# Why is "quid pro quo" such a key point? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 22, 2019, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132 "2019-10-22T12:42:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/1 "2019-10-22T12:42:36Z")
Why is the assertion or denial of a quid pro quo so important in the discussion about Trump’s request to the Ukrainian president? Isn’t it enough that he simply made a request to demonstrate that he sought foreign help in an election? Why must there be an incentive or coercion involved to demonstrate corrupt intent? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/2 "2019-10-22T12:51:20Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Why is the assertion or denial of a quid pro quo so important in the discussion about Trump’s request to the Ukrainian president? Isn’t it enough that he simply made a request to demonstrate that he sought foreign help in an election? Why must there be an incentive or coercion involved to demonstrate corrupt intent? You’ve got it. The congressional leaders running the investigation have never said that the quid pro quo had any importance. They maintain that simply soliciting foreign aid in the election is bad on its own. Based on the text messages that appeared to lay out the defense from the White House even before anything came out was that the scheme they were attempting could never be proved to have corrupt intent if it was found out, since investigators could never prove a corrupt quid pro quo. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/3 "2019-10-22T12:51:48Z")
I’m no expert, but ISTR there was a recent appeals court decision in a government corruption case (maybe a governor in an Atlantic seaboard state?), in which it was found that the official could accept donations/gifts from someone clearly seeking government favoritism, so long as he didn’t promise to take specific actions as repayment for those gifts. A specific quid pro quo. Seemed to me to really strain the concept of avoiding “even the appearance of impropriety.” ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/4 "2019-10-22T13:18:52Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > I’m no expert, but ISTR there was a recent appeals court decision in a government corruption case (maybe a governor in an Atlantic seaboard state?), in which it was found that the official could accept donations/gifts from someone clearly seeking government favoritism, so long as he didn’t promise to take specific actions as repayment for those gifts. A specific quid pro quo. > > Seemed to me to really strain the concept of avoiding “even the appearance of impropriety.” You’re probably thinking [of Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor, on whom we had a thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19304997). SCOTUS overturned his conviction for bribery > [@](#): > > Apparently unless there’s very clear evidence of official malfeasance, e.g. a signed written contract (“I give you Quid for your Quo”), bribery cannot be claimed … [despite plying] > the McDonnell family with expensive vacations, a Rolex watch, fifteen thousand dollars for their daughter’s wedding reception, the use of a Ferrari, and a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in loans ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/5 "2019-10-22T13:29:08Z")
In a subsequent criminal trial, the ‘quid pro quo’ may become an issue, but the impeachment itself is fundamentally a political process, NOT a criminal matter. If the House determines that the behaviors at issue indicate the official is unfit to hold office, they may impeach even without any of the elements necessary to prove a crime. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/6 "2019-10-22T14:56:23Z")
The distinction would be between “request” and “demand”. “Can you tell us what you know” versus “you don’t get the money until you tell us”. Buried in that and not discussed is the obvious third issue “if you want the money, we want to hear something bad about him”, i.e. desperation may drive the fabrication of data. The problem is that asking for data is not a problem (except for the “why?”, the purpose of the data). Governments do that all the time. “Quid pro quo” is essentially “this for that” -withholding something until they get what they want, which is only OK if the “want” is above board and legitimate. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/7 "2019-10-22T16:18:19Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > The problem is that asking for data is not a problem (except for the “why?”, the purpose of the data). But it seems that in this case, the purpose of the data is \*the \*problem. [The law](https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/)bars a U.S. candidate from asking for money or “anything of value” from a foreigner. There is no requirement that the request must be accompanied by a quid pro quo or coercion to be considered illegal. Just asking for it is enough. The controversy seems more about what “anything of value” means and whether it can mean information. But I haven’t heard that brought up as a defense. Only, “There was no quid pro quo.” There is a separate issue regarding the quid pro quo, which is whether Trump was using presidential powers to allocate foreign aid funding to further his personal political goals, which is a charge of abuse of power. But even without it, the issue of election law remains. Even if you accept the argument that there was no quid pro quo (an argument that is contradicted by the White House’s own release), it seems the law was broken. So is the denial by Trump of a quid pro quo, and the fancy footwork by Mulvaney, all a bit of misdirection to make us think that point is critical? ---
