A quid pro quo in prosecutorial terms is something given outside the deal that is part of the deal. A perfect example is if you work at the State department and you make a deal to sell to, say, Russia, 20 percent of the nation’s uranium reserve and coincidentally Russia gives you one hundred and forty million dollars, THAT is a quid pro quo. Conditions on the money by the giver is not a quid pro quo.
From one of many replies arguing that we do a disservice to our cause when we accept the premise that a quid pro quo amounts to an impeachable offense, this one from October 11:
I have been arguing here for some time that it is the wrong strategy to argue that there is (1) no quid pro quo or (2) no actual solicitation of “something of value” relating to the 2020 election.
That starts the argument at the fallback position, that there was no quid pro quo in the transcript of the conversation and no solicitation of information concerning Biden in exchange for the delivery or sale of armaments. The Democrats by these scattershot subpoenas are attempting to fill in those gaps with testimony. In this atmosphere, whatever hearsay testimony, conjecture, or outright lies they can introduce into the public consciousness simply means they win, especially do they win if one considers their limited goal.
The first line of defense is that there is no crime even with a quid pro quo even if the president wanted to benefit his campaign because he was lawfully acting in his constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, including the laws against corruption in office committed by former vice presidents. Let’s start with the first line of defense before we go to fallback positions. If the Democrats can contrive, as they almost certainly will, some sort of fanciful connection between solicitation for investigation and the delivery of arms, the Republicans then must argue on the facts over which they might have no control or argue as I have here that there is no crime anyway. Do you think the media will let Republicans get away with arguing immunity after they have argued the merits based on facts? I for one doubt it.