A group of 33 writers has written a letter to the New York Times (it’s in the op-ed section of the paper version, too) calling for abandoning the phrase “quid pro quo” with respect to the charges against Trump in the impending impeachment hearings. You can see the letter by clicking below, and I’ve added the full text and the list of signatories:
The letter:
To the Editor:
A plea from 33 writers: Please use language that will clarify the issues at hand.
Please stop using the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” regarding the impeachment inquiry. Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record.
That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase — which means simply “this for that” — as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead.
Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act.
This seems really trivial to me. I am not at all sure that most of the American public thinks that “quid pro quo” means that a crime was committed. If they do labor under that misconception, it’s the responsibility of the media to educate them, not cater to their ignorance of what is, after all, a common phrase. Alternatively, people can look up the phrase. I adhere to the Hitchensian habit of sometimes using words that may be unfamiliar to people, for if you don’t do that, nobody ever expands their vocabulary.
But the Pecksniffs go on:
Please also stop using the phrase “dig up dirt.” This slang has unsavory connotations. Instead, please use the more formal, direct and powerful phrase “create false evidence,” or “find incriminating evidence” or the simpler “tell lies about.”
Words make a difference.
Seriously? To me, “dig up dirt” means “to find out bad stuff in a person’s background (or in a situation)”. While the purpose of the impeachment hearings is not to find bad stuff, but to see if there is bad stuff, one can reasonably say that most of the Democrats are trying to find the bad stuff, as they want to get rid of the Chief Moron.
As for the alternatives suggested, “create false evidence” and “tell lies about” don’t seem to be at all similar to the phrase “dig up dirt”, which doesn’t suggest that the “dirt” be false. What are the sweating writers trying to say? “Find incriminating evidence” is a better synonymous phrase.
Words do make a difference in many things, but in this case they won’t. Maybe some people will think that “quid pro quo” means “a criminal exchange” or “bribery”, but it won’t affect at all what happens to Trump. At best, some people, who haven’t been educated by the media or haven’t bothered to educate themselves, will labor for the rest of their lives about the meaning of a Latin phrase.
And below is the literary equivalent of saying “using wrong words is violence”. It’s risible to think that a misunderstanding of “quid pro quo”, when the House and Senate clearly know what’s going on—i.e., “does this quid pro quo constitute a high crime and misdemeanor”?—constitutes a matter of survival. Does this hyperbole derive from creeping wokeness? Only partly, I think, because otherwise the letter would end with the statement, “If people keep using ‘quid pro quo’ as if it were a crime, we will boycott all writing activities.”
These are parlous times, and we look to public voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas. Please use precise and forceful language that reveals the struggle in which we now find ourselves. It’s a matter of survival.
Roxana Robinson
New York
The writer is former president of the Authors Guild. The letter was signed by 32 other writers
The other signatories include these, some of whom you’ll recognize: Karen Bender, Rachel Cline, Martha Cooley, Angela Davis-Gardner, Alex Enders, Pamela Erens, Barbara Fischkin, Lynn Goldberg, Lisa Gornick, Masha Hamilton, Jessica Keener, Fiona Maazel, Celia McGee, Edie Meidav, Susan Merrell, Sue Miller Mary Morris, Elizabeth Nunez, Maureen Pilkington, Elissa Schappell, Debra Schupack, Christine Schutt, Lynne Sharon Schwartz, Andrea Scrima, Alix Kates Shulman, Jane Smiley, Lee Smith, Terese Svoboda, Amanda Vaill, Katharine Weber, Paula Whyman, and Hilma Wolitzer.
This list seems to me the only reason why the NYT published the letter: a list of luminaries is newsworthy. Sadly, these luminaries have become Pecksniffs.
I have to disagree with you on this criticism. The impeachment argument has to be phrased such that the proof of a crime is present and asking for a favor is not a crime as pointed out in the letter. However a crime may have been committed in asking a foreign government to “investigate” a US citizen. Plus any efforts to cover up such a request may amount to obstruction of justice. There seems to be mounting evidence of the latter.
