Stop Claiming ‘No Quid Pro Quo’
National Review,
by
Andrew C. McCarthy
Original Article
Posted By: M2,
10/26/2019 7:29:18 AM
Quid pro quo . . . it’s the new “by the book.”
You remember “by the book,” right? No, not “buy the book,” which I’ve been trying to get people to do since Ball of Collusion was published a few weeks back. I’m talking about by the book. That was the memorable phrase Obama national-security adviser Susan Rice emphasized in her notorious CYA memo.
Remember? The memo took the form of an email. She wrote it while clearing out of her White House office while Donald Trump was being inaugurated. It purported to summarize a meeting more than two weeks earlier, when President Obama held an Oval Office pow-wow on Ukraine
Reply 1 - Posted by:
SavageRider 10/26/2019 7:38:45 AM (No. 217912)
McCarthy suggests a logical argument against Dim coup participants behaving illogically and against all American jurisprudence standards. This is a battle, not an arbitration session.
19 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
spacer 10/26/2019 7:44:29 AM (No. 217916)
Ok, so we schlubs should quit with the qpq because qpq is not an impeachable offense. The problem Andy, is the fascist crooks in the democrats scheme don't give a rat about truth or facts. By the way Andy, just for the heck of it, THERE WAS NO QPQ!!!!
21 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
mythman 10/26/2019 8:04:39 AM (No. 217929)
No QPQ, and no Andrew C. McCarthy for me.
17 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
tootall 10/26/2019 8:12:31 AM (No. 217937)
Sorry Andy...you can't give an inch to these people. They'll use that to attack something else.
27 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
bpl40 10/26/2019 8:16:20 AM (No. 217941)
Quid Pro Quo has been an accepted and legitimate instrument of state policy since time of Jefferson The possible 'crime' here is qpq for corrupt personal gain or profit. THAT should be the real point of debate not whether qpq exists or not. The reality is that it is 0bama and Biden who are thoroughly guilty of such an act. And the transcripts and the Ukrainian President's emphatic statements at least indicate PDT is not. Besides, IMO maybe up to 90% of people who respond to these impeachment polls have no clue as to what they are agreeing to. If you don't like or agree with a politician's policies, style or manner then then your only acceptable recourse is to vote him/her out. Impeachment is not meant for that purpose. But the 'Rats and the MSM are deliberately sowing misconception for political gain. So what's new?
23 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 10/26/2019 8:42:08 AM (No. 217982)
As Amos would say"Hold on der just a minute here, Andy" ( and the chorus of 'friendly detractors' that are coming out of the woodwork on this 'pqp' pap). Does anyone remember the Republican campaign that Donald Trump waged- against what, sixteen of the GOP's bravest and brightest? Beyond the obvious fact that Joe Biden (Obama's impeachment protection) has never stood a chance in a head-to-head battle to lead this country, just remember that our president has knocked over bigger men than him just GETTING to this fight.
12 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
earlybird 10/26/2019 8:50:57 AM (No. 218002)
You have to plow through acres of self-reference and self-aggrandizement to get to whatever McCarthy is putting forth. I am frankly tired of his condescension. He oozes it. There are too many others out there, writing equally good informative pieces, who don’t put us through that. He belongs right where he is. With smug little Richie Lowry and the NR crowd. I can’t be bothered reading him.
21 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
seamusm 10/26/2019 8:52:21 AM (No. 218004)
It is silly to claim that there was no 'Quid...'. When the President of the USA - the most powerful man on the planet - calls and asks for something - anything - don't you think that there is pressure being applied even if unspoken?
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Red Jeep 10/26/2019 8:54:45 AM (No. 218007)
Was what happened a Quid Pro Quo (this for that) OR carrot and stick?
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
TexasRose 10/26/2019 8:58:32 AM (No. 218011)
So, #8, the conclusion we must reach from your argument is that ANY President at ANY time can and should be impeached for having ANY contact with ANY Foreign Gov't.
