ambassador Sondland is correct, that somebody – and Dr. Hill you testified again it’s hearsay, you don’t know that – supposedly Mulvaney told him that because he didn’t testify to that, but let’s say somebody besides the president told him that.
You guys want to be the laughing stock of history to impeach a President of the United States because he didn’t take a meeting? Oh please. Dear God. Please undertake that:
He summed up the hearsay issue thusly:
For those of you keeping score at home, the effort to accuse our president of coercion, extortion or bribery with these witnesses as we now come to the closing session of this, basically breakdown as follows: We have Kent and Ambassador Taylor who spoke of hearsay. Their hearsay of these matters, that they said that they had heard, were all statements that they’d heard from others who have also testified in front of us. So there’s no one that’s missing. There’s no one out there. Kent and Taylor basically said that they’d heard it from Morrison and Sondland. Morrison indicated he’d heard it from Sondland. Sondland testified yesterday he’d heard it from no one on the planet. Vindman and Morrison both have direct testimony of the phone call with the President of the United States. Beyond that, they only had contact with Sondland, and again Sondland indicated he had contact with no one on the planet. Volker testified that he did have direct contact both with the Ukrainians and with the President of the United States and indicated that the President of the United States did not condition either a phone call, a meeting, or aid upon Ukraine undertaking investigations and also testified that the Ukrainians did not believe that either. We also have the direct statements from the president of Ukraine and the Foreign Minister that they did not feel any pressure to undertake investigations, and we also have the evidence that we’re all very much aware of, which is they did not undertake any investigations.
It is a similar point Turner made during former diplomat Kurt Volker’s testimony this week.
Turner: “You had a meeting with the President of the United States, and you believe that the policy issues he raised concerning Ukraine were valid, correct?”
Turner: “Did the President of the United States ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid from the United States to go to the Ukraine unless there were investigations into Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?”
Volker: “No, he did not.”
Turner: “Did the Ukrainians ever tell you that they understood that they would not get a meeting with the President of the United States, a phone call with the President of the United States, military aid, or foreign aid from the United States unless they undertook investigations of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?”
Volker:“No, they did not.”
“Pretty much, Ambassador Volker, you just like took apart their entire case,” Turner concluded: