Schiff has been riveting throughout the impeachment trial thus far and yes his closing arguments last night awoke many a bleary eyed viewer from their slumber to sit up and pay attention, close attention to the ironclad case for conviction and the imperative and necessity of removal from office.
Anyone listening to Schiff present his arguments was either left utterly and totally convinced or shut them off like Wyatt Earp just because they were too damn forceful, impactful, riveting, just and right.
It's hard to know whether to take this kind of post seriously. Schiff's argument was the same as the case he laid out in his committee report. It relies on his inferences more than on facts, and those inferences are just not convincing as a matter of logic (or evidence, if that standard applied). If his case really was "ironclad" there will/would be broad support for it in the upcoming vote, and there won't be, because the GOP and WH will present all of its logical/evidentiary holes, holes that anyone following this theatre in an even marginally objective way can already see for themselves. Also, there would be no desperate need to attempt to supplement the case with more evidence. That's Schiff's way of admitting that the evidence is less than "ironclad".
The truth is - it's difficult to impeach a president, as it should be. The threshold for a succesful impeachment is much higher than just presenting a case that the President did something wrong or ill-advised.
The only things "riveting" about Schiff are his ferret-like appearance and cringe-worthy over-acting. I'll admit his performance is engaging, but not in a positivie way. Kind of like watching a bad B horror movie that you realize is terrible after 15 minutes, but have to watch to the end to see just how bad it can get.
Any captain can claim that his ship is water-tight, but the proof will lie in whether it ends up resting on the bottom.