15 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 10/26/2019 9:00:36 AM (No. 218014)
Andy Panderer is a NeverTrumper with a twinge of conscience pangs. He knows he was dead wrong about Trump - - but he still can't admit it in public.
Andy - - get into the confession booth - - and tell the priest all your sins. And for penance - - go on all five networks and shout out, "I was wrong! I was wrong!"
10 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
rsgonner 10/26/2019 9:08:53 AM (No. 218021)
Unfortunately much too nuanced........Just what the low information useful idiot will take and run with to justify the coup.
7 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
janjan 10/26/2019 9:30:06 AM (No. 218043)
Trump released the transcript. There were no threats. McCarthy assumes that everyone knew there was an implied threat. Maybe and maybe not. The Ukranian President is denying it. So does this boil down to Trump should be impeached for delaying payment of $400 million taxpayer dollars for 2 weeks? The Democrats would have more credibility if they just held an impeachment vote and declared that they didn’t need a reason because that is exactly what is going on here.
7 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 10/26/2019 9:39:31 AM (No. 218053)
"we can’t conclusively assess it"
And THAT is the whole point.
The dems have NOTHING. What they are doing is all theater to project a narrative. They cannot let you peek behind the curtain because that would unravel their story, as has happened repeatedly and with enormous embarrassment to them.
Yes, slicing words, there is almost always a "this for that" exchange in business and foreign relations. The key is, is it improper? However, the reason the president's supporters are legitimately resisting this label is because of the corruption of the dems and media. They will take a crumb and blow it into an impeachment mountain. As indicated, we associate "quid pro quo" with ILLEGAL actions because THAT is how it has been addressed in modern times. The media KNOWS this. An admission to legal quid pro quo will quickly drop the "legal" and be reported as "illegal" or "dodgy".
Consider how ILLEGAL immigrant is managed vs. immigrant. The media has eagerly conflated the two and asserted beyond fact that fighting ILLEGAL immigration is the same as being anti immigrant and anti minority and RACIST and HATEFUL. This is how easily the media and dems distort and expand a proper and legal action into one of great disdain.
6 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
cThree 10/26/2019 9:44:13 AM (No. 218059)
Andy does make a good point, but the headline is amiss, and the negative replies here also have a good point.
It's important we know the difference between an unethical, likely illegal QPQ, and the ubiquitous, fact-of-life QPQ of all commerce and diplomacy involved here.
We already know the Schiffty Democrats couldn't care less about the distinction. Their interest is merely the whiff of chicanery attached to the legalistic sound of the words, "quid pro quo," in the same way AOC's eyebrows jumped up on the old twitter video when she intoned the word, emoluments.
If all they care about, literally, is the sound of the accusation, we must understand that the sound of any modifier, like impeachable or criminal, is the sound of retreat. "There is no criminal QPQ" sounds like, "He is not a crook."
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 10/26/2019 9:57:57 AM (No. 218081)
QPQ is like the F-word. People toss it around as an interjection while they think of something more pungent to say.
4 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
bighambone 10/26/2019 10:53:48 AM (No. 218111)
The very questionable impeachable offenses that the leftist and liberal Democrats are claiming that President Trump took, or did not take, regarding his dealings with Ukraine, appear to stem from Trump’s knowledge of the corrupt activities that both Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton functionaries and political operatives perpetrated with Ukrainians in Ukraine to influence the 2016 election. Clearly the intent of those Democrat activities in Ukraine were to sabotage Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to assist Clinton win the 2016 election. Obviously the Democrats, and some wimpy establishment Republican UniParty Members, don’t think that the President, through his personal emissary, or the US Attorney General should be investigating that past Democrat corruption. As in the middle of that are Democrat attempts to protect Joseph Biden, who was Obama’s point man for all things Ukraine, and who clearly was involved in large scale nepotistic corruption involving his son, who was being paid big bucks in return for alleged work for a Ukrainian energy company of which he had absolutely no expertise. Trump has been highlighting such corruption, that has long been considered in DC to be a Congressional UniParty covert money making opportunity and privilege, so clearly the benefiting UniParty Members don’t like that at all.
