Adam Schiff's Opening Statement Laid Out a Case and Pre-Empted Republican Arguments

Adam Schiff, US Congress Photo

Recovering from his slightly rocky start to the impeachment hearings, Adam Schiff gave a clear, lawyerly statement for the first day of public impeachment hearings. Schiff chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The statements of the witnesses will, in the long run, make more difference than the opening statements, but opening statements set a tone and lay out the two opposing sides’ attitudes toward the process. Schiff began by asking central questions, laid out basic facts that have been established or which he promised would be established, and ended with a value statement. When the facts are on your side, you push the facts. That’s what he did.

Schiff’s preview:

Here are the opening questions as Schiff laid them out:

“The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether President Trump sought to exploit that ally’s vulnerability and invite Ukraine’s interference in our elections? Whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraine’s willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign? And if President Trump did either, whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency?”

Schiff’s questions oriented listeners to the issues that he expected the witnesses to talk about over the next several days. Since some of the testimony is bound to be complicated, Schiff’s framework could help people see the big picture as they listen to the unfolding testimony. This is straightforward good public speaking technique.

Schiff’s factual narrative:

Schiff then narrated key events, emphasizing items that made President Trump look bad. Here is an example of how Schiff laid out basic facts that he expected the testimony to establish. He gave a date, described specific events, supplied a dollar figure, and attributed the decision to President Trump:

“…on July 18, a representative from OMB, the White House agency that oversees federal spending, announced on a video conference call that Mulvaney, at the direction of the President, was freezing nearly $400 million in security assistance authorized and appropriated by Congress and which the entirety of the U.S. national security establishment supported.”

And, here, in another example from his narrative, Schiff explained President Trump’s interaction with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Citing a transcript of a call that Trump made to Ukrainian President Zelensky, Schiff quotes Trump to say, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” The word “though” seems to imply that Trump asked for a clear quid pro quo in the alleged shakedown.

“Later, Zelensky thanks Trump for his support ‘in the area of defense,’ and says that Ukraine was ready to purchase more Javelins, an antitank weapon that was among the most important deterrents of further Russian military action. Trump’s immediate response: ‘I would like you to do us a favor, though.’” 

So, Schiff gave specifics, direct quotations, and numbers.

Preempting:

It is often a mistake to wait until your opponent speaks before you refute the opponents’ arguments. If you can predict what your opponent will say, it is often wise to attack those arguments in advance. Unlike many Democrats, Schiff seemed to be aware of the counterarguments that Republicans were making. He therefore used the basic debate technique of preempting the Republicans’ counter-arguments.

One common Republican argument is that the Trump administration eventually released the promised aid to Ukraine. No harm, no foul, they imply. Schiff preempted this counterargument by pointing out that the aid was released late and under pressure:

“Some have argued in the President’s defense that the aid was ultimately released. That is true. But only after Congress began an investigation; only after the President’s lawyers learned of a whistleblower complaint; and only after Members of Congress began asking uncomfortable questions about quid pro quos.”

Republican defenses of President Trump sometimes claim that Trump was right to investigate former Vice President Biden because it was really Ukraine, not Russia, that hacked the 2016 American presidential election. But the Director of National Intelligence had clearly, ummistakably proven that it was, indeed, Russia. During his narrative, Schiff hit the Republican argument head-on:

“Giuliani also promoted a debunked conspiracy that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that hacked the 2016 election. The nation’s intelligence agencies have stated unequivocally that it was Russia, not Ukraine, that interfered in our election. But Giuliani believed this conspiracy theory, referred to as ‘Crowdstrike,’ shorthand for the company that discovered the Russian hack, would aid his client’s reelection.”

And, summing up:

Schiff ended by quoting Benjamin Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” That reminded us of the basic values on which our nation was founded.

Straightforward, well-organized, and relatively unemotional, Schiff laid out the case like a good debater. He started with the central questions, narrated the facts as he saw them, and preempted the frankly ridiculous arguments that have been offered in defense of President Trump’s behavior.

The Republicans have largely dealt with Schiff by attacking his physical appearance and calling him names. That, in it of itself, shows that his opening statement struck home. One of my social media followers just called Schiff a “bug eyed psychopath.” Worse, “Shifty Schiff” (a Trump coinage) is trending on Twitter. Good grief.

If you have the facts on your side, push the facts. If you don’t have the facts, call people names.

Later today, I hope to analyze Devin Nunes’ opening statement. Quite a contrast!

P.S.: Technical note for my colleagues in communication. Most rhetorical studies today focus on inventio, that is, the speech’s content. We often neglect delivery and organization. In this case, however, Schiff’s organization drove his argument.