The Daily - The Latest: A New Word for What Trump Did

Episode Date: November 14, 2019

We’ve been hearing a lot about the “quid pro quo.” But this week, Democrats started using a new term, one that shows up in the impeachment clause of the Constitution, to describe President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. Republicans started using it, too — to reject it.“The Latest” is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind “The Daily.” You can find more information about it here.

It started with a whistleblower's complaint about President Trump's contact with a foreign leader. Tonight, allegations of a White House cover-up as details of a whistleblower's complaint are revealed. I had a perfect phone call with the president of Ukraine. Like, I mean, perfect. In that call, the president asked for an investigation of Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. Now the burden is on the Democrats really to tell Americans the story of what happened and why it's impeachable.

This spectacle is doing great damage to our country. It's nothing more than an impeachment process in search of a crime. Hey, it's Julie Davis in the Washington Bureau. It's November 14th. The latest over here is the fallout from yesterday's first day of public impeachment hearings. And this morning in the Capitol across town from here. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, had her weekly press conference. We passed a packet of bills, nine bills. She talked about a lot of stuff, and of course... On the investigation front yesterday was a very somber, prayerful day. She talked about impeachment. Again, none of us has come to Congress to impeach a president. We come here to do the work of the American people to make the future better.

And the moment that really caught my attention was when she was talking about Bill Taylor's testimony. Yesterday, you heard an appointment of the president speak in very unambiguous terms. He's the top American diplomat in Ukraine. The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry. She says, you know, his testimony corroborates the evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry. She says, you know, his testimony corroborates the evidence of bribery.

Threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation into his political rival. It seems sort of no big deal. She's just going over what happened yesterday, going back through the testimony. But I thought actually there's something quite important here. She used the word bribery to describe what the president did and what Ambassador Taylor was corroborating. And to me, it sounded significant and like it was not an accident that she used that word. This is a word that we have heard Democrats start to use this week.

If we find that the president of the United States abused his power, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally? Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, used it. His counsel, Dan Goldman, used it during the questioning, in the hearing. Regardless of what you call it, whether it's a quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, abuse of power. Even the Republicans used it in characterizing what Democrats say happened. Democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery, and a host of other monsters. Let's talk about extortion. Let's talk about bribery. Let's talk about cover-up. We impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes.

Where is the impeachable offense in that call? And here's what's going on with this word bribery. The hard part for Democrats so far in this whole impeachment scenario has been getting the American public to understand why the president putting pressure on Ukraine is not just bad, it's actually impeachable. So they've been talking about pressure, personal favors. They've been using the phrase quid pro quo. personal favors. They've been using the phrase quid pro quo. But what they seem to have decided is that they need a word. They need to put a name to this that people associate with impeachment. And it's going to be a word that should they get to the point of offering articles of impeachment is going to be critical to that. And that's what's outlined in the Constitution. It says the

president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And so now we see the Democrats trying to attach that word bribery to what happened because they know that language is powerful. And it's interesting, in the press conference today, a reporter picked up on it and asked Pelosi about it. AMY GOODMAN Yes, Speaker Pelosi, you talked about bribery a second ago. AMY GOODMAN Yes, a bribery. AMY GOODMAN That's a very serious charge.

AMY GOODMAN It's in the Constitution. AMY GOODMAN What makes this a case of bribery? AMY GOODMAN Well, you know, we're talking Latin around here, quid pro quo, bribery. Bribery. And that is in the Constitution attached to the impeachment proceedings. So what was the bribe here? The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections.

So could we be looking at an article of impeachment? I don't know about that. We haven't even made a decision to impeach. That's what the inquiry is about. But I am saying that what the president has admitted to and says it's perfect, I said it's perfectly wrong. It's bribery. Madam Speaker, you've talked in the past about the importance of— So I'm going to be looking for how Democrats keep pushing that word and how Republicans respond to that and actually how Americans react to that characterization. Is that something that resonates with the public?

If they buy the idea that the president withholding military assistance in return for a public statement by Ukraine, that it was investigating the Bidens, whether they think that was bribery and whether they think that is enough to impeach a president. So tomorrow we've got the second day of public hearings. We're going to hear from Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was removed by the president earlier this year. And I think one way that Democrats will try to use her testimony is to use her as an example of the type of person, the type of public official, who essentially needed to be shunted aside in order for this bribery scheme, in order for this improper conduct to be possible. And I think they'll try to do that by pointing to the timing of her ouster. She was removed in May, and two months later, the president made this call to President Zelensky of Ukraine that started this whole saga.

So yeah, that's the latest.