The Democrats are saying goodbye to their new favorite words, “quid pro quo,” and are now saying hello to “bribery.”
Democrats are now changing the language they use to report on the allegations they have made against President Trump. The longwinded hunt against the president has now resulted in an impeachment inquiry.
The change in rhetoric came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups to try and decide which description, “quid pro quo” or “bribery,” sounded more damning to voters. Fox News and the Washington Post both confirmed this and reported on the details of the focus groups.
The focus groups were conducted in crucial House battlegrounds. A paper from the DCCC confirmed that the participants were asked whether “quid pro quo,” “extortion,” or “bribery” sounded more incriminating. The results showed that the focus groups picked “bribery” as the most compelling word to use that would be most effective with the public.
The head of the impeachment effort, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, is leading the way in calling the Trump allegations bribery.
The White House did make a statement responding to this and defined it as “impeachment by focus group.”
It is rather hard to makeup something wholly false and try and pass it off to all Americans as truth. Some citizens take what the bias mainstream news says as absolute truth, but then others seek the truth out for themselves.
The American people, along with the president, spent years subject to the Russia hoax being reported as truth and filling the airways. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing of the past, obviously. Eventually, it was revealed that the Russia collusion that top Democrats claimed with certainty turned out to be nothing but lies and false propaganda.
With the Russia hoax debunked, the Left needed to come up with another reason to spearhead a witch hunt against President Trump. Enter “quid pro quo” here.
Plain and simple, are there grounds for impeachment? Well, if you believe in facts and basic logic, the answer is a definite no.
On July 25, President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian president Volodomry Zelensky was revealed. A supposed anonymous whistleblower claimed that Trump threatened to withhold significant military aid to Ukraine until and unless Zelensky agreed to open an official investigation into Joe Biden’s son’s shady business dealings.
Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was paid $50,000 per month by a Ukrainian gas company even though he had no experience in this field.
One of Trump’s supporters in adamantly stated that no explicit quid pro quo occurred during this conversation is South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham.
“From my point of view, to impeach any president over a phone call like this would be insane,” Graham said in a statement to reporters. “What would’ve been wrong is if the president had suggested to the Ukrainian government that if you don’t do what I want you to do regarding the Bidens, we’re not going to give you the aid. That was the accusation; that did not remotely happen.”
Other top Republicans have been continuously calling the Democrat’s impeachment inquiry a “partisan sham.” The Democrats have stood on their soapboxes, decrying that they are defending the best interest of the American people and that the impeachment inquiry has nothing to do with politics. I have a hard time believing even the accusers actually believe this.
If the released phone call transcript was not enough evidence, Ukrainian officials themselves have stated that they unequivocally do not believe there was any quid pro quo or bribery to the possible investigations. The Ukrainian president also has adamantly denied any wrongdoing by President Trump.
Recently, the impeachment inquiry heated up with a public hearing of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Marie Yovanovitch was let go from her position earlier this year by the Trump administration and delivered a lengthy account on Friday regarding her time as America’s Ukraine ambassador.
She was recalled earlier in the year in May by Trump, and she declared she believes Rudy Giuliana was the main reason why. Many have defended the president stated the fact that he can both nominate or remove any ambassador he chooses. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.
Shortly before the hearing took place, President Trump took to Twitter to discuss the matter. During the hearing, Adam Schiff read the tweets by Trump and labeled it “witness intimidation.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also took the time to chime in and stated: “Witness intimidation is a crime.” Trump’s tweets sent the Democrats into a fury, and their freak-out stole the show.
Yovanovitch, who is a career diplomat, got in on the action and said Trump’s tweets were “very intimidating.” The Democrats then declared that the president’s comments towards Yovanovitch could open up another reason to impeach him. They claim witness intimidation and obstruction of justice were enacted by Trump and are cause to prompt a new article of impeachment.
Some Republicans agreed that Trump’s tweets were not in the best of taste and only fueled Democrat’s impeachment case. The White House came to the defense about the tweets and stated that it was not witness intimidation, rather the president’s personal opinions, which he is entitled to have.
Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham declared, “This is not a trial, it is a partisan political process – or to put it more accurately, a totally illegitimate, charade stacked against the president. There is less due process in this hearing than any such event in the history of our country. It’s a true disgrace.”
This entire impeachment process started the moment President Trump got elected. It has been a hindrance and disservice to the American people and our country’s success. It has also been a complete waste of taxpayers’ dollars and just shows the lengths corrupt politicians will go to in order to fulfill their personal agendas.
Changing the wording from “quid pro quo” to “bribery” will not change truth and facts. As it stands now with the evidence presented, it appears that President Trump is undeniably innocent.