How Donald Trump hijacked impeachment discus with ” no quid pro quo”


Quid pro quo (“something for something” in Latin) is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; “a favour for a favour”.

How the United States  President Donald Trump hijacked his impeachment process with ” no quid pro quo.”

He defended his actions using the slogan even before the whistleblower complaint was released. And now he’s made it stick as a key issue in the impeachment debate.

It is certainly true that “no quid pro quo” fits nicely as a slogan, even if it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

How Donald Trump hijacked impeachment discus with
How Donald Trump


Just as he repeated “No collusion” on a loop during the Russia investigation, Trump very specifically repeats his denial of quid pro quo nearly every time he talks about Ukraine, which is a lot.

The term doesn’t appear in the whistleblower complaint that set the entire impeachment inquiry in motion.

It doesn’t appear in the Constitution, which lays out the impeachment process as punishment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

It’s not in the Federalist Papers, where Alexander Hamilton expanded on what those crimes might be, quite simply as “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

It didn’t appear in the initial news stories about the complaint, either, such as when The Washington Post reported on September 18 that it had been triggered by Trump’s interaction with a world leader.

Donald Trump & Ukraine President
Quid pro quo is a Latin term that means “something for something,” as CNN’s Veronica Stracqualursi wrote last month. It’s often used in the legal world, but since it is not directly tied to impeachment in the Constitution or anywhere else, it’s not the question lawmakers will have to decide if they draw up articles of impeachment against Trump and hold a trial in the Senate on whether to remove him from office.

It could be an element of Hamilton’s violation of the public trust, but the exchange of things of value is not required in order to be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

As far as Trump and Ukraine are concerned, the idea of ​​exchanging terms has emerged based on him. The Wall Street Journal used the term on September 20 when it reported that Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodmir Zelensky seven or eight times to investigate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter . But the context of this usage is important.

The Wall Street Journal wrote: “Trump did not mention the assistance provided by the United States to Ukraine, and he did not believe that Mr. Trump provided any exchange terms to the President of Ukraine to support his cooperation in any investigation. “reporter.

How Donald Trump hijacked the disc discus with “no exchange terms”.
That’s a further denial with the word-this is the first glance at Trump’s main defense article: no exchange terms.

According to a search of the database, Trump himself first used the word publicly a few days later and spoke to reporters outside the White House on September 22.

He said of the conversation with Zelensky: “It was a warm and friendly conversation.” “No terms of exchange. Nothing. It was a perfect conversation.”

However, Trump has actually been using the term “unconditional prosecution” in Ukraine until a whistleblower complaint is made public and before any public reports about his phone connection with Zelensky.

In his opening statement to impeachment investigators

Tuesday, Bill Taylor, the top US official in Ukraine, used the term “quid pro quo” to describe what Trump said he was not asking for.

“According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a ‘quid pro quo,’

” Taylor wrote in his statement, referring to National Security Council official Tim Morrison and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, before making clear that Trump certainly had expectations of what Zelensky should do.

“But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself.”

The next day, Taylor testified, in a phone call between Sondland and him, the idea came up again in terms of what Trump says he is not doing.

Paraphrasing Sondland, Taylor wrote, “President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to ‘clear things up and do it in public.’ President Trump said it was not a ‘quid pro quo.’ ”

What came next is the infamous WhatsApp exchangebetween Sondland and Taylor.
[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions.

The president made it clear that there was no alternative of any kind. …
In Taylor and Sondland’s narrative, in these early developments, the idea of exchanging the status quo came entirely from Trump’s mouth.

He was worried that what would happen even if he insisted on investigating to release security funds.

Since then, the fast-forward and boring status quo has become a key element of the story, dominating the discussion of cable news.
Trump’s offer to a fellow Republican on Twitter on Wednesday was some sort of rude argument.

“Neither he (Taylor) or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.” Congressman John Ratcliffe @foxandfriends Where is the Whistleblower? The Do Nothing Dems case is DEAD!”
“I’ve been in there for 10 hours, I can assure you there’s no quid pro quo,” Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, said Tuesday on the sidelines of Taylor’s closed-door testimony.
Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to downplay the idea.
“I know we’re having this long conversation about what the definition of a quid pro quo is, but there’s no question from his testimony that everything, in the words of Ambassador Sondland, are contingent on the Ukrainians agreeing to go after Burisma, agreeing to go after Biden and all the other things they asked for,” Rep. Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, said on CNN’s “New Day.”
Another Democrat, Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, echoed that.
“I think we have to make something very clear,” he said. “There doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo. If the President asks a  – foreign government to do something to interfere with a US election that is unlawful, it’s unethical and it’s unprecedented.”

A former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who opposes Trump, Charlie Dent, said there’s plenty of evidence of quid pro quo, no matter what you call it.

“They keep saying there’s – no quid pro quo,” said Dent, who’s now a CNN contributor. “And all I keep reading is if you do this for that. That’s what they keep saying. The Latin was missing, apparently, but other than that all the elements are there.”

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

Thanks for reading and remember to share this post on social media

Show More

Leave a Reply

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

turnoff the Ad Blocker