THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
The Aftermath
IS TRUMP GUILTY OF QUID PRO QUO?
The short answer is: of course there is “quid pro quo” in the sense that there is an exchange of favours. But that is not saying very much: if Trump is guilty of quid pro quo in this way, so am I and so is everyone else. All of us indulge in exchanges of favours every single day. Also, no country gives aid for free, they want something back! So, the impeachment inquiry should not have wasted its time trying to establish what is already self-evident - that there is “quid pro quo”. But the real question is: what kind of quid pro quo?
First we must realise that there are actually 2 meanings of quid pro quo.
Originally, quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) is a Latin phrase used in English to literally mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor".” This is the COMMON-MEANING quid pro quo and this has no legal liability. This will describe almost all human transactions from the most trivial to the most important warranted government actions between two states. Countries exchange favours all the time in common-meaning quid pro quo. Country A aids Country B to keep Country B in its political sphere of influence against their common enemies as well as cooperate in various ways where such opportunities arise. This innocuous arrangement is purely political and would not be a problem because it is not considered criminal or legally objectionable.
On the other hand, there is a different LEGAL-MEANING quid pro quo which has legal liability. In common law quid pro quo, it indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually WHEN THE PROPRIETY OR EQUITY OF THE TRANSACTION IS IN QUESTION. Yes, as in the common meaning, it is an exchange of favours, but it must be an unlawful or corrupted exchange of favours. For example, if Country A provided secret aid or a bribe to Country B disguised as official aid in exchange for Country B’s interference in the domestic politics of Country A, then a crime would have been committed.
Now, is the quid pro quo that Trump and Zelensky are engaging the common-meaning quid pro quo or the legal-meaning quid pro quo?
Well, the release of aid to Ukraine and the request for assistance in the investigation of corruption in the 2016 Russian hoax and in Burisma both seem lawful and warranted. That’s because the money Ukraine got is not a bribe paid to its leader , but much-needed funds for fighting Russia and the investigations are necessary and consistent with both Zelensky’s and Trump’s campaign promises to eradicate domestic corruption. So, it looks more like common-meaning quid pro quo.
Yes, if Ukraine’s help uncovered solid evidence of DNC’s hand in the Russian hoax or if the corruption of the Bidens in Burisma is confirmed, then that would help Trump in his 2020 re-election. But given that Ukraine’s help in these investigations is to uncover corruption, not to engage in criminal activity, then their assistance is inherently lawful. The aid provided by Trump to Zelensky is not a secret bribe, but lawful aid already approved by Congress. Contrast this with Joe Biden withholding US$1b in aid to Ukraine to force the firing of their Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and his son. Now, that is inherently unlawful and therefore that is legal-meaning quid pro quo.
Let me also address the issue of generic and specific favours. It appears during the inquiry that favours if generic is ok, but not ok if specific. I think there is no difference between the two and it is understandable that, in this case, the favours should be specific because the US is only interested in cases that affect its politics. The specificity of the favours does not affect their criminality.
We definitely can’t say that all quid pro quo of whatever kind are wrong; or else all human transactions of any kind are wrong and that is absurd.
In the final analysis, this whole saga of Trump providing aid, whether delayed or not, with a concomitant promise of help from Zelensky in uncovering corruption by Americans does not qualify as liable legal-meaning quid pro quo. To impeach Trump, quid pro quo is not enough, it must be CRIMINAL quid pro quo. Any political gain Trump gets if both corruption cases are proven is only incidental. It is also deserved because his political opponents have committed crimes and they should be punished both at the law courts as well as at the ballot box.
