The Republicans trying to defend Donald Trump have loved saying there was no "quid pro quo". At best, that is wishful thinking, and probably just another Republican lie.The whistleblower's account showed a quid pro quo, as did the White House's own account of the phone call to Ukraine's president. That was again verified by Ambassador Taylor's opening statement to Congress.
In fact, it was even worse than that. Instead of one "quid pro quo", there were actually three -- and they added up to extortion.
When it became obvious that there was indeed a "quid pro quo", Trump and his Republican cohorts then tried to say the Ukrainians didn't know it was a quid pro quo, so it shouldn't matter. That is an even more ridiculous claim.
Here is part of how David Corn (pictured) explained it in his excellent article in Mother Jones:
Taylor had indeed testified during his closed-door session with congressional investigators that Ukrainian officials were aware Trump was withholding nearly $400 million in military assistance at the same time he and his minions were pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election (which held that Russia did not hack the election) and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump was also insisting that Zelensky announce publicly that these investigations were underway. Taylor was quite explicit about all this in his lengthy and detailed opening statement, which was leaked. In fact, the news that Trump was holding up the funds for Ukraine was reported publicly on August 29. Days later, Taylor testified, the top White House aide on Ukrainian matters, Tim Morrison, told him that Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union and a key figure in this caper, had told Andriy Yermak, a senior Zelensky aide, that the security assistance money would not be sent to Ukraine until Zelensky committed to pursing the Biden investigation.
So there it is: a much-respected veteran diplomat who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations testifying that Sondland, doing Trump’s bidding, had threatened the Ukraine government: No investigation, no money. That’s extortion. But Taylor had so much more to say. And his testimony shows there was more than one quid pro quo. Throughout this spring and summer, Trump was using whatever leverage he had on Zelensky to force him to mount these political investigations. During this stretch, Zelensky and his aides desperately wanted a White House meeting with Trump—which would signal that despite Trump’s fondness for Vladimir Putin, the United States remained a strong partner of Ukraine, as it battled the Russian and Moscow-backed forces that had invaded eastern swaths of Ukraine. Yet Trump issued a condition: No investigation, no meeting. Taylor testified that he was informed that during a July 10 meeting between Ukrainian officials and top White House officials, Sondland told the Ukrainians that an Oval Office face to face between Zelensky and Trump was contingent on the “investigations.” (At that point in the meeting, John Bolton, then the national security adviser, abruptly ended the conversation, and top NSC official Fiona Hill told Taylor, according to his testimony, that Bolton later referred to this proposed arrangement as a “drug deal.”) And Taylor had more to reveal about this. In September, Taylor testified, Sondland informed him that he, Sondland, had committed a mistake when he earlier had told the Ukrainians that a White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky was dependent on Zelensky publicly announcing these show investigations; instead, “everything,” including the withheld security assistance, was conditioned on such an announcement. Here was Sondland acknowledging there had been not one but two quid pro quos: the military money and a White House meeting, if Zelensky submitted to Trump’s demand. Then there was the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. According to a reconstructed transcript released by the White House, when the Ukrainian president raised the subject of obtaining from the Trump administration more Javelin anti-tank missiles—which the Ukrainians could use against the Russian invaders in the east—Trump immediately responded with the now-infamous line: “I would like you to do us a favor though.” He then pushed Zelensky to investigate both that nutty theory about the 2016 election and “the other thing”—the Bidens. Trump and his GOP defenders have repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo in this call. That’s bunk. You want missiles? Then give me information I can use to clear the Russians and harm a political foe. Add it up, and you have three quid pro quos. Or one huge quid pro quo with three distinct parts. The Ukrainians were looking for the security assistance that Congress had already authorized and the Pentagon had cleared for release. They desired a get-together in the Oval Office between Trump and Zelensky. And they wanted more Javelin missiles. In response to each of these requests, Trump said, first give me political dirt. And a crucial part of the deal would be Zelensky publicly proclaiming that the Bidens were under investigation, which in and of itself would taint Biden and create a controversy for him.
