The ultimate result will not come down to a great legal argument one way or the other.
I never said it would come down to a legal argument, do you not understand what "cross-examine" means?
This will be about soundbites and how the groups message the 'meaning' of testimony on cable news after the fact.
Which is why the GOP needs someone who can effectively cross-examine the Dems witnesses so that they have their own soundbites.
The question is whether the GOP can whip up similar emotions within their base.
Bringing us back to effective cross-examination, eviscerating a Dem friendly witness on live TV will do just that.
If the GOP senators fear a giant backlash by voting against Trump - they won't.
Don't put the cart before the horse, we aren't there yet. The House inquiry will be a trial in the court of public opinion, with the public as the jury. Hence the need for someone who knows how to conduct a trial.
Thus, I will take a good PR guy over the world's greatest litigator any day of the week.
PR and messaging are important, but only as good as the testimony that is elicited during these hearings. Without it, its just more noise, and if you think that is going to win the day, you are sorely mistaken.