On October 22nd, William Taylor, the top US ambassador to Ukraine, testified in the House impeachment inquiry. According to Taylor, Trump demanded Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to publicly announce two investigations -- one into alleged meddling into the 2016 election and the other into an energy company that hired Joe Biden’s son -- in order to get the military aid and U.S. meetings Zelensky wanted. The testimony was so damaging that Republicans stormed into the private room in the Capital where the impeachment inquiry is being conducted. The republicans that stormed the room deemed the inquiry a “sham” and said that it should be conducted in public. However, there are republicans in the three House committees, and this is just a preliminary part of the impeachment process, intended to prevent the witnesses from coordinating their testimonies, make sure the witnesses don’t change their stories later on, and check if there is a basis in the whistleblower’s claims.
Read the full story here.
Do you think there was a quid pro quo (a favor expected in return for something else)? Do you think Trump should be impeached if there was? Why or why not?
- Donald Trump definitely demanded a quid pro quo (since he was only going to give military aid if Zelensky did something in return), and for his own personal gain, which is very concerning. Instead of focusing on what is best for the nation, he’s focusing on how to win the next election by using blackmail. I do think that Trump should be impeached for it, but it’s kind of late in his term, and his impeachment also means that Mike Pence would become president, so I’m not sure the impeachment is what’s best.
What is your opinion on the Republicans invading the private inquiry?
- Considering that there are republicans on the House committees conducting the inquiry and that the impeachment process will go public when the preliminaries are done, I think the invasion was dumb and only delayed the impeachment process.
Replies
Good summary and good topic. I think this required knowledge of students to be able to reply with an informed answer which is why no one replied. I personally like the story and in college, it would have gotten many replies.
Its hard to sat if their was or nor the ambassodor said their was no quid pro quo so why whould he say different.vI think its not a big deal but they might get in trouble for it even though it is a tough spot.