It's About Time!

Last week Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi interjected the word “bribery” into the impeachment process.  It’s about time!*   The holdup is a little bit puzzling, however, since President Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky is a textbook case of bribery. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell University defines bribery as

the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition actually includes among the “items of value” the word “favor,” exactly the word President Trump himself used to pressure President Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden.

It cannot be much clearer.

There are good reasons for calling it bribery:

• Bribery is one of the two specific impeachable offenses (the other being treason) mentioned in the Constitution.  The third impeachable offense, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is vague and highly subject to interpretation. There is little doubt, however, about the meaning of bribery or that what President Trump allegedly offered was a bribe.
• Up until now, the Latin term quid pro quo has been used instead of bribery.  (My last post used the term ten different times.)  “Bribery, however, substitutes a clear English word for an obscure Latin phrase unfamiliar to most people (at least before the current hearings).  The use of the phrase quid pro quo, therefore, fails to elicit either recognition or the outrage appropriate to the President’s action.

Some, such as Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, have tried to rationalize President Trump’s behavior, saying at a press conference that it's nothing new.  "I have news for everybody,” he said.  “Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.” But these deals between two countries involve what each negotiator believes to be in the best interest of their country.  Such deals do not involve a government officer exchanging a government resource or action for his own personal goals. 

Some have suggested that it wasn’t really a bribe because the President didn’t, in fact, get anything in return.  The definition above, however, includes the word “offering."  Even an unsuIt's About Time!ccessful bribe is still a bribe.  Whether or not he got anything in return, the President offered a White House visit and/or the resumption of military aid in order to influence President Zelensky to investigate the Vice-President.  It's important note, too, the Republicans seemed to have given up on this defense, presumably because it wouldn't hold up under scrutiny.  The President’s actions were bribery. 

The only defenses left are to attack the integrity of the many witnesses (almost all of whom have stellar reputations of service and loyalty) or, à la Mick Mulvaney, say it doesn't matter.

President Trump’s bribery clearly violates the 2nd Article of the Constitution.  It past time somebody said it clearly.
____________
* I want to point out that in my November 13 post (a full week before Speaker Pelosi), I wrote that “quid pro quo” is just a fancy way of saying “bribery.”  Remember, you heard it here first. :)