To increase public support for the impeachment the House investigation has to make the presentations as clear as possible. I believe that we need to gain as much support as we can to take back the presidency and both houses of congress come 2020.
I agree with you.
As clear as possible? Trump does the Houses job for them and there still is not sufficient support for impeachment. Undergarment grabbing president should never have been elected and yet here he is.
If the public does not support impeachment, nothing clear or simply phrased will convince them otherwise.
A clear simple phrase will probably not do the job by itself, but it can make a contribution, and every little bit helps.
This document-
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text
Outlines the processes by which The US and Ukraine have agreed to cooperate in criminal investigations.
It specifically requires that the process be started by the central authority of one government making a request of the central authority of the other.
It also requires the “Requested State’s
Central Authority to respond to reasonable inquiries by the Requesting State’s Central Authority regarding the status of the execution of a particular request.”
For the US, the “central authority” is the Attorney General or a person delegated by him.
Also, the authority to classify documents rests primarily with the President and those delegated by him.
https://www.epic.org/open_gov/eo_12356.html
I agree with this and it is one of the only times I disagree with JAC. I actually was happy to see this editorial. They are essentially calling out the sanitizing by the media of Trump’s actions. QPQ doesn’t imply a crime. It’s like the NPR-ization of our reality. A lie is a LIE. Extortion is EXTORTION. If we can’t call this crap out for what it really is we are doomed.
I agree too. Quid quo pro is a neutral phrase, and I think most people know that, and know what it means too. Further, if we use the alternatives we are presuming Trump guilty (which I’m sure he is, but we shouldn’t presume). I think these people are assuming they’re a lot cleverer than most USians. It’s an assumption that a lot of clever people make – that those less intelligent than them are stupid. They need to get over themselves.
I agree as well. It seems to me that saying “I am not at all sure that most of the American public thinks that “quid pro quo” means that a crime was committed” is exactly the point that these authors were making.
If I say “If you pick me up at the airport I’ll buy you dinner”, that’s a quid pro quo.
If I say “I’m going to hold back these anti-tank weapons and leave you defenseless against the Russians unless you support my attempt to scam the American people”, that’s extortion, or soliciting a bribe.
Your explanation here is good but I would substitute “help himself (Trump) in the coming election” for “scam the American people”. It is absolutely crucial to the impeachment effort to point out that Trump put himself over country using our money. In a sense, he attempted to “donate” the money Congress allocated to help Ukraine fight the Russians to his own 2020 campaign. The Dems need to draw that line distinctly and repeatedly.
Yes, you’re right. If House Democrats were to show bias like I did it would probably weaken their argument.
Using “quid pro quo” instead of the more precise “bribery” or “extortion” violates Rule V (and possibly Rule I) of Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.”
But Orwell was notoriously persnickety about the English language.
They could be on to something— neither the President nor the entire Republican party seem to know what it means either.
If you look up the definition of extortion or bribery it will not go into the finer points of quid pro quo. As stated, quid pro quo is not necessarily any kind of crime. Bribery and extortion generally are. The media have gone over the top on this quid pro quo business and should find more appropriate language for this impeachment debate. The various people involved and what was done is more appropriately called a shake down in the trade. The heart of the illegal action is as follows: Will you go on television and announce that you are investigating Biden and son for corruption in Ukraine and also state you are investigating to determine if the 2016 election hacking occurred in Ukraine, not Russia. If you do these things you will get the aid money.
Facts now known are that the Ukrainian president was negotiating with CNN to go on Fareed Zakaria’s show and make this false claim but cancelled when the whistle blower thing broke.
Some are even trying to say, since it never happened then Trump didn’t do anything. That of course, is crazy. Attempted murder that fails is still attempted murder.
I also love the (new) line of argument that Graham is using: Trump is too stupid to formulate a quid pro quo even if that’s what it is. Yeah, and many people are too stupid to pull off a bank robbery, so let’s treat them as innocent.
