The term quid pro quo has a meaning embellished by legal precedent and opinion. Some of our media has tried to translate the term in the most simplistic manner as meaning “this for that.” But the Latin implies more. Quid is an interrogative that explicitly asks for something. Quo refers to something else. And the pro means “for,” sharing the same derivative as our English “prior.” In plain English, this Latin phrase means that something requested cannot/will not be granted before something else is provided.

Why do I risk boring you with my meagre linguistic skills? In this case, I am trying to point out that the underlying meaning of quid pro quo implies a question or request. But if a positive response is deliberately withheld as an inducement for something else, then this deal becomes the very definition of a bribe. Interestingly, a “bribe” in Middle English refers to something stolen. Again, in plain English, our President offered a bribe—using tax funded money authorized by Congress for foreign aid—in order to induce a favor from the Ukrainian President. Now you may argue that the $400 million was already authorized by Congress and therefore cannot be characterized as stolen. The President, however, employed taxpayer money as if it were his to employ for banal political purposes. Moreover, he usurped Congress’ intent for his own criminal benefit. And he attempted to make the Ukrainian President a co-conspirator in bribery. The analogy here would be the wayward offspring who steals money from his mother’s purse to buy candy. In this case, it is America’s budget rather than the family budget that is ransacked.

Finally, the President further pressured the Ukrainian President through a variety of means, by phone, in person, and via surrogates. When an official engages in this kind of coercion, it is called extortion. Naturally, I cannot restrain from providing you with the Latin root for the word, “extortion,” namely ex, “out of” and torquere, “to twist.” The latter is also the root for the word “torture.” If you watched the joint press conference between the two Presidents, you may have noticed the tortured look on Zelensky’s face when the President urged him to settle with Vladimir Putin.

While Ukraine is facing an existential threat and burying soldiers and civilians on the field of battle, our President is victimizing it by his strategy of bribery and extortion for political purposes. Whereas two American Presidents have been impeached in the past 231 years, neither were prosecuted in a court of law. This impeachment inquiry is different in substance and without historical precedent. Without the shield of the Presidency, Donald Trump may face prosecution not only for bribery and extortion but also for obstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller report.

The next phase in the House’s impeachment inquiry involves open hearings. Keep in mind the core issues. You will hear various political arguments about whether there was an “abuse of power” or “an impeachable offence.” But the operative issue is the Constitutional directive that a President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (quoted from the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4). Bribery is clearly stated therein, and extortion can be implied as a “high” crime.