That's the starting point. Watch from there.
Here is what Mulvaney said beginning at the 1:00 mark:
MR. MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.Mulvaney is 100% correct here. It is appropriate to worry about election corruption. And again, there is no quid pro quo. Because if you really believe a threat to cut off funding is synonymous with an exchange of value between two parties, then Obama should be under the jail for threatening to cut off federal funding to the State of North Carolina simply because that State decided that women's restrooms were for women's use while men's restrooms were for women's use.
But since you seem confused, here is the legal definition:
quid pro quo: something given or received for something elsehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quid%20pro%20quoSo I must ask, what is it that was given to Ukraine, and what was received in return in exchange for that gift? Inquiring minds want to know. Because Mulvaney never mentioned, much less addressed a question about such an exchange. The aid money was already appropriated long before the corruption question came up. And the conversation with Trump was about a future sale - not current aid.
Like I said before, the members of this forum are able to think critically and apply reason and logic to their thinking processes. We don't simply repeat some news account as if it were based in fact. You will be pressed for evidence to back up your claim and make your case. And so far, you have proven completely lacking in that endeavor.