Powered by Topple

Fox’s Sandra Smith pushes back on Dem lawmaker’s claim of ‘incredibly convincing testimony’

Powered by Topple

Fox News host Sandra Smith pushed back at a House Judiciary Committee Democrat’s claim that there was “incredibly convincing testimony of bribery” by President Trump in this week’s impeachment hearings.

Smith questioned whether Rep. Madeleine Dean heard what she thought were “impeachable offenses” in the hours of witness testimony during the House impeachment hearings, challenging her on  “The Story” about the issue after the Pennsylvania Democrat ridiculously touted the “damning evidence” produced by “career-long Democrats who don’t have a political dog in this fight.”


(Video: Fox News)

“These are people of extraordinary credibility,” Dean said of witnesses such as former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and ex-National Security Council staffer Fiona Hill. “We heard from most of those folks incredibly convincing, credible testimony of bribery by a president — of a president who had a ‘shadow’ foreign policy.”

“But it was pointed out many times in that hearing room that none of those witnesses used the word bribery, congresswoman,” Smith interjected, blowing a hole in the Democrat’s narrative.

“And as far as the ‘convincing’ is concerned, of even a moderate Republican like Congressman [Will] Hurd who was looking to take sides on this and has hinted that he would be a ‘no’ on impeachment,” Smith continued, noting that the Texas lawmaker is retiring after this term and has “nothing to prove” to the president.

But Smith wasn’t done calling out the congresswoman who, like her colleagues and the obedient liberal media, have been spinning the impeachment testimonies to suit their agenda of taking out a sitting U.S. president.

“This is an incredibly important moment in our country’s history, so put it to the American people,” the Fox News host said to Dean. “What exactly was it that you heard … that you are basing impeaching the president [on]?”

“Hearsay evidence is credible, but we don’t need just hearsay,” the lawmaker replied. “We had firsthand folks who were in on the phone call, and you had the testimony — Dr. Hill’s testimony was without any kind of scrutiny.”

“Well, to be clear he [David Holmes] was not on that phone call, he overheard the phone call,” Smith corrected after Dean again claimed that there were “firsthand witnesses of what the president admitted to.”

Tensions continued to mount as Smith tried to move on, saying “we get where you stand on this,” prompting Dean to shoot back, “I don’t know that you do.”

“Where I stand is for our Constitution and for our democracy,” she announced.

“I heard you say that you believe the president committed an impeachable offense, is that correct?” Smith confronted the congresswoman.

“I believe the evidence thus far shows impeachable offenses,” Dean replied but would not give a direct answer when Smith challenged her on whether she would vote to impeach Trump if articles were put before the full House of Representatives today.

“Why would anybody prejudge a vote when you don’t even have the articles in front of you?” Dean countered as the two continued to tangle over the issue.

Despite the fact that Democrats rolled out one witness after another in the hearings who actually did not witness anything at all, but simply got their information through second and thirdhand sources, Democrats continue to claim evidence of impeachable actions by the president.

Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano, a frequent Trump critic, appeared to agree, telling Reason’s Nick Gillespie on Friday that the evidence of bribery is “overwhelming.”

“The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president. We have to start this conversation by underscoring the fact that impeachment is not legal, it is political. Its only Constitutional base is treason, bribery, or other hard crimes and misdemeanors,” he said.


(Video: YouTube/ReasonTV)

“Here’s what I think they will advance. One is bribery. The technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery,” he explained.

“That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment,” Napolitano contended. “The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors — election law violation. The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with the witness, and the fifth, maybe, lying under oath.”

Democrats replaced their “quid pro quo” accusations against Trump with “bribery” allegations since it was apparently simpler for Americans to grasp.

No additional hearings are planned as the nation heads into Thanksgiving week but the possibility exists that the House Intelligence Committee could still schedule some. And the House Judiciary Committee could also hold hearings of its own if prompted by any reports from the Intelligence Committee which heard from 12 witnesses over five days.

Reports indicate that Democrats could soon draw up impeachment charges of abuse of power, bribery, contempt of Congress, and obstruction of justice as Republican senators and Trump administration officials agreed this week that the Senate should move ahead with holding a full trial if the House votes to impeach.

Frieda Powers

Comments

Latest Articles