Quote:
|
How do you figure? The whistleblower reported having heard, second hand, about the things he blew the whistle on. Since then, people will first hand knowledge have testified, under oath, to what he reported. He is no longer a key witness.
|
We're both lawyers, as opposed to Senators gobbling up any possible political cover they can to acquit. Schiff's a liability in this regard. He should be removed from the team. But I suspect Pelosi isn't eager for that. He owns this, like he owned the build-up to Mueller. Nancy needs him to throw under the bus when the vote comes down in the Senate.
She's already getting ahead of the train wreck that 2020 is looking to become.
Quote:
|
Yes, you're allowing yourself to be distracted by the right wing's strategy of talking about the whistleblower like his ID matters.
|
I'm not distracted by it. I'm seeing it, and seeing that it's working, and I'm suggesting that Schiff is fucking up. Never leave a vacuum. He's leaving a vacuum.
I see his strategy. It's not entirely unwise, not malpractice, but I think it's a loser. He thinks if he frames the narrative on facts alone, and avoids discussion of the whistleblower's possible motives, he can avoid talking about the whistleblower. This actually just makes the whistleblower more interesting. You know how in direct, you get the ugly facts out first to blunt the other side's using them in cross? Schiff has to do that now.
Also, he assumes a jury interested in facts. The Senators don't care about facts. They care about their political futures. This means they'll follow what they think are their constituents' leanings. Their constituents are not rational actors. Their constituents will want to hear "the full story," and the full story will include the whistleblower.
Schiff brung the kid to the dance. Got to take him out on the floor.
