Why Did Impeachment Hearings Fail?

[Cow Poke]

OK, so maybe you think they didn't, but something happened.

Was it Schiff's handling of the thing, being too controlling? (That's my personal choice, given that the made himself judge, jury, chief prosecutor AND media liaison.

Is, as has been suggested elsewhere on this board, that Americans are just stupid?

Current polling (and that may change) suggests the Democrats actually LOST ground by having public hearings.

Didn't they put on their most vigorous prosecution?
Didn't they call their best witnesses?

Since impeachment is entirely a political process (in that it's run by politicians, and, in this case, is incredibly partisan) what could the Democrats have done differently to persuade America to support them in their impeachment prosecution, instead, appearing to convince Americans NOT to support impeachment?

For Bonus Points... well, let's put that in a poll...

[Cow Poke]

Interestingly enough, even Schiff seems to be rethinking impeachment.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has been the greatest force pushing for President Donald Trump's impeachment. For two years Schiff told us the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. After Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report and found that no collusion took place, Schiff then shifted his focus to Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In that call, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, for corruption. After all, the vice president was handling international relations with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration and, at the same time, his son was being paid $50,000 a month by Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian gas company. And Hunter had absolutely no natural energy experience.

Democrats have run with this idea that Trump threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless an investigation into the Bidens took place. The released transcript showed that to be completely false and Zelensky himself said no quid pro quo took place, yet Democrats continued with their impeachment inquiry.

Now, it looks like Schiff is having a change of heart... or at least on paper.

During a Sunday morning interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Schiff said he would have to "discuss this with my constituents and my colleagues" before deciding whether or not the House should move forward with articles of impeachment.

[Mountain Man]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "failed". If the intent was to find the truth, then they were a resounding success even if the Democrats didn't get the results they wanted (although they're probably going to vote impeach anyway).

[Cow Poke]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "failed". If the intent was to find the truth, then they were a resounding success even if the Democrats didn't get the results they wanted (although they're probably going to vote impeach anyway).

I was posting while you were posting -- sounds like Schiff is setting the stage for announcing "my colleagues have expressed a concern that proceeding with this impeachment may be too damaging for the country, blah blah blah...."

It will be interesting to see.

[Mountain Man]

I was posting while you were posting -- sounds like Schiff is setting the stage for announcing "my colleagues have expressed a concern that proceeding with this impeachment may be too damaging for the country, blah blah blah...."

It will be interesting to see.

I don't buy it. They're just trying to sell the impression that they're proceeding slowly and thoughtfully even though I suspect the articles of impeachment were written before the hearings even began.

[demi-conservative]

Why Did Impeachment Hearings Fail?

It's very simple. Their main mode of persuasion is the mainstream media, and Trump has thoroughly discredited Fake News.

[Cow Poke]

I don't buy it. They're just trying to sell the impression that they're proceeding slowly and thoughtfully even though I suspect the articles of impeachment were written before the hearings even began.

But that was before they saw the poll numbers swapping. They need the public support to shame their friends and enemies into doing their bidding.

[rogue06]

But that was before they saw the poll numbers swapping. They need the public support to shame their friends and enemies into doing their bidding.

Yup this was all about putting pressure on Republican officials and it didn't work at all. Instead of building something they can call bipartisan support for impeachment what we have instead is bipartisan support against impeachment.

[oxmixmudd]

OK, so maybe you think they didn't, but something happened.

Was it Schiff's handling of the thing, being too controlling? (That's my personal choice, given that the made himself judge, jury, chief prosecutor AND media liaison.

Is, as has been suggested elsewhere on this board, that Americans are just stupid?

Current polling (and that may change) suggests the Democrats actually LOST ground by having public hearings.

Didn't they put on their most vigorous prosecution?
Didn't they call their best witnesses?

Since impeachment is entirely a political process (in that it's run by politicians, and, in this case, is incredibly partisan) what could the Democrats have done differently to persuade America to support them in their impeachment prosecution, instead, appearing to convince Americans NOT to support impeachment?

For Bonus Points... well, let's put that in a poll...

They didnt fail. They made quite clear what Trump did and how he did it. The question is why are so many people willing to accept a criminal as president.

[rogue06]

They didnt fail. They made quite clear what Trump did and how he did it. The question is why are so many people willing to accept a criminal as president.

Not everyone is like you, happy to toss over 200 years of jurisprudence out the window, just to get someone you despise. Some of us demand actual evidence, not second, third and even fourth hand hearsay. And some of us understand that what little direct evidence and even circumstantial evidence there is tends to exonerate Trump.

[firstfloor]

[shunyadragon]

Not everyone is like you, happy to toss over 200 years of jurisprudence out the window, just to get someone you despise. Some of us demand actual evidence, not second, third and even fourth hand hearsay. And some of us understand that what little direct evidence and even circumstantial evidence there is tends to exonerate Trump.

There is first hand testimony for the criminal offences that Trump committed for the impeachment.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78094...nt-inquiry-tes

The third day of public impeachment hearings featured testimony from three witnesses who have firsthand testimony about the call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

Also, Trump is blocking other furst hand witnesses, slandering and threatening witnesses with retribution for testifying.

Also of interest:

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/471849-probe-finds-mulvaney-sought-to-justify-ukraine-aid-holdup-after-the

Probe finds Mulvaney sought to justify Ukraine aid holdup after the fact: report

© Copyright Original Source

[oxmixmudd]

Not everyone is like you, happy to toss over 200 years of jurisprudence out the window, just to get someone you despise. Some of us demand actual evidence, not second, third and even fourth hand hearsay. And some of us understand that what little direct evidence and even circumstantial evidence there is tends to exonerate Trump.

Again you attack me rather than discuss the issues themselves.

Directly hearing a conversation is not hearsay as it involves the content of the conversation. The absurd addition of third and fourth hand as a general qualifier only underscores how flimsy you understand that defense to be.

[rogue06]

There is first hand testimony for the criminal offences that Trump committed for the impeachment.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78094...nt-inquiry-tes

Are you referring to Kurt Volker, who testified that he saw absolutely no indication that President Donald Trump had conditioned a White House meeting and military assistance for Ukraine on a promise from Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, but then later indicated that he was no longer as sure after hearing the rumors and gossip presented by the non-witnesses?

[rogue06]

Again you attack me rather than discuss the issues themselves.

Directly hearing a conversation is not hearsay as it involves the content of the conversation. The absurd addition of third and fourth hand as a general qualifier only underscores how flimsy you understand that defense to be.

But that's the point. They only heard accounts from other people who themselves were told about it.

And the "absurd addition of third and fourth hand" hearsay was exactly what was being offered.

For example, George Kent testified that he believed that there had been a quid pro quo based on what William Taylor (who testified that he had no first hand knowledge) told him and who said he heard it from Tim Morrison (who also testified that he has no first hand knowledge) who in turn learned it from Gordon Sondland (who also testified that he had merely assumed it took place but had no first hand knowledge on it). So you have Kent testify about what Taylor said, which was based on what Morrison may or may not have said, based upon what Sondland assumed.

IOW, Kent provided hearsay, based on hearsay provided by Taylor, based on hearsay provided by Morrison, based on an assumption of Sondland -- in spite of being directly told by Trump that he wasn't interested in anything in exchange.

So the fact is that the only thing absurd here is that this was allowed to be presented as evidence, and that you, in the throes of an ever-worsening TDS, think that it is direct evidence and not third and fourth hand unsupported hearsay.