MeDotOrg wrote:How many Earl Landgrebes are left in the GOP? Congressman
Earl Landgrebe was an ardent Nixon supporter, famous for a quote he made during the Watergate hearings:
Don't confuse me with the facts. Today I saw several Earls in the Peanut Gallery. I think we really won't know the impact of the hearing until people have had a chance to digest everything.
Moving past Castor's questions and on to the actual representatives, the Republicans did a reasonable job keeping their questions and points focused. Those included,
1) It's a fact that Trump provided lethal military aid to the Ukraine, which is something Obama didn't do.
2) Questions regarding Trump's motives for what was stated in the Ukraine call summary "transcript" are speculative, not facts.
3) The Democrats are putting on a show rather than dealing with facts, evidenced by the unwillingness to let Congress question the whistleblower behind closed doors.
If one is skeptical of the argument the President committed an impeachable offense, I don't think today's testimony moved that person's opinion. It provided reasons to wonder what more will come out of the revelation Sondland may know more than has been provided to Congress to date. But it also showed the Republicans can be effective in dictating the narrative that sticks as well as disrupting Democrat attempts to keep the message simple. If the Democrats want to ensure their arguments don't get lost in the drama of constant appeals for the whistleblower to appear before Congress then they need to narrow their activities during questioning to less speculative rambling than we saw in some cases today. There were good rounds for the Democrats where they made very good points such as:
1) Having an unofficial channel of diplomacy ala Rudy Giuliani undermined the official channel and longstanding goals of the United States in the Ukraine.
2) Seeking to use the powers of government to pursue individual political advantage is the kind of corruption the Ukrainians were trying to throw off. Having a divided US diplomatic effort that included those types of behaviors sent a damaging message.
3) Russia is very alert to signs US support for Ukraine might be waning, and actions like delaying aid give signals the Russians will capitalize on.
There was a great but buried explanation of the history of corruption in the Ukraine and what US aims were in that regard going back to Obama's first term that, by itself, should be the subject of news articles but isn't being brought up in the reporting I've seen.
I found it interesting that Taylor essentially said he viewed the withholding of military aid as the line that was crossed for him, but conditioning a meeting with Trump was less concerning. That confirmed to me that is one aspect of this particular case for impeachment that has the potential for real bi-partisan support. It also explains why the Republicans made the "Trump provided bullets, not blankets" tag one of their key points. Sondland's testimony could be the lynch pin that decides which of those two narratives becomes the one the broader and politically necessary public retains after it's all said and done. And that will include determining how many modern Earl Landgrebe's we end up with when it comes time to vote on articles of impeachment.