They’re right: the term “quid pro quo” here came from Trump’s own defense team, not from the whistleblower complaint or the House impeachment investigations. The House is looking into whether Trump attempted to extort a personal bribe from a foreign country, in the form of Ukraine publicly announcing a criminal investigation into Trump’s most likely 2020 opponent, in return for Trump unfreezing the military aid they’re due. The relevant terms here are “extort” and “bribe.” “Bribe” is also the term used in the Constitution.
Trump’s defenders came up with “quid pro quo” because it’s vaguer and sounds very technical.
Lawyers love Latin phrases.
“They” are also saying that there are “good forms of quid pro quo” further muddying up the waters.
I think asking a foreign government to help you to get dirt (oops, incriminating evidence) on an opponent is impeachable in itself.
Secondly, trying to extort that foreign government (the ‘quid pro quo’, where the quid is personal gain and the quo aid already approved) makes it probably criminal..
And in the third place, trying to cover up the whole thing is obstruction of justice, a felony. Executed by (who else?) the
AttorneyCover-up General, Mr Barr.I disagree with the authors, and agree with our host: pecksniffing.
I have no problem with US-ians thinking that QPQ is a crime, in this situation it is,
Actually, to me (who was familiar with the phrase before all this) “quid pro quo” sounds like a legitimate exchange of favours. It’s also factually incorrect. There was no quid pro quo. The money that Trump was offering to give the Ukraine in exchange for the dirt on Biden was already legitimately theirs.
I prefer the term “extortion” (I think “bribe” is wrong in this context).
I have to disagree with Jerry. Bribery and extortion are the crimes.
Actually, using public funds to bribe or extort a foreign government to do something that is in the national interest of the United States would not be a crime. It is the fact that Trump used the public funds to benefit himself that is the crime.
I agree. Also, the crime is so blatant, attested to by multiple credible witnesses, that it’s impossible to ignore. The House has to impeach, regardless of hypothetical political downside.
Agree
However, the congress made the nearly $400 million available for Ukraine and only congress can stop or delay the funds. By putting the funds on hold the president is performing an illegal act. Remember, in the constitution, the purse belongs to congress.
And yet Trump was able to divert national defense funds for his wall.
And much of that was illegal too. Again, specific dollars for specific items or projects were being diverted by him, in attempt to build some of his wall. Since we have a good deal of corrupt Judges and courts these days, he gets by with it. But it is easily unconstitutional. I don’t recall how hard congress fought on this.
Congress passed a bill declaring Trump’s “emergency” wasn’t really an emergency, Trump vetoed the bill, and the Senate wouldn’t override the veto.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-emergency/u-s-senate-fails-to-override-trump-veto-of-bill-to-end-border-emergency-idUSKBN1WW32R
In place of “quid pro quo”, I suggest using the word “вимагання”. This is, appropriately, Ukranian for “shakedown”.
“Shakedown” is bang-on. In this case, it’s a shakedown for solely personal gain, and not in the national interest of the U.S.
100% correct. Journalists should use the more clear and accurate language.
And why, if the writers of the letter want plain language, do they use “parlous” instead of a word that everyone will understand, like “dangerous” – or perhaps “interesting”, as in the apocryphal/debunked Chinese imprecation “May you live in interesting times”?
I am 90% certain that Trump think ‘quid pro quo’ is a Chinese takeaway meal.
“The do-nothing, dumb-as-dogs Dems don’t understand that I couldn’t have ordered a quid pro kuo as I am ALLERGIC TO SHELLFISH. There was no kung po kuo, END OF STORY”
The precision of the language used by the media is crucial in this. The Republicans take every opportunity to muddy the water that they get.
I’ve spoken to plenty of people who have absolutely no clue what ‘quid pro quo’ means(Trump himself is probably one of them).
And when it is explained to them it’s necessarily refracted through the lens of whoever is doing the explaining – Trump’s apologists say ‘quid pro quo’ is just the usual behind-the-scenes realpolitik, his opponents say it is criminal behaviour. It ends up being a uselessly chameleonic word for a lot of people who maybe aren’t as edumacated as we at WEIT are.
