Editorial: No overt 'quid pro quo' but plenty of problems with Ukraine conversation

On Sunday, President Donald Trump described his July 25 telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as "absolutely perfect." It is clear from the rough transcript of the conversation released Wednesday that that assessment suggests an extremely shaky definition of perfection.

Trump's ego certainly gets an ample massage from Zelensky's fawning praise of the president and his political acumen. And, the overall tone does indeed suggest, in the president's words, a "warm, nice conversation."

But perfect?

That characterization applies only if a goal of the exchange was to get the head of a foreign government to agree to search for dirt on a prominent political rival. On that score, Zelensky firmly promised, "I guarantee as the president of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly."

Never mind that the first of President Trump's "requests" seeks information about a mysterious computer server involved in the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee that the FBI determined long ago does not exist.

Never mind that his second "request" involves a twisted interpretation of circumstances involving one of his chief political rivals, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, that also were thoroughly investigated and cleared years ago.

But more disconcerting than Zelensky's response to the "requests" is the fact that the president of the United States asked them at all. There is, indeed, no quid pro quo offer, per se, in the remarks between the two leaders, but there hardly needs to be one. It is inappropriate on its face for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent. Furthermore, when a newly elected novice politician leading one of the poorest countries in Europe gets a call from the leader of the free world, it is impossible not to feel pressure, and both parties - one of whom considers himself the shrewdest negotiator on the planet - surely know it.

Beyond all this, a quid pro quo is clearly implied in both the substance and the tone of the transcripts, and it is punctuated by the fact that just days earlier President Trump had put a hold on $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. One hardly needs a Mario Puzo to interpret what was being sought, threatened and offered.

The implications of this highly imperfect phone call remain to be sorted out. In addition to the server and Biden issues, Trump managed also to bring Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, and U.S. Attorney General William Barr into the conversation in contexts that, if not improper, are certainly disconcerting.

House Democrats have turned up the political heat by officially launching an impeachment inquiry. We will see where that leads. In the meantime, the telephone transcripts tell us much about the issues President Trump is willing to invoke in his conduct of foreign policy, and the manner in which he invokes them. We all should read them thoughtfully and carefully.

Whether they provide an open-and-shut case for impeachment may be a matter for debate and discussion, but they are far from the picture of perfection.