At the heart of this week’s latest incarnation of impeachment is the discussion as to whether or not President Trump’s conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart on July 25th was appropriate.
On the left, they have attempted to insinuate that the dialogue amounts to a “quid pro quo”, with an investigation into Joe Biden and his son’s dealing within the tiny nation determining whether or not Ukraine would receive congressionally-approved military aid from the United States. Then, when “quid pro quo” seemed to fall out of favor as the phrase du jour, the Democrats briefly switched to “extortion” before settling on “bribery”.
There may be another semantic change on the horizon, however, as one of today’s impeachment witnesses has thoroughly debunked the idea that “bribery” took place.
President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine do not constitute “bribery” and resisting Congressional request is not “obstruction” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told the House judiciary committee Wednesday.
“You can’t accuse a president of bribery and then when some of us note that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation say, ‘Well, it’s just impeachment. We really don’t have to prove the elements,’” Turley said. “If you are going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick because you are trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States.”
The left has been scrambling throughout today’s hearings, thanks to the expert testimony of Turley – the lone witness allowed to testify whose request to appear came from the right side of the aisle.
Become an insider!
Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.