It was early last month that Rep. Lee Zeldin noticed that the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee had quietly dropped talk of a quid pro quo arrangement between the Trump administration and Ukraine and replaced it with “extortion” and “bribery.”

As the Washington Post reported soon after, it turned out the DCCC had done a study and found that the word “bribery” resonated more in battleground states than did quid pro quo. And besides, a lot of Democrat voters didn’t know what quid pro quo meant.

The Democrats immediately got their message together and went on cable news to spread the charge of bribery, but as today’s all-professor hearing goes on in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Townhall’s Katie Pavlich has noticed another change.

So now we’re back to treason, which is what they accused President Trump of when they insisted his campaign had colluded with Russia to swing the 2016 election.

Even the last batch of witnesses called by the House Intelligence Committee hadn’t actually “witnessed” anything. It was all hearsay and presumptions.

Treason? Obstruction of justice? Bribery? Extortion? Mean tweets? Which is it?