A Quid Pro Quo for What Purpose?

Nov 5, 2019 by Susan Rosenbluth

When discussing the so-called quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, it is important to remember that whenever a US President asks a foreign leader, especially one seeking to curry favor with Washington, to do something, such as to initiate an investigation into a charge of corruption or meddling in an American election, it becomes incumbent on that foreign leader to act in accordance with the request. The issue, therefore, is not was there a quid pro quo, but rather who was the beneficiary of the request.

It seems obvious the answer is the American taxpayers who were being asked to give huge sums of money to fund Ukraine’s military. It, therefore, was the President’s duty to demand that a country reeking of corruption, such as Ukraine, be required to start to clean up its act with an investigation into notorious corruption (such as Hunter Biden’s appointment to an official position for which he was not in any way qualified) and possible election meddling before that country would be entitled to American funding. To refrain from making that request would have been a dereliction of duty on Trump’s behalf.

There is no indication that personal benefit was the motivating force behind Trump’s request to Mr. Zelensky. “Do me a favor” is not to be taken literally. It is colloquial language for “I want to give you this funding, but I would like you to initiate an investigation so that American taxpayers are not pouring their hard-earned money into a country riddled with charges of corruption and US election meddling.”