On September 25th, 2019, President Donald Trump had a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During this call, Trump asked Zelensky to look into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine. This sparked an impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives, as some believed Trump had used his power as President to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival.
The "No Pro Quo" Defense
As the impeachment inquiry continued, Trump and his defenders began using the phrase "no pro quo" to defend his actions. This means that there was no exchange of something for something else, such as military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens.
Trump and his supporters argued that there was no evidence of a quid pro quo, and that the aid was eventually released to Ukraine without any investigation into the Bidens. However, some witnesses who testified during the impeachment inquiry contradicted this defense.
The Testimony of Gordon Sondland
Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union, testified during the impeachment inquiry that there was indeed a quid pro quo involving military aid to Ukraine. Sondland stated that there was a "clear understanding" that the aid was contingent on Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Bidens.
While Sondland did not explicitly say that Trump ordered him to make this quid pro quo arrangement, he did implicate other members of the Trump administration, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, in the scheme.
The Release of the Transcript
After the impeachment inquiry began, Trump released a transcript of his phone call with Zelensky. While the transcript did not explicitly mention a quid pro quo, it did show Trump asking Zelensky to "do us a favor" by investigating the Bidens.
Many legal experts argued that this transcript was evidence of an abuse of power, even if it did not explicitly mention a quid pro quo. The fact that Trump was using his power as President to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival was seen as a violation of his oath of office.
The Outcome of the Impeachment Inquiry
After months of investigation and testimony, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Donald Trump on two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. However, Trump was ultimately acquitted by the Senate, as not enough Senators voted to remove him from office.
Despite the "no pro quo" defense, many legal experts and members of Congress argued that Trump's actions were still an abuse of power. The fact that he was willing to use his position as President to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival was seen as a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law.
The Legacy of "No Pro Quo"
The phrase "no pro quo" has become synonymous with Trump's impeachment and the controversy surrounding his actions with Ukraine. It has also become a rallying cry for his supporters, who see it as evidence of his innocence and persecution by the "deep state" and the media.
However, the legacy of "no pro quo" will likely be debated for years to come. Was it a legitimate defense of Trump's actions, or was it a smokescreen meant to distract from the real issues at hand? Only time will tell.