On Episode 33 of War Room: Impeachment, Stephen K. Bannon and Jason Miller discussed Tim Morrison’s upcoming and past testimonies and how they can be used to form a counter narrative.
“Tim Morrison actually had some things in his testimony that really helped us,” Miller explained.
“Remember he was requested,” Bannon said. “After he went for his audition, Adam Schiff and the Democrats did not want to call him. This is one of the ones requested by Republicans. He’s a guy that auditioned for the cast and didn’t make it into the show trial for the Democrats, this was requested by the Republicans. That’s why we think Morrison’s going to be a very interesting witness.”
“Yeah,” Miller agreed. “And Morrison testified that he heard nothing illegal between President Trump and President Zelensky… I saw some of these BS headlines: ‘uh oh, person testifies why this was moved from one server to the other,’ and they tried to drum it up as something scandalous. Well Morrison, the career NSC official, was the one who requested that it be moved to a different server. He’s the one that thought it might be politically sensitive. This is a career NSC official trying to make a political judgement call. And Morrison, to his credit, he owned it. He was like ‘yeah, I was the one, it was my gut check on that.’”
“Here’s what I think,” Bannon furthered, “and this is a counter narrative that we’re going to develop during the week, and Morrison is going to be a key figure in this, Morrison makes a big deal about it in his testimony – talking about the chain of command.”
“He specifically calls out Fiona Hill, and having Vindman and others go to the White House Counsel’s office and be able to wander in and out and not take it up to the chain of command. He specifically states that he stopped that… that he believes in the chain of command and the way that you could get this information up, and the proper way was to do it through the chain of command. I think the chain of command and issues related to that are going to be quite fundamental about showing that this was just a policy different, that what we have here was just a policy difference in the interpretation of what corruption was.”