Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy Takes Democrats' 'Extortion' Ploy Apart Piece-by-Piece


Democrats hoping to fool Americans with their word games must not have been counting on opponents like Andrew McCarthy.

The former federal prosecutor, who led the government’s team in the trial of the plotters behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack, is on familiar ground when it comes to the terminology of crime.

And the latest attempt by liberal lawmakers and media personalities to change their accusations against President Donald Trump aren’t getting them anywhere, McCarthy told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.

Except, maybe, making themselves look more foolish.

“Every time I think we’ve gotten to the bottom depths of nonsense in this, Brian, from a legal perspective, they sink even lower,” McCarthy said.

Not Just Nickelodeon: 'Big Bang Theory' Star Mayim Bialik's Disturbing Claim

McCarthy is the author of the book “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.”

During Tuesday’s interview, Kilmeade asked about the recent push by Trump opponents to reframe the accusations against him from a “quid pro quo” — seeking the Ukraine government’s assistance against the presidential campaign of former Vice President Joe Biden in return for U.S. aid — to using “extortion” or “bribery” against Ukraine for help in his own re-election.

(Do Democrats think their supporters can’t handle a little Latin?)

McCarthy batted down the semantics. “Extortion” might be suitable in a domestic framework, where all parties are subject to the same laws, he said, but relations between governments are predicated on power relationships as a matter of course.

“In foreign relations, what countries do to each other is basically say, ‘What do I have to do for you or to get you to act in a way that is consistent with what our interests are?’” McCarthy said.

Further into the interview, McCarthy said Republicans’ strongest weapon in the House hearings on impeachment that begin Wednesday is the man Democrats have chosen to lead them.

The weaknesses of California Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, are already on display to the entire country to see, he said.

McCarthy reminded viewers of the Sept. 26 hearing where Schiff inserted gang-movie language into an ostensible reading of the transcript of Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Do you think Rep. Adam Schiff is a liability for Democrats?
Lara Trump Nails It on NYC Criminal Case: 'It's Not Donald Trump That's Truly on Trial Here'

“He is obviously not an honest broker. He started out these hearings with that cockamamie ‘Godfather Part IV’ wannabe version of the Trump-Zelensky conversation,” McCarthy said.

“I would keep bringing it back to him and make him the focus of the attention to show just how unfair this process is,” he said.

When public hearings begin on Wednesday, the public will get a chance to prove McCarthy correct.

When Americans who aren’t blinded by partisanship can see for themselves how the process is stacked by Democrats, it’s unlikely the already-low enthusiasm for impeaching Trump will grow.

And since Americans who can speak English aren’t likely to fall for the Democrats’ “extortion” gambit, their word games aren’t likely to help them much there either.

But if there’s still any confusion, there are honest brokers like Andy McCarthy around to set the record straight.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , ,
Joe has spent more than 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and metro desk editor in newsrooms in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. He's been with Liftable Media since 2015.
Joe has spent more than 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and metro editor in newsrooms in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. He's been with Liftable Media since 2015. Largely a product of Catholic schools, who discovered Ayn Rand in college, Joe is a lifelong newspaperman who learned enough about the trade to be skeptical of every word ever written. He was also lucky enough to have a job that didn't need a printing press to do it.