Since the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine came to light, one question that has risen in the public consciousness has been whether or not there was a “quid pro quo”. That’s really a non-issue, or a red herring as we lawyers might call it in the context of legal argument.
Quid pro quo isn’t difficult to understand. It means simply “This for that”. There is a quid pro quo in every contractual relationship, be it in business or in international relations. The question that requires answering is not whether there is a quid pro quo, but whether the quid pro quo, or sought after quid pro quo, is or is not appropriate.
Here’s a simple example from everyday life. If your spouse passes away and you want to collect on his/her life insurance, the life insurance company may reply that they will not pay off on the policy until you send them a copy of the death certificate. That’s a quid pro quo. No death certificate, no payout. This for that. But, it’s an appropriate quid pro quo. An inappropriate quid pro quo would be the insurance company demanding that you spy on your neighbors and tell them which ones lied about smoking on their applications so the company can get out of paying them when the time comes. That would also be a quid pro quo, but it would not be appropriate to the circumstances.
So, quid pro quo isn’t the real issue. The release of the money to Ukraine could have been conditioned on Ukraine publicly agreeing not to seek to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but to use the funds solely for conventional weapons procurement and training. It would have been a quid pro quo, but no one would suggest impeachment over it because it would have been an appropriate quid pro quo. Demanding assistance with a domestic U. S. political matter, unrelated to the funding purpose is not a quid pro quo appropriate to the circumstances. It is extortion.
In looking at various definitions to distinguish extortion from an appropriate quid pro quo, the simplest and, I think, best definition of extortion is this: “Extortion is obtaining benefit through coercion.” That is precisely what the President of the United States attempted to do with the President of Ukraine. That is beyond quid pro quo. Appropriate quid pro quo is not a crime. Extortion is. And attempted extortion is also a crime, even if the other side doesn’t acquiesce in the extortion.
Democrats, and those Republicans and Independents who seek Trump’s impeachment, would do well to reframe the discussion now that the evidence is becoming clear as to what actually happened. Instead of framing the argument in terms of quid pro quo, which means relatively little, it should be framed in the context of criminal extortion.
Image, “putting on the squeeze”, courtesy of Pixabay.
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.