white house communications director jen psaki and jeffrey toobin. what do you make of congressman himes saying a quid pro quo isn t the be all end all here? ultimately that s a judgment for congress. they re the ones who define what an impeachable offense is. it s worth noting that colonel vindman was so outraged by the president s conduct before he knew about whether there was a quid pro quo at all, he went to his superiors to express his concerns about that phone call, saying only that the president is asking a leader of a foreign country for political favors. that s all he was concerned about. that s not a quid pro quo. but it is a very disturbing thing. it was to him. and it may be to congress as well. so, the issue of quid pro quo is one that, you know, has evolved from the evidence.
statement means for impeachment inquiry? everybody knows we ve been spending days and hois and hours and hours, oftentimes without lunch, deposing witnesses. and i frankly couldn t help but come away from yesterday s development with the thought that maybe we just need to shove a few of these guys out in public and stick a microphone in front of their face and they ll do the work for us. this is the same old pattern of the trump administration, deny, deny, and when that doesn t hold up, then say we did it but it s okay in an attempt to normalize it. okay, the other thing that is important to reinforce, that geoff mentioned, and i think we can t say this often enough, the quid pro quo isn t necessary for there to have been a crime committed. the very solicitation, very act of solicitation of president zelensky to involve himself in the 2020 presidential election on behalf of president trump, was itself a violation of law. as you well know, first hand,
can we just declare that the quid pro quo is frankly as obvious as the nose on your face, it s obvious on the president s words after discussing the sail of javelin missile, i would like a favor from you, though, it s clear. and ambassador taylor s remarks that it s crazy to withhold security assistance for help in a political campaign. the quid pro quo is right there on the table staring us all in the face in their words. but here s the deal, chris, a quid pro quo isn t necessary for it to be a violation of federal law and we shouldn t fall into the trap of that debate as obvious as it is. soliciting assistance from a foreign government is violation of the federal law, full stop. furthermore it is conspiracy to engage in that activity subject to proceedings, conspiracy to cover it up to obstruct justice is subject to criminal activity. we don t even have to get to the fact that this is in fact a quid
obvious as the nose on your face, it s obvious on the president s words after discussing the sail of javelin missile, i would like a favor from you, though, it s clear. and ambassador taylor s remarks that it s crazy to with hold security assistance for help in a political campaign. the quid pro quo is right there on the table staring us all in the face in their words. but here s the deal, chris, a quid pro quo isn t necessary for it to be a violation of federal law and we shouldn t fall into the trap of that debate as obvious as it is. soliciting assistance from a foreign government is violation of the federal law, full stop. furthermore it is conspiracy to engage in that activity subject to proceedings, conspiracy to cover it up to obstruct justice is subject to criminal activity. we don t even have to get to the fact that this is in fact a quid pro quo. so there was news today about there actually being a criminal
offense, but if you have sequencing, like a couple of days before the president withdrew the bipartisan support for ukraine. bipartisan enthusiastic support for ukraine a few days earlier, he withdraws it, then makes this statement, president s words way tons. weigh tons. and just bringing up the election is bad enough. that there would be a quid pro quo isn t necessarily in the conversation, but in the sequencing. so this is not a good thing for a democracy, for the leader of the free world to be talking like that, and i don t even know if there are any scruples involved. that s why i say they think lawlessness is a virtue and now want to exploit it to another country. if i may, sounds as if you believe this is a very, very serious offense? now, let s just put it this