A “Fox & Friends” interview went off-the-rails when the opinion editor of a right wing media outlet tried to discredit House Democrats who begin open impeachment inquiry hearings against President Donald Trump today. But it seems The Washington Times’ Charles Hurt managed to only discredit himself, based on social media responses.
“When you hear Adam Schiff and other Democrats use all these squirrelly words like ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘bribery,’ all these things, it’s all because they can’t specify exactly where Donald Trump broke any law or did anything particularly wrong,” said Hurt, who is also a Fox News contributor, and a contributor to the far right wing outlet Breitbart.
“They have to move away from quid pro quo because there was no quid, and there was no quo. Ukraine got its money and there was no investigation. So when there’s no quid or pro, you can’t keep saying quid pro quo. Even though I don’t know what that means, really. I don’t know what language quid pro quo is,” Hurt told Fox News’ Steve Doocy.
Doocy was forced to inform Hurt quid pro quo is Latin.
Much of America already knows that Democrats do not have to prove Trump broke any laws to be impeached. The Founding Fathers purposely structured impeachment in the Constitution to give Congress broad powers and leeway to determine what “high crimes and Misdemeanors” means. But it also specifically mentions bribery as an impeachable offense along with treason.
Americans also know that attempts to commit crimes are still crimes.
Washington Times editor Charles Hurt: "There was no quid, and there was no quo ... if there's no quid or pro you ca… https://t.co/HJKh61Kv10— Bobby Lewis (@Bobby Lewis)1573647133.0
And some responses:
@revrrlewis @mmfa The Washington Times editor needs to be fired for his own good — so he can go back to university… https://t.co/mBsGO9GCSX— Observer (@Observer)1573647732.0
This is an editor of a right wing newspaper. This is their standard for journalism as well. https://t.co/9CwZxDWEMK— Neera Tanden (@Neera Tanden)1573648402.0
@revrrlewis Ah, ignorance is funny and therefore there was no crime. Or something.— Mike Davey (@Mike Davey)1573647841.0
Fact check: it’s Latin meaning “something for something.” Quid pro quo’s are often laid out in federal bribery case… https://t.co/WeAP7Ha304— Jim Acosta (@Jim Acosta)1573650539.0
@revrrlewis You would think an adult in the news business would look that up, and that someone dealing regularly in… https://t.co/9JP8cRwONw— StickyBunny (@StickyBunny)1573647718.0
The stupid it burns https://t.co/6hEbllCwXt— rabia O'chaudry (@rabia O'chaudry)1573649470.0
Experts: there doesn’t have to an actual crime for a conspiracy to take place. https://t.co/UGV40UryeN— Jonathan Landay (@Jonathan Landay)1573650870.0
The editor of a *national newspaper* thinks “quid pro quo” is, like, Elvish or ancient Sumerian or something. https://t.co/7iYIwi23SR— Dennis DiClaudio (@Dennis DiClaudio)1573647594.0
You’ve got no business editing a newspaper if you don’t know ‘quid pro quo’ is Latin for ‘something for something’. https://t.co/mYpQ42Kq0e— Karen Sweeney (@Karen Sweeney)1573650991.0
Just in case you are feeling incompetent or stupid or both, enjoy the linguistic brilliance or the Washington Times… https://t.co/iDkjldYMek— Captain Mike (@Captain Mike)1573651266.0