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.

Reagan versus Trump: The Unifier and the Divider. Two Public Speaking Styles. Same Message, Different Songs

Two of the most important Republican presidents of my lifetime were Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Powerful speakers, both of them. But what a difference in tone! Even when he expressed the most hard-nosed ideas, Reagan was always articulate and courteous, and he was often eloquent. Trump is more often incoherent, foul-mouthed, and divisive. They both had the same major policy accomplishment: tax cuts for the very rich. But they got to that policy by singing much different songs. Let’s compare their tones.

Reagan, the Unifier

Ronald Reagan, White House photo

My last post talked about Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech. Here’s a thoughtful passage from that carefully-crafted, speechwriting team-created speech:

“I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.”

Did you notice his tone? Reagan criticized the demonstrators in the mildest terms. He reminded them that the democratic values that he supported gave them the freedom to protest against democratic values. He didn’t call them names; he just asked them to think.

In a wonderful speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Reagan acknowledged that the press often attacked him, but he praised them all the same: “I’m especially grateful for all your efforts to provide a vigorous, probing, and unbiased free press.” He also took time to commend the courage of war correspondents.

Trump, the Divider

Donald Trump, White House photo

Let’s compare that to Trump’s comments about the press. Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2017, Trump said, in a wild, free-wheeling diatribe:

“And I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. It’s fake, phony, fake. A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people. And they are. They are the enemy of the people.” In fact, while Reagan, like the Founders of our Republic, recognized that a free nation needs a free press, Trump bristles at any criticism, however accurate. He didn't attack any particular reporter; he attacked the entire institution as "fake news." That differs from Reagan’s praise of a “vigorous, probing, and unbiased free press.”

Or consider how Trump described his political opponents in a recent rally speech: “the more America achieves, the more hateful and enraged these crazy Democrats become. Crazy. They’re crazy. They’re crazy.” Hoping to adopt a new foreign trade agreement, Trump called his political opponents names: “We’re replacing the NAFTA disaster. And we have to get this crazy Nancy Pelosi to put this thing up for a vote.” “Crazy Nancy Pelosi?” How rude, how divisive.

Although Reagan criticized hostile demonstrators in thoughtful, courteous terms, Trump lashes out at anyone who crossed him.

But let's remember that, like Reagan, Trump won the presidency as a conservative Republican. My former professor Charles Urban Larson distinguished between the unifying style of persuasion and the more hostile pragmatic style. This raises issues. Can a politician win elections by speaking divisively? Of course. Can a politician govern with a divisive style? Of course. Hitler did it. For all his many faults, Trump isn’t that divisive. But is that the right way?


P.S.: Reagan smiled for his official photo (see above), but Trump scowled. Does that mean anything? Post a comment below.

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!" How Ronald Reagan's One Sentence Changed Berlin

Ronald Reagan, White House photo

Today marks the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many things needed to happen before the wall came down, but Ronald Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg Gate was one of the keys. Reagan delivered the speech on June 12, 1987. One of the most successful of all rhetorical presidents, Reagan knew how to use speech’s power to accomplish his purposes.

One short passage gave this speech its impact:

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.

“Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.

“Mr. Gorbachev—Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Mikail Gorbachev was the last dictator of the Soviet Union before it disintegrated into its component states. At the time Reagan gave his speech, East and West Germany were separate nations. West Germany was a member of the Western alliance, while East Germany was a puppet state of the Soviet bloc. Although East Germany had its own government, everyone understood that the Soviet Union pulled its strings. Berlin, Germany’s traditional capital, was divided into East and West after World War II. East Berlin served as East Germany’s capital, while West Berlin, established by the Western Allies, was a symbolic island of freedom surrounded by communist East Germany. And the Wall symbolized tyranny.

The Berlin Wall was built in 1961 to stop East Germans from fleeing to West Berlin. Nearly 200 people were killed by border guards when they tried to cross the wall, but thousands of people (including hundreds of border guards!) crossed successfully. The Brandenburg Gate, where Reagan stood when he gave the speech, was a major checkpoint for people crossing legally between East and West Berlin. The border was opened and the wall torn down on November 9, 1989. That was more than two years after Reagan’s speech, but one still feels that Reagan’s speech got the thing going, at least symbolically.

