They aren't hypocrites. They're stooges.

In 1998, Lindsay Graham spoke out against President Clinton stonewalling Congress by repeating the words used against Nixon during his Impeachment stonewalling. “....‘You’re taking impeachment away from us. You’re becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power of Congress away from Congress and became the judge and jury.’” 

He made a strong argument even if the words were not his own. His 2012, another country boy, Trey Gowdy made the same argument during one of the—there were many—Benghazi hearings.

“The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.”

Today both men are taking drastically different approaches as they attempt to defend Trump’s refusal to provide information to Congressional oversight committees. Naturally, their previous words are being held against them and they are being portrayed as hypocrites. This is too easy and overlooks a more serious problem.

My understanding of hypocrisy is when you stand for something and then, in a moment of weakness or convenience, or whatever, you turn on yourself and your own values. This seems to be what’s going on with Graham and Gowdy, but I think we are missing the bigger picture.

In the initial examples, when Graham and Gowdy appeared to be standing up for something, what they really were doing was grandstanding. Today, they are merely grandstanding for something different. They haven’t flipped on their values, but rather boarded another showboat.

This makes them habitual stooges, not hypocrites.

By 1998, Republicans had been trying to get Clinton on something for six years and weren’t having much luck. When they finally got something on him, rather than represent a high crime or misdemeanor, it looked more like petty crime and misbehavior. Still, he lied about it and Republicans felt they had the goods on him. Clinton fought back, which eventually led Graham to pretend to be a patriot.

In 2012, when Gowdy was going through his “I could have been a founding father, but I was born too late” period, Republicans had been going after the Obama administration since the day he took office. Turns out he was born in America and wasn’t a secret Muslim and giving more people health insurance wasn’t his attempt to destroy America.

Nevertheless, when Benghazi happened, Republicans breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, something was working in their favor. Again, after it was proven numerous times that there was nothing there, the Obama administration and Clinton (this time Hillary) fought back, giving Gowdy an opportunity to do his best imitation of Graham doing his imitation of the Watergate impeachment panel.

One can believe both men are lying now or that they were lying then. I chose to believe that just like the president, they lie every time they open their mouths.

Grandstanding is grandstanding. Graham and Gowdy may be spouting hypocritical drivel, but the bottom line is they never stood for anything except: Republicans good, Democrats bad. They haven’t lost their way. They’ve simply lost their minds.    

Republicans Hoping for a Flag

 Republicans running out of way to defend Trump - NBC  News

Congressional committees continue to expose bad, corrupt, and often illegal behavior by the president and his cronies. Just to be clear, illegal means criminal.

President Trump’s effort to withhold military aid from Ukraine until they provided him with dirt on his potential political opponent, Joe Biden amounted to no less than inviting a foreign entity to interfere in an American election. This is a crime.

This crime was committed in part during a phone call between Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian president. It was made worse because the Mueller Investigation, just a few months earlier and Robert Mueller, himself, just a day earlier speaking before Congress had condemned Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election.

No one in Trump’s circle, no Republican in Congress has made any effort to refute the accusations. The case appears to be very open and shut.

While not condoning his behavior, they are questioning the Democratic Congress’s method of investigating him—essentially attack the process. Questioning the motives of the whistle-blower, the closed hearings, and anything else.

This is not new. Crooks have been crying foul for as long as crooks have been committing crimes.

So what are they hoping to accomplish?

Muddy the waters is a common defense maneuver on par with comparing apples and oranges. It is not, however, a legal term although it is often a legal strategy. Attacking the process is the Republicans strategy to muddy the waters so to speak.

In a court of law, no judge would allow this, but impeachment is not a legal procedure. It is government’s answer to government misconduct. In fact, muddying the waters, comparing apples to oranges is practically the definition of how government works. In government, it is always about this with that in the background versus that with this attached. Politics is nothing if it is not muddy waters.

This still doesn’t tell us what Republicans hope to accomplish by arguing process in their defense against substance. To better understand what is going on in Washington, it would be helpful to look at what goes on in a football game.