i m not sure what really ultimately will have been accomplished from that. then finally i disagree, the framers well-understood the common definition of bribery. that s been supplied in the bribery statute. i suppose reasonable people can disagree about this, i don t think a bribery defense has been shown. and short of that, as much as you want to talk about abuse of power, i think as professor turley correctly pointed out, abuse of power untethered from a high crime and misdemeanor which would be either treason, bribery, or some other high crime and misdemeanor is not sufficient to form a legitimate basis to remove a president from office. professor feldmann, i wonder what you made from the argument that this is a rush, that there s not enough evidence at this stage. it s seems very strange to me. first of all you have the call and that s a tremendous amount of evidence. furthermore, any lack of evidence that exists now is just a result of the fact that the
paid. let s hear that part again. as far as withholding funds, those funds were paid, they were fully paid. fully paid. false. first of all, it s not a valid bribery defense to say your bribery didn t work. but what s new here in the report is the way they re lying about this as a factual matter the house impeachment report reveals those funds did not fully get to ukraine, not last month, not ever. page 145 of the report, pentagon officials confirming to investigators ukraine still has not received $35 million of the security assistance yet to be dispersed. 35 ms, that s a big deal. that s in fact 14% of the entire amount in the alleged extortion plot. how dig a deal is this? a pentagon official under oath confirming that money never got to ukraine in the impeachment hearings. mr. cuber, was dod able to
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
when you say i robbed a bank and you re brought into trial to say it was a joke. i didn t really mean it, that doesn t count. nick ackerman, we appreciate your clarity and your experience. we ve had a lot of experienced people on tonight. now we re better for it. thank you. thank you. appreciate you. up ahead, rick gates taking the stand, did you hear about this, against trump adviser roger stone. also, republicans have their own bribery defense. what you need to know. we ve got a lot more coming up. . we ve got a lot more coming up , as well as all the things you want to do. because when you re ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward.