Nov 24, 2019 3 min read

I abhor personal attacks on social media and in newspapers’ letters to the editor. I intend none toward contributor Bill Wilson, but serious points of order must be given as a counterpoint to his Nov. 13 letter. The tactic of quid pro quo is, indeed, a useful negotiating tool that governments, businesses, and even husbands and wives use to reach a compromise.

The extremely serious issue of President Trump’s usage of quid pro quo in his dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy smacks of self service, and does not in any way benefit the U.S. government or the people of Ukraine. It is abundantly clear that Trump was leveraging Zelenskiy in the endeavor of devising a political advantage over Joe Biden, since Biden has been seen as Trump’s most promising challenger in the 2020 election. Any attempt to encourage a foreign government to interfere in our election is deleterious to our democracy and prohibited by federal law.

Furthermore, a second component of Trump’s leveraging of Zelenskiy was for the Ukrainian president to initiate some far-fetched investigation that would exonerate the Russians from their dastardly interference in the 2016 election. This has been abundantly certified by our own intelligence services, without a doubt. One can speculate, with a high degree of certainty, that this component of Trump’s demands was by design to please Russian President Vladimir Putin, who appears to hold a bizarre sway over Trump. Perhaps the worst element of the entire matter was that freezing military aid due to the Ukrainian military for their defense of their homeland from Putin’s invasion nearly came to a disaster for them since the timeline for aid distribution nearly expired. Think, if you would, how beneficial that would be for Putin’s forces in their illegal invasion of another country’s sovereignty! It is quite apparent that this horrific consequence of Trump’s demands was of no importance to him.

Trump’s quid pro quo was no garden variety negotiation tactic. For his own self-serving interests of hoping to gain an advantage over a political challenger, Trump was willing to risk military disaster for the Ukrainians, and also invite illegal election interference into our democratic election process. Is this really how our president should conduct the nation’s business, foreign or domestic?

It most certainly is not! It is crystal clear that his conduct is an abuse of the power of the president’s office. What other conclusion can possibly be made? Nothing here is “laughable,” as Wilson stated, but is of the most serious nature we Americans have ever witnessed a commander-in-chief to commit. The snide comment of “Get over it!” made by Acting National Security Adviser Mick Mulvaney, further certifies how cavalier the Trump administration is to the rule of law.

Ronald J. Yamka

Canonsburg