As impeachment hearings draw to a close, witnesses have failed to produce hard evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Donald Trump.
Even if you assume what Democrats are claiming is true, and they haven't proven it, all you have is a president being concerned about corruption inside a foreign country-some of which may have involved a former vice president of the United States and his son, who were obviously self-dealing in the business over there-and being concerned about corruption when we are providing that country with foreign aid.
Von Spakovsky: Remember that the Democrats are now using the term "Bribery." Right? OK. If you look at the discussions at the Constitutional Convention about the impeachment clause, and specifically you look at what they meant by bribery back then, bribery would be if the president of Ukraine sent a personal cash payment to the president in order to get aid.
Asking the president of Ukraine to take a look into possible corruption, that is not bribery.
If that's the way Democrats continue to do this, and they don't actually establish any real evidence of an impeachable offense, which is serious misconduct by a president, I think they're going to reap the political whirlwinds, and they're going to find that they are greatly critiqued by the American people and they may suffer the consequences of that at the ballot box, as Republicans did after they impeached Bill Clinton.
Von Spakovsky: Oh, I think it's pretty likely that the House will vote to approve articles of impeachment because they've been wanting to do that since the first week the president was inaugurated.
One of the paragraphs in the articles of impeachment of Johnson even complained about the president saying nasty things about Congress.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/22/impeachment-evidence-not-even-close-to-bribery-says-heritage-expert/
Even if you assume what Democrats are claiming is true, and they haven't proven it, all you have is a president being concerned about corruption inside a foreign country-some of which may have involved a former vice president of the United States and his son, who were obviously self-dealing in the business over there-and being concerned about corruption when we are providing that country with foreign aid.
Von Spakovsky: Remember that the Democrats are now using the term "Bribery." Right? OK. If you look at the discussions at the Constitutional Convention about the impeachment clause, and specifically you look at what they meant by bribery back then, bribery would be if the president of Ukraine sent a personal cash payment to the president in order to get aid.
Asking the president of Ukraine to take a look into possible corruption, that is not bribery.
If that's the way Democrats continue to do this, and they don't actually establish any real evidence of an impeachable offense, which is serious misconduct by a president, I think they're going to reap the political whirlwinds, and they're going to find that they are greatly critiqued by the American people and they may suffer the consequences of that at the ballot box, as Republicans did after they impeached Bill Clinton.
Von Spakovsky: Oh, I think it's pretty likely that the House will vote to approve articles of impeachment because they've been wanting to do that since the first week the president was inaugurated.
One of the paragraphs in the articles of impeachment of Johnson even complained about the president saying nasty things about Congress.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/22/impeachment-evidence-not-even-close-to-bribery-says-heritage-expert/
No comments:
Post a Comment