This letter appeared in the New York Times on
To the Editor:
A plea from 33 writers: Please use language that will clarify the issues at hand.
Please stop using the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” regarding the impeachment inquiry. Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record.
That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase — which means simply “this for that” — as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead.
Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act.
Please also stop using the phrase “dig up dirt.” This slang has unsavory connotations. Instead, please use the more formal, direct and powerful phrase “create false evidence,” or “find incriminating evidence” or the simpler “tell lies about.”
Moreover, Trump was not actually asking for a “favor,” though that is the word he used. By definition a favor is given freely and is not compelled. Trump was plainly conditioning the release of military aid to Ukraine on the Ukrainian President’s digging up or inventing information about Joe Biden and his son. This was not a request for a favor. It was akin to extortion, which is the crime of using force (or attempting to use force) to compel someone to do or refrain from doing something.
Oops — I wrote carelessly. Extortion means obtaining something through the use of force or the threat of force.
I’ve been thinking about the letter, which I much like. But if the point is that in describing Trump’s actions, we should use language that is clear, precise, and powerful (though language that is clear and precise IS per se powerful), arguably a word like “parlous,” which unfortunately many people do not know and which some think affected, might have been rejected in favor of the simple “dangerous.” (I’ll give “gravitas” a pass because it is the perfect word.)
O tempora, O mores!
Is it “extortion” if you threaten to withhold $400 million in military assistance unless the other party refuses to do or say something that is manifestly untrue?
It was extortion if Ukraine needed the arms to defend itself from hostility. If Ukraine did not need the weapons, it was bribery. Most importantly, it was, like the actions of Andrew Johnson, not done to benefit the interests of the United States or human rights; it was, like Watergate, done for personal political gain. It screams impeachment and removal from office. And presidents are neither tried by a jury of their peers nor innocent until proven guilty. Trump should be removed for putting his own interests above those of his country, and doing it gangster-style.
You make too much sense
And not to be too disagreeable, but parlous is the right word to describe the tragic comedy of the situation caused by Trump’s actions. It’s perilous, but somehow also hilarious.
Arguably yes, Diane.
In any event, as Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers, No. 65, the impeachment power extends to “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” It is possible, then, to be guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” even if no federal or state crime has been committed.
It is obvious (to me at least) that Trump’s conduct is an abuse of the public trust placed in him by the People. The President of the United States may not use the immense power of his office for personal gain. Trump should be impeached and convicted, on the basis of the phone call alone.
I agree. I find it astonishing that Trump says the phone call was”perfect.”
He says “Read the transcript.”
I have.
It is damning. He asked for “a favor.”
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
Regarding Trump’s CRIMINAL actions, “Quid Pro Quo” means “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Donald Trump’s demand to the President of Ukraine to find and/or makeup dirt on Biden. This is very clearly a crime.
If you read The Federalist Papers, which I have done recently, the Founders were nearly obsessed by fear that foreign nations might interfere in our country