A Livelihood of Quid Pro Quo

The hate-driven impeachment sham of President Donald Trump officially began last week.

Four-hundred thirty five members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and a few on the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Adam Schiff, decided in advance which witnesses were going to be allowed to testify and who was going to be allowed to ask what questions to those testifying. It was an interesting variation on the rules and parameters for an impeachment because there is no Constitutional due-process like they are trying to portray. It is collusion with dubious individuals organized through Adam Schiff and followed by a series lies to America with only one side of the story being allowed to surface. However, it’s not a surprising development from those frequently associated with factual misrepresentation.

The national media has been salivating onto their shoe tops for months waiting for this process to get underway. With the Trump-Russia ruse now debunked, they want ever so badly to report that the quid pro quo from Trump during his July conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has resulted in Trump’s impeachment.

Let’s look at that term, QUID PRO QUO.

Dictionary.com’s describes it as something that is given or taken in return for something else. Merriam-Webster.com describes it as something given or received for something else. Synonyms for quid pro quo include back-and-forth, barter, commutation, dicker, exchange, swap, trade.

Some members of Congress accuse Trump of being out of bounds with a veiled implication that some US financial assistance depended on Zelensky verifying some extremely compromising information on former Vice-President Joe Biden.

Validity of the claims aside, the irony of such accusations by democrats in that body is beyond self-incrimination.

We are talking about a group of men and women who engage in a constant series of arrangements and agreements for their districts where favors and reciprocation aren’t just implied. They are boldly agreed to up front, setting the players up for easier reelection.

That is when they are theoretically doing something in Washington DC for which taxpayers are paying them, and not chasing personal vendettas.

The entire existence in that legislative body is a quid pro quo.

“I’ll agree to support you with funding on this project that benefits your district if you’ll include this $10 million line item in next week’s emergency appropriations bill.”

You know the routine.

Yet we really don’t know the background of the proposals. They are often years in the making, highly nuanced, with numerous layers and veins reaching in many directions. We don’t know whose daughter-in-law, supporter, neighborhood, or non-profit organization that funding will benefit in the long run.

However, they don’t care. It’s taxpayer money going to this district in exchange for a return favor when my district needs something important. The favor may or may not indirectly benefit a friend, relative, or the former educational institution of the son-in-law of a contributor. It’s essentially, “I want this from you in exchange for my vote.” It’s playing fast and loose with other peoples’ money on projects and earmarks that may have zero relevancy to the bill being considered. It’s non-stop insanity with legalized variations of bribery, extortion, and money-laundering.

Yet, we are supposed to be concerned that the President was asking questions about interference and blackmail against the Ukraine by a very high-ranking US official.

This all really smells like a load of Schiff.