In a not so surprising shift, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) appears to be backpedaling ever so slowly from his orchestrated witch hunt impeachment probe.
During his appearance, Sunday morning on CNN’s Jake Tapper News Show, the usually arrogant, self-assured, disingenuous pompous politician seemed to be a bit contrite regarding the issue of impeachment.
A reflective Schiff, when asked by Tapper if he would begin the task of writing “articles of impeachment” the California congressmen responded that he would need to “discuss this with my constituents and my colleagues” before deciding whether or not the House should move forward with articles of impeachment.
Adding, “I want to discuss this with my constituents and my colleagues before I make a final judgment on it. But there are a couple of important things we need to think about and one is are we prepared to say that soliciting foreign interference, conditioning official acts like $400 of taxpayer money and White House meetings to get political favors is compatible with the office?”
Schiff continued, “Because if we do, it is basically carte blanche for this President and anyone who comes after him. But are we also prepared to say that Congress will tolerate the complete stonewalling of an impeachment inquiry or our oversight because if we do it means that the impeachment clause is a complete nullity and, more than that, our oversight ability is really an ability in name only.”
The stunning almost pathological behavior from Schiff’s closing remarks vilifying the President, at the end of the impeachment inquisition, to his latest almost lucid analogy of what impeachment based on hearsay and second-hand information will do to future President’s, after Trump.
It was indeed a statesmanlike analogy by Schiff, concerned about the historical significance and ramifications of using the awesome seldom used remedy of removing a President from office.
However, as we’ve come to learn Adam Schiff is far removed from ever being confused as a statesman. If anything he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been more then likely looking at the latest polls regarding impeachment, and what they’re seeing is that support for impeachment is beginning to backfire on the duo.
The latest Emerson Poll finds support for impeachment since October has fallen 5%, while support for the President has ironically risen 5% during the same time frame to 48%.
The apparent reversal from approval to disapproval is most likely due to Schiff’s conduct in overseeing the impeachment inquiry. In that the more the investigation went public, the more viewers realized how unfair the process was to the President.
At the beginning of the month, 58% of Americans thought Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Burisma was the result of “bad judgment” while another 27% thought it was illegal. Those poll numbers most likely have also changed, as the public becomes more aware of the details.
Moreover, the biggest and most important takeaway from this poll is concerning those registered Independent voters, who will actually decide the 2020 outcome.
Within that group, 49% oppose impeachment, while just 34% approve. Perhaps just as significant is where viewers are getting their news, in that 69% of viewers watched all or part of the impeachment inquiry, resulting in 26% following the preceding on Fox News, with 24% getting their information from ABC, NBC or CBS, another 16% from CNN, 15% from MSNBC, along with the remaining 19% somewhere else.
Even far-left publications like “Vanity Fair” are warning Democrats that the impeachment craze has stalled, perhaps for good.
“Alas, for the Democrats, the promising numbers of late October and early November rapidly dissipated, and polling numbers have reverted to a level more consistent with long-term opinions on President Trump. In the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll, released on November 19, Independents opposed impeachment and removal from office 46% to 39%, a number close to the rolling averages of the last few weeks. It is notable that the poll was fielded after the first public impeachment hearings. Even the compelling testimony of witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, failed to move the needle on public opinion. That doesn’t mean further hearings won’t energize greater opposition to Trump, but it’s a little hard to imagine more effective testimony than that offered by Yovanovitch and some of her Foreign Service colleagues.”
Vanity Fair of course conveniently omits that Yovanovitch’s “dramatic testimony” was nothing more then a career diplomat upset that she was being replaced by the President, a routine occurrence. Moreover a month before the July phone call, in short, she had nothing to contribute, only her personal “sob story.”