Appearing on CBS’s Face The Nation Sunday morning, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff essentially conceded that there was no quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by saying “there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo.”

“We have discovered in short order not only the contents of that call, but also the preparatory work that went into the call. The effort to condition something the Ukrainian president deeply sought, and that was a meeting with the president to establish that this new president of Ukraine had a powerful patron in the president of the United States that was of vital importance to Ukraine, was being conditioned on digging up dirt on the Bidens,” Schiff told Margaret Brennan.

“So, you see that as the quid quo pro, not just the military aid,” she replied.

“Well, first of all, there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo,” Schiff told her. “But it is clear already, I think, from the text messages that this meeting that the Ukrainian president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to intervene in the U.S. election to help the president.”

For weeks now, we’ve been told that the transcript was evidence of a quid pro quo, and now Adam Schiff is saying “there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo.” Does anyone see this as a huge concession on Schiff’s part?

So, I guess Schiff has flip-flopped on whether there was a quid pro quo after all, and in true Democrat fashion is moving the goalposts to justify his party’s witch hunt. If everything that’s been happening with this impeachment inquiry is because of that phone call, how can anyone justify this impeachment inquiry proceeding when Schiff has conceded that the phone call is exculpatory?

_____

Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama’s Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis