For what, three years now? We were told “MueLLEr iS cOMinG.” Mueller came and went and nothing happened. Democrats couldn’t leave their base feeling deflated, so they fabricated a new charge, “qUID pRo QUo,” which is Latin for “orange man bad.” Let’s be frank, there should ALWAYS be conditions attached to our taxpayer dollars. I understand that progressives like to indiscriminately drop pallets of cash to countries like Iran, but conditions on exchanges should be standard policy.
Speaking of Iran and “quid pro quo,” has everyone forgotten the ransom payment from the previous administration?
“Obama administration insists there was no quid pro quo, but critics charge payment amounted to ransom.”
“Barack Obama’s Ambassador Legacy: Plum Postings for Big Donors,” Public Integrity wrote, in a January, 2017, headline.
Legacy, indeed. Obama, according to Public Integrity, gave cushy ambassador posts to 31 campaign faithfuls who pulled in at least $50,000 for his reelection. He also doled out second-term ambassador slots to 39 who gave generously to his campaign, either in the form or money or political capital — or both.
The Washington Post made a whole map out of Obama’s campaign-cash-cows-for-ambassador-posts coincidences. Why not? Have some fun with it.
“This very telling map shows which U.S. ambassadors were campaign bundlers,” The Post wrote back in February 2014.
Of course, it’s difficult to discuss quid pro quo and the situation in which Trump finds himself while omitting Joe and Hunter Biden’s quid pro quo influence peddling. It’s partially why we’re at this point in the first place. Here is a fantastic primer on what led up to this.
The point of the headline is that quid pro quo, can be both good and bad. The argument is predicated upon the belief that Trump offered an exchange for political score-settling, which testimony has proved untrue.
The bottom line is that quid pro quo is part of foreign policy. To reiterate, there should always be conditions on taxpayer dollars or US assistance. The entire concept of foreign policy is based on leveraging relationships and attributes for greater security. Regarding Ukraine, Trump had good reason to view Ukraine as corrupt and antagonistic towards his administration. Joe and Hunter Biden placed themselves in the center of Ukraine’s corruption storm, which existed before the 2020 election cycle. It’s absurd to argue that this should be ignored simply because Joe Biden is running for President. (In fact, arguing this simply begs the question that his continual pursuit of higher office is nothing more than an insurance policy against investigation and penalty for his involvement in his son’s quid pro quo. It’s their apparent usage of elected office to avoid investigation that contributed to this problem in the first place.) Democrats’ entire argument is a deflection: They claim that Trump’s concern for Ukraine’s corruption is about Joe Biden, but they’re attempting to make this claim without acknowledging the Bidens’ role in said corruption. It’s dishonest and no American should buy this sleight of hand.
Here is Gordon Sondland earlier today saying that there was no quid pro quo: