After reading an article about the issue of using the term “quid pro quo” on CNN, I would like to put my two cents into this conversation. Quid pro quo means “something for something” in Latin, according to Wikipedia. This definition of “quid pro quo” raises a question for me. Is this what the president is being investigated for? Going shopping is a quid pro quo, lots of things are quid pro quo. Some examples of “quid pro quo” you see every day are: you do work and I give you money, you give me money and I will give you stuff. We know that none of these actions are illegal.
What the president is being investigated for is holding aid to another country until that country investigated his political rival’s son. Is that a quid pro quo (where both sides know what is going on and agree to it) or is this extortion. Extortion is “obtaining benefits through coercion.” Could it also be bribery? Bribery is “the act of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer.”
If we look at the Constitution, Article two section 4 specifically states that bribery is an impeachable offence. If Democrats want to hold the president to a high constitutional standard, I would rebrand “quid pro quo” to bribery, because when a big powerful country uses money and influence to try to force a small country to do what it wants, that is bribery.