As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that Democrats would be moving forward on the impeachment of President Trump, many wondered why she didn’t hold off until after the release of the transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. One reason is that Pelosi likely wants to preempt Trump from turning “no quid pro quo” into a catch phrase along the lines of “no collusion” to undermine Democrats.
For months leading up to the release of Robert Mueller’s report about Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump tweeted over and over, “No collusion.” That helped raise the bar for any findings by Mueller. When the report revealed that investigators could not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, it took the wind out of the sails of Democrats, who had a tough time convincing anybody beyond those who were already firmly in the anti-Trump camp that Mueller’s discussion of potential obstructive acts justified impeachment.
Beyond the big news that Pelosi was turbo charging the impeachment process, Tuesday saw efforts by Trump and Pelosi to try and plant the goalposts ahead of the release of the transcript of the call.
Trump, in announcing his decision to release the transcript, tweeted that, “You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo!”
In contrast, at an appearance at an event hosted by the Atlantic, Pelosi stated, “It’s really important to know this: There is no requirement that there be a ‘quid pro quo’ in the conversation.”
Also tellingly, in her statement announcing she was moving forward with impeachment, Pelosi said, “This week, the President has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically.” At no point did she mention that Trump made promises to Ukraine, or pressured Zelensky by withholding aid.
That’s because Pelosi understands that while it’s nearly certain Trump asked for Biden to be investigated, it’s less likely that he explicitly used threats or promises to get Ukraine to agree to a probe.
Democrats are convinced that Attorney General William Barr was able to blunt the impact of the Mueller report by issuing a letter framing the findings weeks before the report itself became public. Had Pelosi waited until after Trump released the transcript, he would have gotten ahead of her with the “no quid pro quo” spin.
But now, even if the transcript is not explicit on that front, Pelosi will argue: “As I’ve already said, ‘no quid pro quo’ is not a requirement for impeachment.”
So the way this debate is going, it’s likely to center on whether it really matters whether or not Trump made any sort of explicit threat or promise, or whether it’s sufficient that the president of the United States asked a foreign leader to investigate a political rival.
