Omar Bennett
The Latin phrase quid pro quo, meaning this for that, has become a common term in the federal legal lexicon, widely used in politics and business. It describes a situation in which two parties agree to exchange goods or services of equal value. While it is not specifically mentioned in federal law, it is often associated with bribery, which is an impeachable offence in the Constitution. Quid pro quo agreements can be legal or illegal, depending on the context and the specific laws being applied.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Meaning | "This for that" |
| Legal status | Not a federal law |
| Impeachment | Can be grounds for impeachment |
| Bribery | Requires proof of quid pro quo |
| Corruption | Lies at the core of controversies concerning corruption |
| Extortion | Can be used to describe extortion |
| Conspiracy | Can be used to describe conspiracy |
| Campaign finance law violations | Can be used to describe campaign finance law violations |
| Hush money payments | Can be used to describe hush money payments |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Bribery is a ground for impeachment
The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". The Constitution limits the grounds of impeachment to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, but does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Bribery is defined under federal law as the "specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act". This was evident in the call between former President Trump and Zelensky, which Mulvaney publicly confirmed. When asked whether a "demand for an investigation into the Democrats" was part of the reason that Trump wanted to withhold aid from Ukraine, Mulvaney said, "The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate." When pressed on whether this was a "quid pro quo", he responded, "We do that all the time with foreign policy."
The House of Representatives brings articles (charges) of impeachment against an official. If the House adopts the articles by a simple majority vote, the official has been impeached. The Senate holds an impeachment trial. In the case of a president, the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice presides. If found guilty, the official is removed from office and may be disqualified from holding public offices in the future. They may never be able to hold elected office again. If they are not found guilty, they may continue to serve in office.
In the case of former President Trump, the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, did not support impeaching him and instead passed a law authorizing the DOJ to indict sitting presidents. However, this did not change the Justice Department's claim that indicting a sitting president would violate the constitutional separation of powers.
Travel Ban: Constitutional Clause or Government Overreach?
You may want to see also
Quid Pro Quo and campaign finance law violations
The phrase "quid pro quo", which translates to "this for that" in Latin, has no force in federal law. However, it has been a topic of discussion in relation to former US President Donald Trump's alleged impeachable crimes. These include campaign finance law violations, bribery, extortion, and conspiracy against the United States.
In the context of campaign finance, quid pro quo refers to an unlawful exchange between a public official and a private citizen, where campaign donations or expenditures are provided or promised by one party, and specific official actions are promised in return by the other. In the United States, campaign funding is a primary tool used by lobbyists to promote the interests of their clients. While political contributions are protected by the First Amendment, corruption prosecutions involving political contributions must prove more than a chronological connection between the contributions and official conduct.
In the case of former New York Lieutenant Governor Benjamin, he was charged with bribery in the form of campaign contributions. However, the charges were dismissed as the government failed to prove an explicit quid pro quo agreement, and the facts of the indictment did not establish criminal liability.
The Supreme Court has stated that campaign finance regulations are unconstitutional unless they target "quid pro quo" corruption or its appearance. This has been a point of contention, with critics arguing that the Court's decisions have encouraged the creation of political advertisements that circumvent campaign finance laws.
In summary, while the phrase "quid pro quo" itself carries limited legal weight, it is often associated with discussions of campaign finance law violations and corruption, particularly in the context of unlawful exchanges or agreements between public officials and private citizens.
The Constitution: Federal Government's Foundation?
You may want to see also
Extortion and conspiracy against the US
The Latin phrase "quid pro quo", meaning "this for that", has no force in federal law. However, it has been used to describe several potentially impeachable offences committed by former US President Donald Trump. These include extortion, conspiracy against the US, and bribery.
Trump was accused of withholding millions of dollars in military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country into announcing an investigation into his Democratic rival, Joe Biden. This was described by Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, as an abuse of power to "coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations for his personal benefit by freezing military aid".
In addition, Trump was accused of attempting to coerce New York State into dropping lawsuits against him by blocking New Yorkers from programmes that allow travellers to avoid long security lines at the US border. This was described by Walter Shaub, a former director of the US Office of Government Ethics, as "quid pro quo extortion".
Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates also pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States. By bringing in Rudy Giuliani and his associates to aid in the commission of these crimes, Trump opened himself up to a conspiracy charge.
Furthermore, there have been investigations into possible Trump crimes related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal before the 2016 election. While no criminal charges were filed, Trump was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the guilty plea of his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
In terms of the legal framework, the Hobbs Act has been applied to public corruption scenarios that lack evidence of "extortionate" duress. Some courts have interpreted the Act to require proof of a quid pro quo relationship between private and public parties, even when the payment benefits the public official personally. The Act has also been applied to cases where there is no evidence of extortion or duress but proof of a quid pro quo agreement exists.
In conclusion, while "quid pro quo" is not a legal term, it has been used to describe several potentially illegal actions by former President Trump, including extortion and conspiracy against the US. These actions have been the subject of investigations, impeachment inquiries, and criminal charges.
Understanding Part-Time Status at Grossmont College
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Trump's dealings with El Salvador
The Latin phrase "quid pro quo", meaning "this for that", has no force in federal law. However, it has been used to describe several of former President Trump's dealings, both in connection with Ukraine and El Salvador.
In the case of El Salvador, the Trump administration's agreement with the country has been described as a "quid pro quo". In return for signing onto a safe third country agreement with the United States, designed to curb illegal migration, El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, secured another year of temporary protected status (TPS) for his countrymen in the US. This was despite President Trump's efforts to terminate TPS for Salvadorans. The agreement has been criticised for its similarities to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, in which Republicans gave in to a massive amnesty in return for promised future enforcement that never materialised.
The Trump administration has also been accused of making a "quid pro quo" agreement with El Salvador regarding the imprisonment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father and El Salvadoran national. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and imprisoned in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) despite never being charged with or convicted of being in a gang. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return, but the administration has failed to comply. Internal memos from El Salvador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs state that the country will house these individuals for one year, pending the United States' decision on their long-term disposition, indicating that the US is in control of what happens to those sent there. However, the Trump administration has refused to disclose the details of the agreement, claiming it is classified.
Legislative Branch: Constitutional Foundation of US Lawmaking
You may want to see also
UkraineGate and illegal solicitation
The Trump–Ukraine scandal, also known as UkraineGate, involves allegations that US President Donald Trump solicited foreign electoral intervention from Ukraine in the 2020 US election. In a phone call with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump discussed former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. This led critics to question whether Trump was courting illegal solicitation of foreign help in the upcoming 2020 presidential election.
The scandal came to light in mid-September 2019 due to a whistleblower complaint filed in August. The complaint raised concerns about Trump allegedly using his powers to solicit foreign electoral intervention. Courtney Simmons Elwood, general counsel for the CIA, made a criminal referral regarding the matter, suspecting that Trump's request to investigate a political opponent constituted the solicitation of a campaign contribution from a foreign government, which would be illegal.
Trump's Ukraine call also raised questions about possible violations of campaign finance laws, which prohibit soliciting foreign contributions. Under federal law, campaigns are barred from accepting or soliciting anything of value from foreign nationals or governments in connection with an election. The investigation into the Trump–Ukraine scandal revealed that Trump, through his personal attorney Michael Cohen, made hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal before the 2016 election. While Trump was not charged, he was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen's guilty plea.
In addition to the Ukraine scandal, Trump and his associates have been accused of soliciting illegal help from other countries. Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated the Trump campaign for possible illegal solicitation of contributions from Russian intelligence during the 2016 election. Mueller probed a meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, where "dirt" on Hillary Clinton was offered. While Mueller declined to prosecute, he concluded that there were reasonable arguments that the offered opposition research constituted a "thing of value" under the law.
The solicitation of foreign help in elections is a serious matter that undermines the integrity of American democracy. Whether characterized as "quid pro quo" or not, these actions have led to impeachment inquiries and investigations into potential crimes committed by President Trump and his administration.
The Constitution's Six Essential Components, Ordered
You may want to see also
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
