IF BY SCRUTINY YOU MEAN A GLANCE:

[E]ven cursory scrutiny of evidence that has emerged so far knocks down assorted GOP arguments like shanties in a hurricane. Here's a brief review:

It was hearsay

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy notes that "the whistleblower wasn't on the call" between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart. "Hearsay," Sen. Lindsey Graham insists, cannot be a basis for impeachment.

Both observations are irrelevant. In the partial transcript of the call released by the White House itself, Trump's own words affirm the whistleblower's account. That is direct evidence, not hearsay.

"If they thought it would be exculpatory, they miscalculated badly," GOP former Sen. Jeff Flake told me.

Biased whistleblower

The president says the still-unidentified whistleblower harbors "known bias" against him. This observation, which the intelligence community inspector general called "arguable," does not discredit the whistleblower's allegations, which the inspector general found "credible."

If the whistleblower's information is accurate, his motivation doesn't matter. Trump's own former homeland security advisor, Thomas Bossert, has described himself as "deeply disturbed" by the president's behavior, too.

Media distortion

On "60 Minutes" Sunday night, CBS correspondent Scott Pelley asked about Trump's comment that "I need you to do us a favor, though" after Ukraine's new president requested military aid to counter Russian aggression.

"You added a word there," GOP leader McCarthy replied, referring to the damning "though."

McCarthy's assertion was false; Pelley accurately quoted the White House-released document. The most charitable interpretation of the GOP leader's embarrassment is that he had not actually reviewed the evidence he had gone on national television to discuss.

Tweet   @brothersjudd