Welcome to the commentary magazine podcast for Thursday January 23rd 2020.

I am John Pudworth. It's the editor of commentary with me as always senior editor Abe Greenwald

Hi, John associate editor Noah Rossman. Hi Noah. Hi, John and in Washington senior writer Christine Rosen. Hi, Christine. Hi, John.

So we are now a couple of hours before the third day of the impeachment trial the first day being taken up with these all these democratic house manager senate motions to do various things that were rejected I think 11 times by Republicans on a party line vote.

I followed yesterday by the first day of eight hour the case being made by the house managers led by Adam Schiff why Trump should be removed from office.

I watched most of yesterday's proceedings I say for my sins because the great problem here is if you follow this closely and the only people who probably will watch with this kind of detail are the people who have already followed it closely.

So what you have was a very in all these cases in the case of Schiff and Hakeem Jeffries and Jason Crow and Val Deming and Zoe Lofgren what you had in their presentations was a very well crafted narratives of the worst possible interpretations of Trump's behavior in various guises on these two counts.

But of course nothing that you didn't know already if you had watched the House hearings as they were going on and all of that.

And so it has this weird quality which is that the people who don't know anything might actually be kind of stunned by the accretion of evidence or the accretion of the argument that was presented.

But none of them is going to be watching it and and the only people are going to be watching it already know my guesses know the chapter in verse already and so it simply becomes a ruling as to the performance right and the performance in my view.

I don't know how much you guys really watched it the performance was surprisingly good in particular Adam Schiff's performance Adam Schiff was not the Adam Schiff that we have come to know and extremely dislike.

He was measured his rhetoric was not incendiary he he didn't sneer he didn't roll his eyes he didn't purse his lips it was a very very strong performance very well written.

I really would like to know who worked with him on it because it was really an extremely well written brief or speech or whatever you want to call it to and a half hour long speech.

And so if you would come at this for the first time you might go jeez but you know it's funny because you're saying that it strikes me now it's it's literally theater you're saying the acting was good the writing was good people describe his performance is dazzling yeah to be called dazzling i mean the the the praise for it was this kind of you know right but of course.

I mean to be fair courtrooms are theater and if you consider this a version of a courtroom then calling it theater you shouldn't necessarily be dismissive all I mean they you're presenting a case and present you have to present in the compelling fashion.

In order not to you know make people stop paying attention or whatever brief digression and then back to the theater so the whole.

New evidence new witnesses votes thing that you reference in the beginning so that's a come just a ploy the rules as senate republicans established them said you know that we have these opening arguments and then we will vote on witnesses and democrats attempted to get all these republicans on the record.

Backing or opposing voting against witnesses at the outset when they're essentially citing with the rules.

As everybody agreed to them as they were agreed to by a majority.

And so if you are one of the myriad accounts on Twitter who proceed yourself to be a flack for politicians you're just allowing yourself to be played like a fiddle if you're saying.

Oh you know they're not letting these witnesses testify that's the wrong time to have that argument there will be a time to have that argument republicans can and should be held to the fire but it's later it's not now.

Right that was a very I have to say I found I thought that that was.

...