'Quid' and 'quo' not needed for wrongdoing

Many people are watching the impeachment hearings. A defense that the Republicans are repeatedly using is that there was no quid pro quo because the aid, "quid," for Ukraine was eventually released without any announcement from Ukraine on the investigations the president wanted, the "quo."

And, the other defense is that the president specifically said "no quid pro quo" to Gordon Sondland on a phone call, a phone call that took place after the report of a whistleblower had come to light.

Perhaps if I put this a different way, people will understand why this is an irrelevant argument. Let's say I have some people kidnap someone. I make a demand that I'll release this person if I get a ransom. This is all kept quiet, no one knows about it. All of a sudden, someone decides to go to the press and report this kidnapping. So I have my people release the person. The kidnapping still occurred. It is irrelevant that I didn't get my ransom, the crime of kidnapping occurred.

And if I had found out that someone had alerted the press about my kidnapping plot, it wouldn't matter if my most trusted family member called to ask me about the kidnapping. Of course I would say "there was no kidnapping, there was no quid pro quo of releasing the person for a ransom!"

The fact that the president is being accused of withholding aid for his own political gains is the crime even if the aid was eventually released, and even if he screams from the rooftops there wasn't any quid pro quo.

We all know how much this president values making honest statements.

I wonder how long the Republicans will stay on this sinking ship.

Sarah McKenna

Sugar Grove