**Author:** ![WildaBeast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wildabeast/32/6_2.png) [@WildaBeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildaBeast)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/8 "2019-10-22T16:43:20Z")
NPR recently interviewed a former diplomat from the Obama administration, and from what he said quid pro quo in fact _is_ commonly used in international diplomacy. The key difference is that in the past it was always used to ask for something that was in _America’s_ interest. In this case Trump asked for something that was in his personal interest. I suspect he’s using the “There was no quid pro quo” defense in an attempt to confuse people about what the real issue is. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/9 "2019-10-22T16:52:18Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Why is the assertion or denial of a quid pro quo so important in the discussion about Trump’s request to the Ukrainian president? Isn’t it enough that he simply made a request to demonstrate that he sought foreign help in an election? Why must there be an incentive or coercion involved to demonstrate corrupt intent? You are correct. The misdirection of attention to the issue of a quid pro quo is an attempt to change the focus. It’s like “no collusion” or “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Assume that there was no quid pro quo. (Which there was.) Your thought that the problem is still a problem is correct. It’s like saying “I stabbed the clerk at the convenience store, but I DIDN"T STEAL ANYTHING!” NO STEALING! Look over here, NO STEALING! ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/10 "2019-10-22T17:16:29Z")
The two Constitutional emoluments clauses, foreign and domestic, clearly forbid 1) a federal officer, including the president, from accepting from foreign states any gifts, anything of value, without congressional approval; and 2) taking any money from the US or any state, except his salary. This apparently leaves him free to be bribed, I mean contributed to, by US cities or counties, or by private US residents or firms. Collusion, quid pro quo, misspelling names in tweets - these are distractions. This POTUS hopes we’ve forgotten that he’s bragged of obstruction and admitted involvement in conspiracy to violate federal election laws. He hopes we won’t recall his crimes in office and before. He calls the Constitutional foreign emoluments clause “phony”. That’s cause for removal, right there. “Quid pro quo” in the national interest is strategic but in hope of personal gain by a public official is bribery. Bribery is explicit cause for removal of a president but enough other grounds for removal already exist. The problem: how noxious must he be before the GOP-run Senate convicts? ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/11 "2019-10-22T17:18:55Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Buried in that and not discussed is the obvious third issue “if you want the money, we want to hear something bad about him”, i.e. desperation may drive the fabrication of data. Yes, it seems to me that very few in the media are discussing what seems to me the most corrupt aspect of this whole thing. Trump was pressuring them to FABRICATE something bad about Biden. This is Trump’s whole thing. He fabricates shit, pulls it out of his ass, and shoves it stinking into the public discourse, because he knows that his followers will swallow it without thinking. Then he goes and extorts this new president of a struggling ally to do the same thing. Who cares whether it’s quid pro quo? Spreading lies in this way is an abuse of power, plain and simple. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/12 "2019-10-22T20:12:40Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You’re probably thinking [of Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor, on whom we had a thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19304997). SCOTUS overturned his conviction for bribery Yeah - that was the one. Not saying it controls anything in this case, but wouldn’t be surprised if it influenced any number of peoples’ thinking re: questionable gifts/exchanges w/ an elected official. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/13 "2019-10-22T21:37:31Z")
**Moderator Note** > [@guizot](#): > > This is Trump’s whole thing. He fabricates shit, pulls it out of his ass, and shoves it stinking into the public discourse, because he knows that his followers will swallow it without thinking. Then he goes and extorts this new president of a struggling ally to do the same thing. Who cares whether it’s quid pro quo? Spreading lies in this way is an abuse of power, plain and simple. This is GQ. There are plenty of other threads in other forums where you can give your interpretation and opinion about Trump and his actions. In this forum, stick to the facts. Note to all: I realize that Trump is a hot-button topic for many here, but please keep the Trump commentary out of this thread (and this forum). ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/14 "2019-10-22T22:20:50Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > **Moderator Note** > > This is GQ. There are plenty of other threads in other forums where you can give your interpretation and opinion about Trump and his actions. In this forum, stick to the facts. > > Note to all: I realize that Trump is a hot-button topic for many here, but please keep the Trump commentary out of this thread (and this forum). My apologies. For some reason I thought this was in IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/15 "2019-10-23T02:47:35Z")
Coincidentally, today [NPR interviewed Rep. Maloney](https://www.npr.org/2019/10/22/772368852/democratic-rep-sean-maloney-weighs-in-on-testimony-from-top-u-s-diplomat-in-ukra) and here is an excerpt, underlining mine, where he draws the distinction that directly addresses my question: > [@All Things Considered](#): > > CHANG: OK, so putting the call memorandum aside - that was a transcript of the phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president - have you seen any independent evidence showing an explicit quid pro quo between President Trump and the Ukrainian president, President Zelenskiy? > > MALONEY: Well, I’d encourage you not to buy into the Republican talking point that an explicit quid pro quo is what is needed here. The fact is that… > > CHANG: Well, what about an implicit quid pro quo? Have you found independent evidence of that? > > MALONEY: Listen. I’m willing to play in that ballpark. I personally believe from what I’ve seen that there was a quid pro quo. Whether the president was dumb enough to say it explicitly is not the point. The point is whether he engaged in one. But it’s worse than that because it’s also improper and illegal for him to seek a thing of value from a foreign government for helping an American political election. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/16 "2019-10-23T04:07:38Z")
I think the point is - as we saw with Person 1 and Michael Cohen - people are less likely to be concerned about a political campaign finance violation, so it figures into the calculation as to whether the public generally feels it rises to the level of behaviour so reprehensible as to be impeachable. (Which, it seems, paying porn stars did not). However, blackmailing foreign governments (that are under military attack) by withholding duly allocated American taxpayers’ money to get dirt on a political opponent probably raises a lot more hackles in a lot more of the public. Quid pro quo is the essence of blackmail. it’s not much different than using the FBI or the IRS to get dirt on political opponents as an abuse of power… anyone can identify. Yes, I’m surprised not more media have raised the issue that the implicit threat (although not explicitly quo’d) is that some dirt better be forthcoming, so if you don’t find any make some up. I give the Ukranian Prez tremendous credit for not knuckling under to this, despite how desperate they were for the military aid. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/17 "2019-10-23T14:25:02Z")
Well here is what his defenders will say, if given the chance in future proceedings: “Trump swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. He thinks Biden is a criminal and wants to enforce laws against him. Furthermore, there’s a treaty between the USA & Ukraine regarding cooperation for prosecuting crimes. It was passed when Joe Biden was a member of the U.S. Senate and then signed by then-President Bill Clinton.” [https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text?overview=closed](https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text?overview=closed) The quid pro quo argument is to say: “Oh no, his motive was political gain, not to enforce laws.” ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/18 "2019-10-23T15:09:57Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Well here is what his defenders will say, if given the chance in future proceedings: > "Trump swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. He thinks Biden is a criminal and wants to enforce laws against him. He thinks? This isn’t enough cause for an investigation into petty theft let alone corruption. People take jobs they are not qualified for everyday. Your logic would put all of his “acting” secretaries into question. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/19 "2019-10-23T15:58:08Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > He thinks? This isn’t enough cause for an investigation into petty theft let alone corruption. People take jobs they are not qualified for everyday. Your logic would put all of his “acting” secretaries into question. Ahhh, now I see the “quid pro quo” relevance. Trump’s lawyers will argue “quid pro quo is not a crime, it’s done all the time in foreign policy”. Then the impeachers will say, “Where’s your due cause for opening a criminal investigation of Biden”? (What you are getting at, Si Amigo.) Trump’s lawyer’s will say “Biden is on video bragging about a quid pro quo in foreign policy against Ukraine: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/cBGKEfcj76Q/maxresdefault.jpg "BIDEN'S QUID PRO QUO") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGKEfcj76Q) That’s why Trump had reason to believe Biden committed a crime.” Then the impeachers will say “Got you, you just admitted quid pro quo in foreign policy is a crime, proving our grounds for impeachment.” Brilliant strategy, actually. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132/20 "2019-10-23T16:10:26Z")
And also: What did the FBI say when you brought your concerns to them? You wouldn’t have had to promise or withhold anything then, just drop a dime as they used to say. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-quid-pro-quo-such-a-key-point/842132.md?page=2)