And one sentence made the difference: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

The rest of Reagan’s speech was quite good. Reagan uttered many eloquent phrases about freedom democracy, capitalism, and history. Here’s one example:

“But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind—too little food.”

Reagan also talked about arms control, international cooperation, progress, and unity. He proposed economic cooperation, as well as cooperation in international sports. He had quite a few ideas.

But it all came down to one sentence: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Sometimes it’s a speaker’s arguments that make the difference. Sometimes careful reasoning makes the difference. Sometimes it’s a carefully laid-out vision that makes the difference. Sometimes a speaker's storytelling makes the difference.

But, with the Brandenburg Gate speech, one simple sentence made the difference. And down the wall came.


P.S.: Most of Reagan’s presidential speeches were written by speechwriting committees. Reagan told the speechwriting team what he wanted. One speechwriter wrote a draft; the draft circulated around the West Wing, and relevant executive branch officers suggested changes. Reagan did the final editing himself. The Brandenburg Gate speech was one of his best. I recommend a wonderful book by Reagan’s speechwriter Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era.

P.P.S.: I have often wondered why Noonan and others kept talking about a conservative revolution. Revolution strikes me as the opposite of being a conservative. What do you think? Feel free to leave a comment.

"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a Heckler Down Flat

Chlöe Swarbrick, who serves in the New Zealand Parliament as a member of the left-wing Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, made international headlines with her quick “okay, boomer” comeback to a heckle during a parliamentary debate about climate change. She was speaking for a zero-admissions policy when a conservative member of Parliament heckled her about her youth. (She is only 25 years old.)

I wrote a while back about the fine art of heckling. But every good heckle calls for an even better comeback. Ms. Swarbrick showed us how to deal with a heckler. At that point in her speech, she had just remarked that the average member parliament was 49 years of age, implying that they would all be long dead before climate change ruined the planet. She reminded the honorable members that young people like herself lacked that advantage.

Since they can't defend pro-carbon policies on their merits, conservatives who subscribe to climate change conspiracy theories often complain that young people lack experience and are not to be taken seriously. Swarbrick turned the heckle against the heckler. Here’s why it worked:

1. Her response was quick and witty. Two words: “okay, boomer,” with a quick wave of her hand. She continued without taking a breath. Good speakers don’t get involved in arguments with hecklers. That’s a waste of time. That puts the debate on the heckler’s ground. You don’t want to do that. Just as good heckles are quick and witty, a good comeback needs to be even quicker.

2. Swarbrick’s anti-heckle was exactly on point. Her argument was that young people have a vested interest in the planet’s future. The heckler implied that she was too young to be entitled to an opinion. She put the heckler down quickly and efficiently. The exchange centered on age and Swarbrick never varied from that central element.

3. Well, I wouldn't know, but apparently “okay, boomer” is common parlance on young people’s social media. Since boomers won’t recognize the phrase, she was able to set the heckler aside for a moment while he thought about what she had just said. “Okay, boomer” was a young person’s response to an old person’s complaint. It reinforced her point about the generational divide.

I am a boomer myself. I still worry about the planet’s future. After all, I have children and grandchildren who need a world to live in, and I care about the human species in general. I cannot understand people who look for excuses to deny obvious scientific facts and urgent ecological needs.

World-wide media have feasted on Swarbrick’s comeback. She is now an overnight international figure. She admits that response on social media has been mixed: some people thought her anti-heckle was terrific, while others were offended. That’s how heckling, works isn’t it? In any case, why was her ad hominem comeback any more tasteless than the insulting ad hominem heckle that started her off?

Swarbrick's later reflections on the event are even more amusing:

"Today I have learnt that responding succinctly and in perfect jest to somebody heckling you about *your age* as you speak about the impact of climate change on *your generation* with the literal title of their generation makes some people very mad.”

Well, there you go!


P. S. If you would like to read my other posts about heckling and public speaking, click here.

P. P. S.: By the way, the New Zealand Parliament passed a zero-emissions policy. So, Swarbrick's side won. 

P. P. P. S. I haven't forgotten Sen. Mike Lee's ridiculous "seahorse speech" against climate change. Conservatives need to get a grip on this issue. Reality awaits them.