The liberal hacks at CNN were like kids on Christmas morning during Wednesday’s first break in the Senate impeachment trial, offering themselves up not as journalists but valentines for lead House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA), calling his presentation “coherent,” “cohesive,” “dazzling,” “forceful,” “inspiring,” “powerful,” and “remarkable.”
In other words, for those of us out there that are single, we can only hope and pray to find someone who speaks to us the way CNN talks about their dearly beloved Schiff.
Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer went first, bursting at the seams and telling viewers right off the bat that Schiff gave “a very, very powerful and forceful speech” and, if President Trump “was listening, he heard a very, very strong case from Adam Schiff why he, the President of the United States, should be convicted and removed from office.”
The Lead and State of the Union host Jake Tapper similarly trumpeted Schiff stating “very forcefully....that the reason President Trump needs to be removed from office is because he will cheat to get reelected.”
“It was just a very factually based argument, very long, two and a half hours, but really it didn't leave much to the imagination,” he added.
Tapper eagerly then went to TDS sufferer George Conway, a man CNN has falsely claimed all morning in chyrons and headlines is a “conservative attorney.”
At any rate, Conway gushed that “it was a remarkable presentation” and “very coherent, cohesive narrative, something that the White House doesn't have.”
Conway even swooned to the approval of chief political analyst Gloria Borger that it took quite “the physical stamina” by Schiff “to deliver that for two hours and 25 minutes.”
He added that the use of video clips made for a “kind of inspiring constitutional and American — general American history” lesson that asked “are we really going to say that a President can do this, can act in his own interests using federal funds for an ally.”
A day after claiming that he doesn’t “want to sound like a partisan,” chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin continued to prove this claim to have been a lie. This time, he told Blitzer and Tapper that Schiff “was dazzling.”
“I thought the way he wove through both the facts of the case and the historical context was really remarkable. It was the second best courtroom address, since it's like a courtroom, that I ever heard,” Toobin continued.
So if Toobin were Schiff’s professor, someone would be getting an A+ and gold star!
Toobin continued that not only was Schiff offering “very persuasive stuff,” but his arguments are “very hard” to dispute and argue that “that the Democrats and the House managers are just making this up.”
To see the relevant transcript from January 22, click “expand.”
CNN Senate Impeachment Trial
January 22, 2020
3:29 p.m. Eastern
WOLF BLITZER: A very, very powerful and forceful speech, two — almost two and a half hours by Adam Schiff, the lead House manager. That means the Democrats and the other House managers, they have another, what, 21 and a half hours to go over today, tomorrow, and Friday, a total of 24 hours over three days and, Jake, if the President of the United States was aboard Air Force One now flying back to Washington from Davos, Switzerland, if he was listening, he heard a very, very strong case from Adam Schiff why he, the President of the United States, should be convicted and removed from office, and we suspect he's watching on television because he's been tweeting over the last hour or so.
JAKE TAPPER: And if you strip away the Thomas Payne and the Ben Franklin and the Alexander Hamilton, I was struck by two things. One, Schiff, Chairman Schiff very forcefully saying that the reason President Trump needs to be removed from office is because he will cheat to get reelected, simply put and then the other thing that struck me was how much was of the case that Schiff presented was merely running videotape of Trump and his administration officials saying things that are quite damning, whether it was then-candidate Trump calling for the Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton's e-mails or President Trump talking about how Ukraine and China should launch investigations into the Bidens, the acting White House chief of staff acknowledging a quid pro quo, Gordon Sondland, one of the ambassadors who's part of the scandal, acknowledging a quid pro quo, and on and on. It was just a very factually based argument, very long, two and a half hours, but really it didn't leave much to the imagination. I'd really like to hear what George Conway has to think about this presentation.
GEORGE CONWAY: Well, I agree it was a remarkable presentation, leaving apart the stamina — the physical stamina [GLORIA BORGER LAUGHS] that it took to deliver that for two hours and 25 minutes. It was a very coherent, cohesive narrative, something that the White House doesn't have. The White House has scatter shot defenses that don't go to the merits of what Trump did, but that — that narrative, that incredibly coherent and cohesive story, which was very fact-based, weaved in, as you say, the video, the damning admissions that the President made, and Mulvaney made and the evidence that was presented in the House Judiciary Committee, I mean, excuse me, the House Intelligence Committee weave that all together with some kind of inspiring constitutional and American — general American history, and together with that explained what's at stake here, even more importantly. But what's at stake here is are we really going to allow — are we really going to say that a President can do this, can act in his own interests using federal funds for an ally? Are we really saying that from now on, none of this matters? And is that the — is that what the Framers intended? And he made a strong case that it wasn't.
3:45 p.m. Eastern
JEFFREY TOOBIN: I thought it was dazzling. I thought the way he wove through both the facts of the case and the historical context was really remarkable. It was the second best courtroom address, since it's like a courtroom, that I ever heard after a prosecutor named Jonathan Benedict in the Michael Skakal Connecticut was the best I ever heard, and it's still the best, but that was — when you consider the volume of information he covered using the video, as I think Jake mentioned earlier, the — you know, the witness testimony, the documents, it's very persuasive stuff, and you know, if people are listening. it's very hard to imagine that they will think that the Democrats and the House managers are just making this up. The argument that the President extorted or bribed or whatever criminal term you want to use issue the, the president of Ukraine to get his political dirt on Joe Biden in return for the $390 million of taxpayer money, I mean, it's there if you want to see it, and the question is if you want to see it.