I think you’re all reading too much meaning into the word “pro”. The phrase can work both directions, just like “tit for tat.” Who’s getting the tit and who’s getting the tat has to be derived from context. It just means two things are being exchanged.
eta: Anyone who’s played Settlers knows this. “Wheat for sheep.” “Wait, am I getting the wheat and you’re getting the sheep?” “No, I’m getting the wheat.” “Oh, well I also need wheat so no trade.”
I don’t think this works in both directions. It unambiguously means tit in return for tat.
But tit and tat are meaningless placeholders, just like quid and quo. That’s the point.
eta: Unless you’re talking double entendre, in which case you’re going to be sorely disappointed in my tit.
In high school it was in return for dinner and a movie.
No, that’s not the point. It’s the grammatical construction that we’re talking about.
Wheat for sheep?
Is the grammar clear? My experience is that it’s not.
Moderating:
Ok, I understand some side-track discussion on these points, but this is far enough. Further discussion re the meaning of ‘quid pro quo’ and attendant hijacks shall go elsewhere now. Thanks.
Sidebar thread here
Thank you!
That is a great site and article.
It’s good it worked out this time (if that is indeed the end of it), but Glenn Kirschner is alarmed about the behavior of this Trump-appointed judge.
My bad, I anticipated an exchange of only a couple of posts, otherwise I would have done that right away.
No, no… thank YOU! 
<Sigh of relief>
Ha! I was thinking of them when I posted. 
Can’t find a cite on this, but Mom says she found a story that says that Trump is now blaming the moving company for the fact that there were classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump is Jake Blue. "IT WASN’T MY FAULT; I SWEAR TO GOD!"
He’s in a lot of trouble. It’s starting to sink in.
Obstruction in this case carries a potential prison term of 20 years. For one count. Whether documents are classified or not is irrelevant. He’s in willful violation of the Presidential Records Act.
If he went to trial, no matter the verdict, he would still need another trial, like MTG’s, to prohibit him from office, right?
If the Republican party is so corrupted that they believe their best chance in November 2024 is a convicted felon serving his time in prison, I say… go for it.
There seems to be an assumption that literally anything Trump and his legal team ask for must necessarily be facially absurd, and that anyone even considering anything they ask must be on their side, and I don’t think this is the case. If nothing else, blind squirrels and stopped clocks.