President Trump had a positive reaction to the public testimony of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, despite the official’s damning testimony earlier Wednesday.
He never said “quid” or “quo” so how could there be a quid pro quo? Trying to make it about the latin phrase, not the behavior itself - this has been Trump’s mindset all along.
The testimony was bad enough that some of the loyal are now looking for a scapegoat. Mayor Rudy is top of the list. I don’t think Rudy is down with that idea, though.
A million bingos. An anonymous mental health professional writing in to “The Atlantic” before the election:
Trump is aware that there are other views of reality than his own. The narcissistic project is to argue, charm, bully the world into accepting his view of reality, including but also going beyond his grandiose view of self. Insisting on this view leads others to mistake his aberrance for lying.
Trump For Some Reason Says Sondland’s Testimony Was A ‘Win’
The reason is easy. Consider that this is the same guy who said that his inauguration crowd was the largest ever in the whole history of the United States in spite of photographic evidence that clearly says it was a pretty meager crowd. He always has to spin everything as a win; his ego simply cannot endure anything else.
This is a president who lies as easily as he breathes. Or in the words of Rep. Jackie Speier, “a five-Pinocchios-a-day president.” It would be shocking only if he didn’t call testimony that was clearly bad for him a “win.”
“So some people have told me that a quid is British money, and since I only ever pay bribes in good old American dollars, there couldn’t possibly have been any quids for quos, or whatever. Case Closed!”
The right wingers on my neighborhood FB page are focusing on the idea that since Trump never told Sondland there was a quid pro quo in those terms, he’s innocent.
The problem, as pointed out by Josh, is that Trump began using the phrase “no quid pro quo” AFTER the whistleblower’s claims were known. This is a legalistic, defensive term. Before he was caught, he’d be saying “there was no deal,” or words to that effect. After getting caught, he talked to advisors, lawyers, etc. who suggested this terminology. Using it was bad advice.
You don’t go to someone you’re negotiating with and say, hey, let’s do a quid pro quo! You say, let’s make a deal, especially this expert on dealing.