The quid was proposed

No quid for the foes

While the quo still reposed

The whistler blowsed

The quid finally disclosed

Deployed against foes

Quid pro quo

Case closed.

Now that we know the military aid to the Ukraine was unofficially suspended before July 25, officially on the 26th, and restored the same day (September 15) as the Whistleblower complaint was known in the White House, there can no longer be any doubt that the military aid was contingent on President Zelinsky’s cooperation in the Biden investigation.  Further that, without the public awareness of that complaint, the military aid might yet be withheld from that tottering nation defending its eastern border from Russian-backed troops.

Therefore . . . quid pro quo . . . there was an actual demand to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden, the board member of the Ukraine energy company Burisma, to suggest corruption and smear his father Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate most on Donald Trump’s radar.

You can re-cast this narrative all you want: It’s a deep state conspiracy; It’s a subversion of the electoral process; It’s a case constructed on hearsay.  You can not deny that the events corroborated by multiple State Department officials follow a linear path from idea to execution to reversing the execution.  The most likely interpretation is quid pro quo,  weapons for investigation, unless you wildly spin the facts or choose to release the witnesses with-first hand knowledge to testify.

You can not start with the score, then play the game to see how to arrive at the same score. You play to discover the outcome. Admittedly the lead investigators are proposing the winners beforehand, but they are playing the game to arrive at an uncertain outcome. They have to make their case to win the game. No one is handing it to them. If everyone played with the same sense of uncertainty, we would have a meaningful struggle.

So let’s trace the events of the plan to deny military aid to the denial of the aid to the restoration of aid and see what motivations existed to explain this train of events.  The simplest explanation is: quid pro quo. You want the military aid, investigate my campaign opponent’s son. OK you can have the aid; the public exposure is interfering with my “quo.”

Quid pro quo.

So?