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 can’t keep saying ‘quid pro quo,’ even though I don’t even know what that means, really. I don’t know what language ‘quid pro quo’ is.” pic.twitter.com/I6XUbNcgjp
— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) November 13, 2019
And some responses:
The Washington Times editor needs to be fired for his own good — so he can go back to university and learn something. I bet a poll of local 9th grade students would reveal that at least 50% of them can identify that “quid pro quo” is Latin.
— Observer (@NewCynicismInc) November 13, 2019
This is an editor of a right wing newspaper. This is their standard for journalism as well. https://t.co/9CwZxDWEMK
— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) November 13, 2019
I love the smell of stupid in the morning. https://t.co/Kp97AqHWEE
— Anthony DeRosa🗽 (@Anthony) November 13, 2019
Ah, ignorance is funny and therefore there was no crime. Or something.
— Mike Davey (@mdavey628) November 13, 2019
Fact check: it’s Latin meaning “something for something.” Quid pro quo’s are often laid out in federal bribery cases. And bribery is specified in the constitution as grounds for impeachment upon “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” https://t.co/LqpBpY8CQ1
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 13, 2019
You would think an adult in the news business would look that up, and that someone dealing regularly in law and politics would know such a basic term — and what the roots of the American legal system are.
— StickyBunny (@skullisland1919) November 13, 2019
The stupid it burns https://t.co/6hEbllCwXt
— rabia O’chaudry (@rabiasquared) November 13, 2019
Experts: there doesn’t have to an actual crime for a conspiracy to take place. https://t.co/UGV40UryeN
— Jonathan Landay (@JonathanLanday) November 13, 2019
The editor of a *national newspaper* thinks “quid pro quo” is, like, Elvish or ancient Sumerian or something. https://t.co/7iYIwi23SR
— Dennis DiClaudio (@dennisdiclaudio) November 13, 2019
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 (@karenlsweeney) November 13, 2019
Just in case you are feeling incompetent or stupid or both, enjoy the linguistic brilliance or the Washington Times editor. https://t.co/GnG4SOn5c5
— Captain Yuri Nator (@bratscheboy) November 13, 2019
Thanks to Media Matters’ Bobby Lewis for the video clip, and for watching “Fox & Friends” so we don’t have to.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.
It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.