Dem scandal mongering, like the Mueller farce, worked best when the media was able to sketch a picture that left out lots of pertinent details and invented others. Televising impeachment hearings (which aren’t actual impeachment, but committee hearings, (one of the most boring things beyond curling and Japanese baseball), was a terrible idea. It’s an even worse idea when the pretty picture that you drew doesn’t look so good in the light of day.
Manufacturing narratives is a lot easier than actually presenting them to public scrutiny and in forums where the opposition gets a voice.
Today’s disaster introduced ‘witnesses’ who hadn’t actually witnessed anything. Or actually spoken to President Trump. And while omissions like that are easy to achieve in a New York Times or a CNN report, it doesn’t work so well in hearings within a legislature encompassing more than one party.
Why bring witnesses who didn’t witness anything?
Because what you’ve got isn’t very impressive.
Russiagate was based on the bizarre conspiracy theories of a Clinton campaign employee. It worked best when no one read the Steele Report. Its sequel worked best when no one actually got to see the raw material.
This is the raw material.
Just as with the Mueller testimony, the media’s obsessive hyping made things much worse. If the media had been patient enough to take a slower pace, not to oversell, or to urge everyone to rush to the TV (Yahoo Mail actually broadcast a red chyron as if a nuclear war had broken out) the fail wouldn’t have been as strong. But the media is too thirsty and too greedy. And its big push turned into another case of the pajama boy crying wolf.