Anyone tuning into this saga for the first time, and who genuinely hasn't been paying attention, would be very confused by Nunes' opening statement. He may be helping Democrats.

Now Nunes is attacking the witnesses, saying they "passed the audition" of Democrats "star chamber." We'll see if other Rs follow suit w/ this shoot-the-messenger strategy. Risky.

George Kent emphasized his family's history of public service, including military service, in his closed-door testimony last month. Will make it hard to attack him as a partisan. He also broadly supports the Trump administration's policy re: great power competition.

Whether there's a disconnect between that stated, formal strategy and the president's actions will be a key theme of this and future hearings.

Worth noting, particularly for viewers who don't watch many hearings, it's unusual to let witnesses make such lengthy opening statements. Kent and Taylor are emphasizing their non-partisan credentials, and that's true. But this format objectively helps Dems. lay out their case.

Taylor's testimony (last month) was the clearest in laying out WHY the US supports Ukraine w/ aid and weapons. He also described the "regular" and "irregular" channels (Rudy and Co.) of what was happening in Ukraine. This is why Dems put him up first. Sets the stage.

Taylor added some NEW info in his opening statement: "Following the call with Trump, the member of my staff asked Amb. Sondland what Trump thought about Ukraine. Sondland responded that Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for."

The whole passage. That Sondland took this call w/ Trump in a restaurant, was overheard, and then talked about it to a staff member...wow.

One presumes said staff member may have an appointment soon with impeachment investigators.

Note that Taylor said he understands that the committee is following up on this matter. This is a contemporaneous fact witness who apparently heard the president himself. Potentially very significant.

And for good measure, Schiff Q&As w/ Taylor on his staff member who overheard the president say "investigations."

Taylor now making a distinction between leveraging a White House meeting vs. security assistance. It was "much more alarming" to condition the latter on Ukraine announcing investigations, he says.

Rep. Ratcliffe now objecting to Schiff's interruption of R questioning to caution Taylor. Ratcliffe was Trump's pick to be the DNI after Coates fired. Ratcliffee flamed out. Maguire then became acting DNI--and was in place when the whistleblower filed his complaint.

Rs now turning to Kent to talk about long-term problems in Ukraine w/ corruption, a subject on which he is an expert. "We are cautiously optimistic" that Zelensky=reform.

Castor has spent a lot of time asking Kent and Taylor to comment on Trump's concerns, or if they might agree how he saw corruption. Asking witnesses to put themselves in the minds of another person (even when he's not the president) doesn't tend to produce rich answers.

But under the circumstances, not a bad strategic move. If he can make the witnesses look the least bit defensive or confused, it arguably helps his case.

Ds and Rs who want to convey concern for the security of Ukraine could start by not calling it "the Ukraine." The ignorance undercuts the sincerity.