So yes, I think it makes a difference. Maybe not an enormous one, but still.
On the other hand saying that “we look to public voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas” *could* be a dog whistle(!) signalling that people who speak freely, using popular language (e.g. Trump) are Not One Of Us.
Although you could also point out that speaking of a basket of deplorables or alleging unproven Russian influences are hardly voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas either.
*If* words are important then they apply to all political tribes. Motes and beams.
Trump’s blend of gibberish and hate is not at all a “popular language.”
“signalling that people who speak freely, using popular language (e.g. Trump) are Not One Of Us.”
Trump doesn’t ‘speak freely, using popular language’. That’s another one of those absurd euphemistic descriptions conservatives use to describe this cretin’s KFC-klux-klan speeches.
He doesn’t speak freely. In fact he speaks only about a tiny subset of things and he does so over and over again, until you think either you have a brain injury or he has one. There is an ocean of subjects he doesn’t dare touch, either because he knows nothing about them, or he’s too proud or scared to go near them.
And he doesn’t use ‘popular language’, he uses spiteful, cheap, arrogant, moronic, lavishly ignorant language.
‘Popular language’ is an inane euphemism meant to sweeten the noxious hot-air that leaks from his great balloon of bollocks.
Perhaps “male street language” would be a better description of how Trump talks. Or “bad uncle at Thanksgiving” language. Or “asshole at the end of the bar who thinks he knows everything but really knows very little” language.
All would be better than “popular language”, with its inane implication that everyone talks like that. Might as well say that Trump has been accused of ‘popular behaviour’ by 26 different women, and ‘popular accounting methods’ by the IRS.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that most if not all of the authors of that letter seem to be women.
Trump speaks like a person undergoing cognitive decline.
What is unproven about ‘Russian influences’?
I guess the indictment of 23 Russians and three Russian companies doesn’t count, not to mention several domestic convictions or guilty pleas of Trump associates who were with the reach of the justice system.
I don’t think I’ll ever become inured to the almost unbelievable intellectual and rhetorical contortions Trump apologists must assume to defend the man. It’s astonishing sometimes.
I respectfully disagree with the pecksniffs. There! I used pecksniffs in a sentence. Twice. Added it to my editor’s dictionary too. 😎
“…or alleging unproven Russian influences…”
And what would those unproven Russian influences be? The three Russian organizations and 13 Russian nationals that were indicted by the Mueller investigation? Or the fact that ALL of our intelligence agencies have “proven” that Russia meddled in the 2016 (and other) elections and continue to do so? Maybe you were referring to something else, but that just stuck out as puzzling.
Damn, this was supposed to be in response to A C Harper above.
That is why I posted the same question, did not see your post, sorry
No need to apologize. I’m the dummy who couldn’t reply in the right spot. 🙂
The recent press comments about Hillary Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard?
HC said nothing about TG in context. Get your facts straight. She said the Republican party was grooming a candidate, not the Russians, to run for a 3rd party. This always happens…depressing how Mrs. Clinton is hated to the extent of conspiracy.
I must disagree with Jerry on this one. There is a certain vagueness about “quid pro quo” that plays into the hands of Trump’s defenders.
I think “quid pro quo” is being used to describe an important element of the crime, not the entire crime. I don’t think media people are confused by this. Perhaps some regular folk are but this is a point the letter writers should have left out.
The larger point they are making is a valid one and one made by many (or even all) in the MSM. Calling Trump’s actions “bribery” and “extortion” clearly has more impact than the somewhat technical-sounding “quid pro quo”.
All in all, they made some important, valid points but flubbed the delivery.
Thinking about this a bit more, and reading the comments, perhaps my sentiments were premature. I didn’t think about how the public’s misunderstandings might affect how Senators vote, and about how Trump keeps saying “THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO”, implying that there was no crime, and people who don’t comprehend the word might get confused. But there was a quid pro quo, and that quid pro quo happened to be a crime. It’s a lie, just like his saying the phone call was “perfect”. But I think it’s the media’s responsibility to clear this up. I think the Left-wing media has been pretty good about this, and of course the right wing media, supporting Trump, doesn’t go near it.
