There was never any chance of gaining a guilty verdict in a divided Senate—so why proceed with impeachment?
Adam Schiff should have and probably did know his case against President Trump never had the legs to deliver a guilty verdict, especially in a GOP controlled Senate.
Effectively, 20 Republican Senators would have to jump ship in order for Mr. Schiff to gain a successful conviction of President Trump; nevertheless, he still pursued impeachment.
More important, the pursuit of impeachment, with all but three House Democrats voting “yes” on the articles forwarded to the Senate, could have far reaching negative ramifications for Democrats in the 2020 election.
The smart move would have been to hold back on the whistleblower complaint and use it as an October surprise.
Such a surprise could have been devastating to the Trump campaign.
President Trump and his reelection team would have had little or no time to mount an effective counter to the complaint—as the general election neared. That would have been a far stronger strategy for Democrats than the chosen frontal assault Adam Schiff settled on.
We have to ask why?
Why go down a path that had little chance of success?
Was it all about political gamesmanship?
Possibly, but leveraging the whistleblower complaint as an October surprise would have had far greater political value.
So, attributing Mr. Schiff’s singleminded pursuit as merely a political calculation for the Party—doesn’t work.
Again we must ask, what makes sense?
There is a philosophy called Occam’s Razor which states: among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions is the right one.
In the southwest, if you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras.
Personal ambition is a horse.
It makes better sense to attribute Adam Schiff’s pursuit of impeachment as one man’s mission rather than Party politics.
This does not mean Party politics weren’t involved, yet there were better ways to leverage the whistleblower complaint than forcing House Democrats to sign their John Hancock’s on articles of impeachment, which can and will be used against them in the 2020 election.
This is the point: House Democrats were not served by Mr. Schiff’s actions.
Senators vying for the Democratic Presidential nomination: Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar are not served as they are forced to sit witness at the Senate trial instead of being out on the campaign trail.
Vice President Joe Biden was actually damaged.
Would his 2016 bribery of then Ukrainian President Poroshenko have ever come to light without the impeachment inquiry?
Would average Americans be aware of the billion dollars in secured loans Mr. Biden leveraged, threatening to withhold those funds if Mr. Poroshenko didn’t fire one individual, State prosecutor Viktor Shokin?
Probably not, at least not to the degree it has been made public due to the inquiry proceedings.
So many within the Democratic Party have been damaged; and still, Adam Schiff soldiered on.
Personal ambition is the best fit for Mr. Schiff’s actions.
The impeachment inquiry Mr. Schiff headed has put him front and center within the Democratic Party.
It has given him a perfect launching pad for loftier goals such as Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat when it comes up for reelection in 2024, or perhaps even the House Speaker’s position.
If he had been able to pull off a coup of President Trump, he’d be a made man—no position would have been too lofty.
But only if Mr. Schiff was able to pull off the coup.
This explains why after Special Counsel Robert Mueller came up empty on collusion, Adam Schiff went all-in on the whistleblower complaint.
If the Special Counsel could have delivered some actionable charge on Donald Trump, Mr. Schiff could have leveraged the Special Counsel’s charge(s) for articles of impeachment.
But that didn’t happen.
Now the clock was ticking—the sands of the hour glass were rapidly running out. (See: Rush to Judgment)
Adam Schiff had to act—he was becoming desperate.
If he was going to leverage impeachment, he had to move quickly.
Then the whistleblower complaint fell in his lap.
Pursuing articles of impeachment based on the compliant made by a faceless whistleblower was a reckless move.
It was a reckless move made by a man driven by personal ambition, not for the benefit of his Party.