The Democrat impeachment game is always changing but for the moment, it has settled on bribery. Maybe (just maybe) because the word bribery is actually in the constitution. Great. What a huge step forward. And a bigger step back. There is even less evidence of bribery.
Mark Levin, speaking with Devin Nunes, observes that,
The Founders took a lot of time defining the impeachment clause in the Constitution. The phrase says, “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Democrats think they have it figured out and are honing in on bribery and extortion. That’s not what the Founders meant about bribery, though. It’s right here in Madison’s notes. They were concerned that a president might be bribed by a foreign country. That has absolutely nothing to do with what they’re talking about in this Ukraine gambit. Nobody’s buying off the President in Ukraine by giving him money to buy his loyalties.
There is no evidence that the president accepted bribes to buy his loyalty. But if we’re talking about perceptions or appearances as an impetus for the prosecution of elected officials, Hillary and Joe Biden do look guilty. Biden received close to a million through Ukraine, his son’s company several million. And Hillary’s Clinton Crime Family Foundation could never survive a nonpartisan forensic accountant.
So, why accuse the President bribery (other than that all the other fake claims keep collapsing)?
They have to know there’s no evidence and that it might expose prominent Democrats to scrutiny? Why take the risk? I have a theory.
They want to use this as leverage to get a look at Donald Trump’s tax returns. To ensure he’s not accepting bribes someone will need to examine all his finances, including his tax returns.
It’s just a theory but it’s the only thing that makes sense given what we know. Not that any of this ever made any more sense than a bunch of blindfolded kids swinging wildly at a Pinata that doesn’t even exist.