One of the many laughably embarrassing moments for the Democrats on the Schiff's committee was when Schiff's committee member Rep. Mike Quigley, from the fifth District of Illinois, dealt with the issue head-on and produced this gem: "...countless people have been convicted on hearsay, because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."
We can imagine that the standards in Illinois and the Schiff committee may be a tad different from those places where due process is observed, but contrary to Rep. Quigley's contention, courts routinely deny hearsay testimony, and most often do not even admit it into evidence.
Another revealing moment in the inquiry came when former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified about when President Trump fired her. This did not sit well with her, and she let the committee know it. It comes as no surprise that Ms. Yovanovitch did not talk about when President Obama fired every one of George W. Bush's politically-appointed ambassadors in 2009. That, of course, was his right, and we have no problem that he did it. President Trump, of course, has the same rights, but he actually kept Ms. Yovanovitch in office for nearly three years before he fired her. And, he fired her before the notorious phone call, so she had no direct knowledge of it, making her an ideal witness for the persecution in this kangaroo court. Ambassadors, we should not have remind you, serve at the discretion of the President.
But, her hurt feelings aside, we give Ambassador Yovanovitch full credit for two answers she gave during the inquiry: question - "do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?" Her answer - "No." Question - Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?" Answer - "No."
Speaking of phone calls, the notorious call between President Trump and President Zelensky was their second, not their first. During the inquiry testimony, President Trump released the first call, and lo and behold, he invited Mr. Zelensky to visit him in Washington DC, without conditions or quids pro quo, and that first call mentioned neither investigations, the Bidens, or contained threats to withhold US aid. That destroys much of the Democrats' claims against the President, and that of course is why he released it.
Oh, there's more. The Democrats have been in a tizzy because they allege that President Trump sought to "dig up dirt on a political rival" (that is, Joe Biden). They contend that this was an unwarranted fishing expedition. But let's check out what two of Chairman Schiff's witnesses testified. George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs: "My concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest" concerning Hunter Biden's business deals in the Ukraine while his father was vice-president. Mr. Kent directly informed the Obama administration of his concerns. He was not the only one. Ambassador Yovanovitch testified, "yeah . . .I think that it could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest." She also conceded that the Obama administration had briefed her for her 2016 confirmation hearing with advice of how she should not answer any questions she might get about Hunter Biden and Burisma but instead should refer them directly to the office of the Vice-President. That shows the fix was in and puts an end to the charge that the problems with the Biden deals were figments of Donald Trump's imagination.
And of all the corrupt countries in the world, Ukraine was the only one that Vice-President Biden pressured to fire someone. Probably a mere coincidence that his son was raking in major coin from a corrupt company in that corrupt country.
The Republican minority on the Schiff committee have released a list of witnesses whom they wish to testify. All of them actually witnessed something relevant to this proceeding. Chairman Schiff has so far rejected them all. Could it be the Democrats know that they can't win this case without resorting to hearsay and they can't win it on the actual evidence?
So far, this inquiry has not done much to boost the impeachment boomlet. And to best describe it, two phrases come to mind. One, today's title, from an old Peggy Lee song. The other from Shakespeare's Macbeth: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."