3 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
mean Gene 10/26/2019 10:56:24 AM (No. 218114)
The last thing we want is a president constrained by the "no quid pro quo" rule into merely calling foreign leaders to shoot the breeze.
Give & take is what it's all about.
3 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 10/26/2019 11:07:24 AM (No. 218128)
Andy seems to ignore the RIGHTS of any POTUS guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. HE is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the USA and hence the WORLD, so long as we are the POLICEMEN of this screwed up, corrupt world. VP Biden interfered in a legitimate Ukrainian prosecutorial investigation of Burisma Holdings, and Joe Biden's drug addict/no talent son was benefiting financially from the corrupt CEO of said company. An ILLEGALITY had been committed by the previous Administration and the POTUS was trying to right a past wrong. What is the HELL is wrong with that?? To get the train of justice back on the tracks should be the responsibility of any new Administration, especially when so much of what happened during the entire "Trump-Russia Collusion" hoax had been buried below the surface and hidden from Congress through totally false "classified" categorizations.
2 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
DARling 10/26/2019 11:59:15 AM (No. 218182)
Those (D-Anywhere) idiots do not know how the president punked them last week. He announced he was pulling the troops out of Syria and then, as we know, the Turks came crashing in to "help" by trying to destroy the Kurds. President Trump told Erdogan that economic sanctions would be imposed and Turkey would be crushed if they didn't behave themselves. Erdogan and his merry men straightened up almost immediately.
That is what foreign aid is for. You do not give money to corrupt, murdering thugs unless you are a democrat president (see Egypt and Libya under Obama). President Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the shenanigans of the corrupt prior Ukrainian regime; said shenanigans included 2016 election interference and Joe Biden's economic strong-arming on behalf of his son.
In true democrat fashion, the more they know about Biden's corruption, the more they like him.
2 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 10/26/2019 12:17:26 PM (No. 218199)
His long-winded explanation is part of the problem, they simply have a short, concise reply/retort, we have long-winded replies.
So, the best option is to say NO QPQ, as in nothing wrong here.
I would recommend people pull out numerous examples of the previous administrations using strong-arm tactics in foreign policy situations to illustrate how it's regularly done.
2 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
bamboozle 10/26/2019 12:37:21 PM (No. 218216)
Isn't QPQ just another name for negotiating a deal??
4 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
TrueBlueWfan 10/26/2019 1:38:00 PM (No. 218274)
I don't care what you call it, but Pres. Trump did not threaten Pres. Zelensky in that phone call. Whereas Biden BRAGGED that he threatened Ukraine to bend to his will by withholding US aid (and getting his son out of hot water to boot). If they want to use this against Trump, Biden should be punished first. Those sickening dems cannot have it both ways.
Andy McCarthy has written better pieces, this was replete with 'filler'.
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Quigley 10/26/2019 2:57:55 PM (No. 218339)
As #22 says, mincing words such as complaining that the President says his phone call was ”perfect” because nothing is “perfect” is a sure way to lose an argument.
If impeachment is a purely political act then it will be won or lost in part on communication.
But surely there will have to be public support and surely there won’t be public support for impeachment or conviction if there is no high crime shown.
Especially since there is an election in a few months (after the trial).
Leave it to the dims to bring mayhem for personal gain.
0 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
walcb 10/26/2019 10:37:22 PM (No. 218618)
I am wondering, was there a quid pro quo involved when Obama sent a pallet of money to Iran or was that just a gift.
0 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
msjena 10/26/2019 11:43:54 PM (No. 218656)
I disagree with Andrew. He gives too much credence to Taylor’s statement, which admits is uncross-examined. Also, he doesn’t acknowledge that Taylor himself says the information about the hold didn’t leak until August 29. And what about the fact that the funds were sent without any agreement (the quo) by the Ukrainians? Yes, there is no impeachable offense here but there was no true quid pro quo.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "M2"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Andy takes a while to get to the point, but he does have a good one.