So who are the signatories of the letter addressing? The left and centrist media have done a good job reporting this one, and what more could they have done. At some point, in a democracy, we have to trust the public’s responsibility to educate itself–at least minimally.
Brian Stelter on Reliable Sources this morning (CNN) said Trump used the term quid pro quo even before the whistleblower complaint so he planted the phrase. It is not used in the Constitution which does state bribery. As usual, Trump has controlled the game and the language.
I should also say quid pro quo is a very familiar term for Trump as it is practically his mission statement for everything.
The art of the deal?
Another aspect of this is that in most past governmental fiascos (Watergate, etc.) nobody was creating bald face lies on a daily basis, and nobody was overtly trying to confuse the public. We now have a set of characters who don’t seem to mind being involved in corruption. Thus, many technical, legal terms, and much else not in the domain of common speech is subject to public confusion. It makes little sense to try to avoid language above a 5th grade level in such an atmosphere. As you say – at some point you have to trust the electorate.
Actually, Nixon was a serial liar and his real crime was engaging in a coverup. During his last days, all his efforts were aimed at confusing the public. The difference between now and Watergate is that back then a considerable minority of Republicans had integrity and supported the Constitution. If only the Republicans today had someone such as Howard Baker.
Yes, I realize Nixon was unhinged toward the end, but his entourage, and most of the Republicans in congress tried to maintain their own reputations. tRump’s circle is cheerfully complicit, along with the entirety of the Republican party. Using little words for little people won’t have much effect.
“Trump keeps saying “THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO”, implying that there was no crime. . .”
Strictly speaking, he’s right about that. Not to multiply Latin phrases, but a QUID PRO QUO is DE FACTO the SINE QUA NON of there being a crime, whatever one chooses to call the crime. Manipulating the language strikes me more as desperation than Pecksniffery, but it will have no effect whatever on the public’s perception of whether Trump’s actions amount to high crimes and misdemeanors.
Actually there was no quid pro quo. If Trump had said “we’ll give you money if you dig up dirt on Joe Biden” that would be a quid pro quo. But he didn’t say that, he said “we’ll release the money congress gave you if you dig up dirt on Joe Biden”. That’s not a quid pro quo, it’s extortion.
I agree with this – extortion is one (illegal or at least unethical) form of quid pro quo.
I’m glad! Just imagine how much worse beneficiaries of US aid would be, like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or the Saudi Monarchs?
We need words like EXTORTION and BRIBERY on the front page bold type, not “squid bro go” or whatever it is.
I agree with you and most of the others. Bribery and extortion makes it clear as to what Trump is being charged with, both impeachable offenses. It is unlikely that most of the public will understand what quid pro quo means without a lot of explanation and will not take the time to look up its meaning. The use of this phrase by Trump and his allies is a smokescreen to divert attention from what Trump really did. It’s like Trump using the phrase “no collusion, no obstruction” during the Mueller investigation. In any case, there is no need for “a this for that” for Trump’s actions to be impeachable. The public should have no difficulty in understanding what bribery and extortion for personal gain means.
The pecksniffs are wrong about “dig up dirt” as a description of what Trump asked Ukraine to do. Trump pretends to care about corruption in Ukraine but I am sure both he and Zelensky understood that anything that looks bad for Biden or his son would have been welcome. If Zelensky called back a month later and said, “We couldn’t find any crimes that the Bidens committed but we have a few videotapes of them visiting prostitutes”, they would have released the funds and welcomed them at the WH with open arms.
The reason I don’t like “dig up dirt” is because it implies there is dirt to dig up. A better phrase (though not a sound bite) would be: Trump wanted the Ukrainian government to make up false claims against the Bidens. In reality, Trump didn’t even care about the dirt; he merely wanted Zelensky to say they were opening up an investigation, even if they weren’t.
