Quid pro quo (“something for something” or “this for that” in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.
The essence of every political transaction is compromise, compromise that is often greased by payments. They may be referred to as earmarks or pork, but they are payments. In other cases threats are often made to withhold funds.
Everyone knows this is how business is done, so it’s startling how many Americans are willing to believe failed politicians who tell them how to view the current charge that President Trump crossed some imaginary line during his phone call with Ukrainian President Zolodymyr Zelensky.
Today, average schmoes guided by their own biases have chosen to believe Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Adam Schiff is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. During the Russia phase of the remove Trump movement his party has orchestrated, Schiff swore he had seen absolute proof that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia.
It’s now clear he lied. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “exercise of all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney” concluded that Trump had nothing to do with Russia.
Not for Democrats who have been convinced they must hate Trump and everything he does. For these reflexive Trump-haters, Schiff’s latest allegation of a quid pro quo serves to feed their bias.
Then there’s the current and past Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. When Pelosi first became Speaker the outstanding US debt was somewhere north of $8.5 Trillion. It’s now $14 Trillion greater than that. For some reason there are people who trust her.
She is also running an impeachment inquiry based on her say so alone. While the Constitution doesn’t specify the rules for impeachment, only a seriously biased person could believe that any member of the House by themselves should have that authority.
House members including Pelosi, represent 700,000, or so, residents from a single congressional district. President Trump received 90 times that number of votes from across the country.
It’s an illogical acceptance by voters intent on feeding their biases.
Those same people would have been outraged if former Speaker John Boehner had tried the same deceptive impeachment scheme against Obama even after it became widely known that Obama had illegally accessed his opponents IRS records.
Pelosi and Schiff are alleging a quid pro quo that even a precursory read of the transcript would reveal doesn’t exist.
But, let’s suppose there was a quid pro quo. Let’s suppose President Trump did threaten to withhold funding from Ukraine until President Zelensky assured our president that he was indeed cleaning up the corruption that has plagued his country.
What would be wrong about that? Should American taxpayers expect their president to subsidize corruption in a foreign country with no recourse? Or, should they expect their president to release future payments contingent on that country cleaning up their act?
Expecting that kind of oversight becomes even more critical when there are suspicions that high-level American politicians and their appointees may have been involved in that corruption.
Isn’t that precisely the justification we were given while the intelligence community was investigating Donald Trump?
Don’t be a quid pro schmoe.