Was it in the national interest?

Tuesday morning, before the public impeachment testimony began Steven Inskeep. host of Morning Edition on NPR, spoke to correspondent Michele Kelemen about the evidence so far. In an 11 minute segment they made some important points.

Why are people upset about quid pro quo being part of the phone call between the nasty guy and the Ukraine president? Quid pro quo (Latin for “this for that”) is a standard part of diplomatic negotiation. They bring in Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations who has worked for four presidents going back to Carter.

We hear an archive recording of Joe Biden who talked about a quid pro quo – he held up a payment of a billion dollars of aid to Ukraine unless a certain prosecutor was fired. Haass said yes, that was quid pro quo. “Quid pro Quos are the milk of foreign policy.” They’re normal – and Biden’s example was normal – because they’re linked to major policy goals.

On to the nasty guy. Haass says the distinction is what he was asking for. He wasn’t holding up money in the national interest. He was doing it for personal politics.

Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana tried to make a distinction. Asking for an investigation of a political rival is over the line. Asking for investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival is good.

Haass responded but what the nasty guy did is not in the national interest. The intelligence communities have already shown there is no corruption by the Bidens.

Inskeep concluded:

So here is another way to phrase the decision facing lawmakers - do they think the president asked for investigations in the national interest or his own?