Good point.
I used no small amount of bribery and extortion while raising my kids. At least that is what I would informally call it.
Anyway, I think the public in general knows that this is about a crime being committed. Most are not confused about that. But if it might help, then sure call it extortion.
I think the accusations are deliberately phrased in vague ways.
If the democrats made an accusation using specific legal terminology, it would be possible to present a specific defense.
Yesterday, I read an essay advocating that the charge of “being racist” be added to articles of impeachment.
I don’t think that we should use Latin phrases unless there is no way to express the concept in English.
Also, “parlous”.
At least some Democrats are now using the term extortion. Democrat Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee has stated “we have enough evidence from the depositions that we’ve done to warrant bringing this forward ― evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president’s opponent.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-intelligence-trump-extortion-scheme_n_5dc831d9e4b00927b234e5d1
The phrase ‘chief moron’ is incorrect: protocol demands that it be ‘Moron in Chief.’
Just to illustrate how pathetic the republicans are in this open testimony starting Wednesday, they put forward two witnesses they want called to testify. They would be, Hunter Biden and the whistleblower. Now that is not going to happen but it shows all just how screwed up these people are on this impeachment hearing.
Did anyone else notice that all these journalists are female (unless I missed something)? Don’t know whether that has anything to do with the matter or not.
IF, Ms Richards, your query is asked actually
expecting to it an(y) answer, THEN, yes, right off,
… … I did.
Blue
Within my brain there is no wonderment
as to the why of that notice.
Blue
Yes, I did. I do wonder why.
If the probability of an author being female were 50/50, the probability of all 33 of these authors being female would be one in over eight and a half billion.
Same as such probability then, Sir, as all of
those centuries’ worth of authors cited anywhere else
which were all 33 male ones.
Same as when hardly anyone over all of those
centuries’ worth of only male – cited authors
ever “noticed” that.
Blue
What is the calculated probability that
it is .just coincidence. then … … that
within 243 years’ time all 45 United States
presidents were / are all Not Male ones ?
er, I mean, Male ones ?
This is just one o’those crazed, inexplicable
“coincidences” o’witchery, er, of wizardry,
idn’t it ?
Blue
I find it ironic that a plea for journalists to use words people understand would use the adjective “parlous” instead of the more easily understood “dangerous”.
Touché our that in your metaphorical George Orwell pipe and smoke it.
Put not our. Damn you autocorrect!
Good point. “Perilous” would have been the more obvious (and clearer) choice.
From a purely legal stand point saying “quid pro quo” and it being a crime for someone in political office is probably accurate. Quid pro quo is about political favour for personal benefit. I don’t think in this context it’s a matter of simply translating the Latin but understanding the meaning in a US legal context.
That said, it should be the responsibility of the press to explain this and yes, use the word “extortion” because everyone gets that and its much harder to muddle meanings and look innocent.
It is amusing to listen to people saying it though and I’m hoping for a “squid pro quo” blunder.
But, I think quid pro quo could be for the benefit of the U.S. rather than for the president’s election, in which case it would not necessarily be illegal or even unreasonable. The U.S. could tell another country it will withhold grain shipments until the other country stops training terrorists.
What I’m saying is from a legal stand point that’s not what quid pro quo means. It’s beyond a translation of something for something and is more about something for personal gain.
I disagree. “Quid pro quo” by itself is not illegal. In fact, one of the GOP’s impeachment defenses is that quid pro quo is done all the time in international negotiations. If Trump had withheld the funds until Ukraine did something to boost human rights or investigate real corruption, it would be totally legal. I’m sure we’re going to hear that defense again soon.
Squid pro quoll.
🤣
I wonder if quolls like squid?
squid pro troll.
Maybe quolls troll squids?
This is getting tooooo silly. Can’t have that🤓
To me, bribery and extortion seems so much more appropriate for what Trump tried to do. And it has the added benefit of speaking to Trump supporters who understand that kind of language much better than a Latin phrase.
Yes. Trump supporters have been in befuddled silence. Once they know Trump has committed bribery and extortion, they’ll be pumping their fists and shouting “Awright!”
Yes… and “you go bro!”
Jerry, I agree with almost all your WEIT writings, but this time I strongly disagree. The impeachable offense is extortion/bribery for personal benefit, not quid pro quo. Trump defenders are correct that quid pro quos are routinely part of foreign policy. Arguing that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo is equivalent to arguing that the author of THE AET OF THE DEAL made a deal. Bad argument for impeachment!
Sub
Like so many above, I disagree with JAC on this one. Seeking a quid pro quo is not necessarily a crime and that’s just what the republicans will claim. Bribery and extortion is a crime.
Is this a knee-jerk reaction against “appeal to authority”? This is not about following the language experts, it’s about going with the commonly used terms.
A poll would be good!
It is interesting how the same latin phrase can have different meanings in different modern languages. In Italian a quid pro quo (written qui pro quo) means a misunderstanding.
“Quid pro quo” is a neutral term (somewhat better than reciprocal altruism) and transmits an unclear message if the NYT didn’t explain why it was a crime in this case.
“Dig up dirt” is just fine.
After reading all the comments, with some good arguments, I have to admit I was wrong, ‘extortion’ not ‘QPQ’ is the operative term.
Extortion or Bribery both require a quid pro quo.
You extort an unlawful benefit by violence or threat of violence for extortion, or you “sell” an unlawful benefit in bribery.
As I understand it (in the light most favorable to Never Trump), the argument is that Trump made military aid to Ukraine contingent on Ukraine conducting a baseless, politically-motivated investigation on his political opponent and his family. Thus, Trump was abusing his power by holding Ukrainian aid hostage to his own political vendetta against Biden.
If the freezing of military aid had nothing to do with the investigation of Biden, or if Ukraine didn’t know that the two were linked, or if the investigation into Biden and his family is justified from a law enforcement perspective, then the case falls apart.
There has to be a quid pro quo, it had to be clearly communicated with Ukraine (either directly or by back channels) and the Biden clan has to be squeaky clean or the whole thing becomes very messy.
[The whole problem with the impeachment saga is that the Biden’s don’t actually seem to be above suspicion, so public opinion breaks down on those who abhor Trump versus those who are critical of the Biden’s. If Burisma is crooked, and Hunter Biden was brought in to buy influence with the U.S. in order for a Ukrainian oligarch to beat his money laundering rap brought by the U.K. and avoid prosecution in Ukraine by Ukrainian authorities, then objectively there is nothing wrong with requesting an investigation, even if Trump’s motives were self-interested. This is exactly why the GOP is trying to call Hunter Biden, and why the Dem’s will not permit any testimony on the subject of the Bidens. Realistically, “a pox on both your houses” may be the only sane response.]
That’s a good analysis. I fear that the GOP will successfully portray the Bidens’ actions in Ukraine as having status “yet to be properly investigated” vs “completely baseless”. If the Bidens did anything wrong at all, it lets them claim that the quid pro quo was a legitimate tactic to get Ukraine to help with the Biden investigation.
The crucial testimony will be about the overwhelming evidence that Trump didn’t care about corruption per se and that it was all about our election. As with most things in the political arena, it’ll come down to who you believe. It will be definitely be must-see TV.
The actual breakdown is between those that respect truth and rational thinking and those that don’t. This breakdown aligns mostly, but not completely, with those that dislike Trump’s presidency and those that like his presidency.
The Bidens are tangential. I’m critical of the Bidens but that has no bearing on Trump’s case.
I stand corrected then.
Quid pro quo strikes me as a perfectly serviceable phrase. It can connote either a straightforward legal exchange or be an element of a bribery or an extortion.
Just ask Dr. Lecter:
I had been waiting for Ken to weigh in on quid pro quo. Who knew there’d be a Hannibal Lector quote???😂
Ha ha! I too was waiting for Ken & was amused by the Lector quote.