Dems are making a mistake using quid pro quo

[Poiuyt]

What should Democrats do? They need to rebrand Trump's alleged transgressions with a term that most Americans don't need to Google to understand -- one with teeth. Bribery. Extortion. Payola. Shakedown. Ransom payment. There are plenty of better ways to say it than quid pro quo.

Personally? I think Democratic talking points should use some variation of "bribery payment" -- given the constitutional, Article II heft that term entails -- to help average Americans more readily connect to the underlying misconduct alleged.

The question should be framed like this: Was there an attempt by Trump to exact a bribery payment from Ukraine? Was Trump holding congressionally appropriated, tax-payer-funded foreign aid hostage? Was he conditioning its release on a public statement from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that his country would open an investigation into Trump's chief political rival?

Characterizing what happened in that infamous July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky as an attempt to extract a "bribery payment" has three advantages: it is a term most American voters will readily recognize as one unbecoming of a US President; from the transcript of the call and evidence from depositions, it appears to be true (though, again, Trump denies that was his intent); and it happens to be one that the framers of the Constitution specifically called out as indicative of impeachable conduct.

Quid pro quo, on the other hand, is an innocuous Latin term that more or less means "tit for tat" -- trading one thing of value for another. It is unfortunate for Democrats that the media has latched on to it as a shorthand for the President's alleged actions. Because aside from its not being mentioned at all in the Constitution, the chief problem with quid pro quo is that the term is highly nuanced.

If a US President demands a quid pro quo for legitimate economic or security concerns, then it's just good foreign policy; if it's for personal or political ends, then the quid pro quo was made with corrupt intent.

more-

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/opinions/quid-pro-quo-wierson/index.html

I've said from the beginning that quid pro quo is too obscure for most people to understand. Use more powerful and effective words to persuade the public and the their opinion of trump will change quickly.

[elleng]

1. Extortion's good, maybe too obscure tho for many.

Bribery.

Shakedown.

[greyl]

2. Arick Wierson needs to watch the news and read a dictionary. Extortion and bribery

are how many Dems are describing it lately.

And "tit for tat" is more about retaliation than trading.

[RockRaven]

3. I think blaming the "quid pro quo" framing on Democrats is wrong.

Trump, Trumpists, Repukes jumped on "no quid pro quo" right away. THEY are the ones responsible for that framing.

Should Democrats use other framing? Yes.

But they weren't the source of the q-p-q framing in the media I was consuming as it was unfolding in real time.

[napi21]

4. The reason the Dems are proving quid pro quo is because DT keeps saying "There was NO QPQ!

He's lying again of course, but first, the De,s & the people who've already testified have proven it, and second, you don't NEED a QPQ to impeach!

[ddr007]

5. I'm waiting

I'm waiting for the Repubs to tell us we can't trust quid pro quo because it's Spanish.

[NCLefty]

6. Why don't they just call it Election Meddling? We all understand that--and why it's wrong.

Unless you're a Republican, of course.

[ecstatic]

7. Rep Swallwell had a good one: defense dollars for dirt

Or something like that.

[kentuck]

8. Absolutely agree!

You have to message where the most common person can understand it.

[Hortensis]

9. Oh, rubbish. The Repubs have become corrupt top to bottom.

And Trump and company have committed major crimes. There's excellent reason to believe they include multiple instances of treason, as in betrayal, benefiting Russia against the United States.

Keep the eyes on the ball.

[Poiuyt]

11. The article was about the fact that "quid pro quo" is not as strong as saying extortion

or bribery. It's about persuading the American public using the most convincing terms in a way that's easy to understand. Quid pro quo is a legal term that doesn't resonate with many people.

[Hortensis]

12. Distraction to quibbling on demand. Just say no.

This is stupid stuff.

Isn't it?

[DeminPennswoods]

10. Pelosi used the word shakedown and I'm hearing

that term used by Dems more frequently now. I also like "nice country you have there, shame if anything happens to it" that was used by Schiff early on.