day. barbara, let s go to you. in your mind, we have seen the evidence. what articles of impeachment do they support, if any? i think you could very easily support articles of impeachment for three crimes, bribery, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. on bribery, it s demanding a thing of value in exchange for the performance of an official act. demanding the investigations in exchange for releasing military aid and a white house meeting qualify and there s sufficient evidence of that. trump supporters are complaining they need more evidence. they need look no further than trump himself, they refused to produce other witnesses like mick mulvaney, mike pompeo and all the documents that even gordon sondland said would have been representful to refresh his recollection. this is not a crime on the books but impeachable conduct,
televised spectacle gaffe. watch as mulvaney retracts that and goes back over, migrating into the no bribery camp because he reversed himself. however absurd you find that retraction, that was the white house had several people standing by trump. mulvaney may be damaged but there were multiple people linking arms in the no bribery defense. the testimony is re-shaping those defense alliances. so take a look at our chart. you have the army officer testifying on bribery, a top national security counsel official and then, this is the most important shift to date and it just happened as taylor and other testimony goes public, sondland leaves the no briarry camp and actually says his recollection has been refreshed and there was bribery, adding to his past congressional testimony. this week he is also expected to
have to refresh my testimony, i remember now there was actually a quid pro quo and bribery are the fact that we re talking about bribery has shown we are shifting into a new era in this proceeding. we re going into a new part of the inquiry. as senator baucus said, it is sure there are going to be articles of impeachment and the democrats have made a strategic choice to focus them on things that are actually explicit in the text of the constitution. treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, as opposed to the sort of amorphous category of high crimes and misdemeanors that hasn t been identified. isn t that important because while abuse of power is a very serious thing, people of good will can disagree about that. there are a lot of people who would hear about wars they disagree with, mistakes in foreign policy, and say, that seems to me like abuse of power in the colloquial sense of the term. we saw with the clinton impeachment, was the conduct problematic, objectionable, wa
someone who has tried very hard to work across the aisle in a bipartisan way. you were even criticized for that. you are also from a red state. you are not speaking from the bright blue resistance. you are speaking from that vantage point. take a look at the questioning this week, including what we are seeing as increasingly the bribery case. this was daniel goldman leading the question. whether it is a quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, abuse of power of the office of the presidency, the fact of the matter, as you understood it, is that security assistance and the white house meeting were not going to be provided unless ukraine initiated these two investigations. ambassador somlin described conditioned for the security systems and the white house meeting in those terms. i just want to bear it bears repeating that according