After two weeks of public impeachment hearings and a dozen witness testimonies, the central question that Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over is, “Was there a quid pro quo?”
That is, did President Trump offer the Ukrainian government something of value in exchange for the launch of an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden?
Before the public hearings, it was reported that Trump had asked Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, to place a hold on $391 million in aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress, a week before his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
According to the White House memorandum of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, Trump didn’t mention withholding any aid to Ukraine but instead asked Zelensky “to do us a favor” in response to Zelensky’s request.
So, did the public impeachment hearings get us anywhere closer to answering this question? Well, that depends on who you believe.
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had arguably the most consequential testimony in front of congressional investigators. In his opening statement, he confirmed the suspicions of many Trump critics.
“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Game over, right? Well, the jury’s still out.
In the lead-up to Sondland’s opening statement, his credibility was questioned by Democratic members of Congress believing he committed perjury in a deposition that he submitted to Congress in October. In light of other testimonies, Sondland had to revise and amend his deposition.
So if Sondland, who says there was a “quid pro quo,” can’t be trusted, surely other witnesses will contradict his testimony, right?
During one part of the hearing, Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman asked Tim Morrison, the former Trump adviser on Russia and Europe at the National Security Council, “What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told Mr. Yermak?”
Morrison responded, “That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted.”
So, Morrison is suggesting that there was a quid pro quo.
At the same hearing, Kurt Volker, the former special U.S. envoy for Ukraine, initially told lawmakers behind closed doors in October that he didn’t believe there was any indication that Trump had put a precondition on a White House meeting and aid to Ukraine in exchange for opening an investigation into his political rivals.
“I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question,” Volker told congressional investigators. “I did not know of any linkage between the hold on security assistance and Ukraine pursuing investigations. No one had ever said that to me — and I never conveyed such a linkage to the Ukrainians.”
So, while Sondland, Morrison, and Volker assert that there was a quid pro quo between Trump and the Ukrainian government, the next question is this: Does this meet the threshold of impeachment and removal from office?
Quid pro quos happen all the time between the U.S. and foreign governments. The key distinction here is whether Trump used this for the national interest, which is an argument that he’s been making, or for more corrupt self interests such as political gain at the expense of his rivals. That will take some time to flesh out.
