It's true that the Latin words quid pro quo don't appear in the House's articles of impeachment against President Trump, but the White House's argument that they aren't in there because the allegations "didn't exist," is a bit of a stretch.
President Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow made that case on Wednesday, claiming the articles don't contain any accusations of a quid pro quo. The White House subsequently promoted the comment via Twitter.
"Adam Schiff today talked about quid pro quo.
Notice what's not in the articles of impeachment: allegations or accusations of quid pro quo.
That's because they didn't exist." pic.twitter.com/RbbZS9nQ0u
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 22, 2020
But the Trump administration is probably taking things a little too literally. When looking at the language in the article accusing Trump of abusing his power, the House pretty clearly summed up what amounts to an allegation of a quid pro quo — they just used other, English words to describe Trump's interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The Abuse of Power article alleges that Trump conditioned "official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine" on Ukraine announcing investigations that would give him "personal political benefit." That is, plainly, an accusation of a quid pro quo.
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 22, 2020
More stories from theweek.com
Democrats walked right into Mitch McConnell's trap
Watch highlights from Day 3 of Trump's impeachment trial, in which Democrats argue abuse of power
GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn questions patriotism of Purple Heart recipient Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman