Magic Viral Impeachment Moments

I've been avoiding a live engagement with the public impeachment inquiry hearings ("history being made" declare the news stories). I think the inquiry is immensely important. based on the summary transcript he provided as well as all the corroborating evidence from testimonies so far, I believe the President attempted to strong-arm a foreign government into digging up dirt on his political enemies. I also know, though, from reading a range of right-wing sources that a significant chunk of the country simply believes otherwise. Either Trump did no wrong, or he did something that was wrong but not illegal, or he never intended to do something illegal. In any case, impeachment is a slow coup attempt by disgruntled Democrats who have always wanted to take the President down and overturn the will of the people.

"History is unfolding before us," says Axios, "but due to the splintering of modern media, expect people to walk away with very different impressions of what they're seeing — depending on where they see it." Kevin Drum quotes the Washington Post, which declares that "Democrats need a viral moment" from the hearings, some OMG surprise that's easily communicated and not easily spun. "If it's not viral," Drum gloomily concludes, "it didn't happen."

I'm not sure, in other words, that there's much hope even for the public impeachment inquiry to produce a change of minds in many people. Most have already decided what they think about this situation and aren't especially open to change.

I mean, I'm not especially open to being convinced that Trump is unimpeachable, honestly.

I like to think that, were many of the witnesses so far somehow to be shown to have been lying or fabricating evidence, that'd be a thing. If I were somehow convinced that the multiply debunked conspiracy theories that Ukraine rather than Russia was behind election tampering, then I might rethink. If I were convinced that Trump via Guliani were somehow neutrally interested in quashing corruption abroad everywhere and not merely in countries where his main political rival could be embarrassed, then I'd be more amenable to arguments that his "perfect phone call" had innocent undertones. Heck, if Trump just out and said that this was an imperfect call, that he made a misstep in asking about this, and that thank goodness his trusted staff ensured that Ukraine got the money anyway--well, I'd still be upset, but I could see a way out of impeachment.

None of that seems likely.

I wonder if there's anything that could convince pro-Trumpers that in fact what Trump did was (1) wrong; and (2) illegal.

The "viral moment" the Post article imagines would perhaps provide such a breakthrough. It'd be like the "smoking gun" tape of Nixon that finally flipped Republicans to support impeachment. They just couldn't deny or spin it.

I'm not sure there's any such viral moment or smoking gun that would convince Trump's base to turn against him. I can't imagine anything that isn't spinnable. Whether the spin is denial (It didn't happen), blame the messenger (The whistleblower just hates Trump), tu quoque (You think Obama and Hillary didn't do the same or worse?), or just leaning into it (Yeah, he did it! And he'd do it again!), spin there will be. The incentives for sticking with or against Trump are just too great for those in either group to put the matter up for factual debate.

Again, I think that I'm both in the anti-Trump/never-Trump crowd and that the evidence clearly shows that Trump is guilty as all get-out. But I have no way to convince someone utterly convinced of the opposite that I'm right.

So we're stuck with each other, my Trump-supportive neighbors and I.  I don't think any magic viral impeachment moment can mitigate that situation. What now?