I think the dems have messed up the PR angle here. Quid-pro-quo is a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" kind of thing where both sides get something in return.
The White House Visit angle is probably a quid-pro-quo in that sense. But the congressionally appropriated funds don't fit into that description as neatly. Trump isn't giving or promising Ukraine anything new in exchange for investigations.
Terrible analogy. Grandma sends you a check for $5,000. When you go to cash it at the bank, the bank President requests a specific "favor" of you and prevents the check from being processed.
You're getting nothing from the bank except what you're already owed. The bank prez is using his authority to extract benefit without giving you any benefit to which you're not already entitled. That's what I see in Trump's case. It sounds more like Trump is asking for a "grease payment" (soliciting a bribe) related to the investigations in exchange for releasing the funds.
While I don't personally believe you can justify this scenario, you can at least argue that quid-pro-quos are not inherently bad when furthering US policy. With bribery, it doesn't matter. If POTUS solicited a bribe of any sort, that's plaint-text impeachable. Right?
The White House Visit angle is probably a quid-pro-quo in that sense. But the congressionally appropriated funds don't fit into that description as neatly. Trump isn't giving or promising Ukraine anything new in exchange for investigations.
Terrible analogy. Grandma sends you a check for $5,000. When you go to cash it at the bank, the bank President requests a specific "favor" of you and prevents the check from being processed.
You're getting nothing from the bank except what you're already owed. The bank prez is using his authority to extract benefit without giving you any benefit to which you're not already entitled. That's what I see in Trump's case. It sounds more like Trump is asking for a "grease payment" (soliciting a bribe) related to the investigations in exchange for releasing the funds.
While I don't personally believe you can justify this scenario, you can at least argue that quid-pro-quos are not inherently bad when furthering US policy. With bribery, it doesn't matter. If POTUS solicited a bribe of any sort, that's plaint-text impeachable. Right?