11-22-2019, 07:19 PM
(11-22-2019, 03:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't get the confusion here. A "quid pro quo" IS normal. No one would like to give out aid no questions asked. Aid is given out for a certain purpose that often also serves the interest of the donor. Like Ukraine buying defense weapons to stop Russian expansion. Or say middle american countries increasing opportunities with the aid given, hence reducing migration. Or whatever reason.
So, when Ukraine gets aid, the US (and Europe, that unlike Trump's claims gives waay more than the US) expects that money to be used to oppose Russia. For our benefit as well as theirs. That is a kind of quid pro quo that is normal, and conditions connected to handing out that aid are also normal.
It is wrong to use aid for personal/political gains though. Like what Trump did, that was wrong and not within the realms of a "normal", logical and understandable situation one might also call a quid pro quo, where a donor nation wants to see the money spent in a way that serves their national interest.
What is wrong about that statement?
Er, no one is disputing any of those points.
Breech was responding to SSF's continued claim that he explicitly condemned Trump's QPQ in post #251:
The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically. Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal. The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
