Last week, the House Judiciary Committee hosted four (4) witnesses to provide expert ‘testimony’ concerning Constitutional law and their opinion concerning the legal implications of the President’s Ukrainian Call conduct. It was an unmitigated disaster for Democrats. Remarkably, during that eight (8) hour session, no one asked about and none of the four (4) testified to: the Constitution’s law enforcement mandate imposed on the Executive branch; construction and application of the statutory law … like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Foreign Assistance Act … as a measure of the President’s conduct; and relevant international law … more particularly the treaty between the United States and Ukraine titled “Mutual Legal Assistance” ... in furtherance of a full and balanced discussion about the President’s actions in the context of his actual legal duties and responsibilities. It is all at once fair, reasonable and appropriate to discuss the President’s corruption concerns. But, that can't, won't and hasn't happened.
It is dismissive to suggest that he is being disingenuous on this point. Ukrainian corruption is legendary and would necessarily have been part of his national security and diplomatic briefings. The only thing that is clear is that no one inside the beltway is interested in an honest or complete discussion concerning the symbiotic relationship between US aid and corruption ... foreign or domestic. The American Economic Review conducted a study that concluded that “increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption,” and that “corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States.” It was in 2002 that President George W. Bush (“GWB”) initiated the Millennium Challenge Account ("MCA"). It was GWB that said “I think it makes no sense to give aid, money, to countries that are corrupt.” But that sentiment is difficult to reconcile with the Bush administration’s behavior delivering billions of dollars in aid to some of the world’s most corrupt regimes. At a 2010 appearance at the United Nations, it was President Barack Obama who proclaimed that America was “leading a global effort to combat corruption.” Obama’s “aides said the United States in the past has often seemed to just throw money at problems,” the Los Angeles Times reported. But the lie was exposed in 2011 when the Administration opposed Congressional efforts to stop dispensing wasteful aid through its diplomatic phone smashing email deleting mouthpiece Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who warned that restricting handouts to nations that fail anti-corruption tests “has the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients.” Understand, it is the payment of this aid that has created kleptocracies and lined the pockets of a brazen international thievery. Consequently, the Obama administration continued pouring billions of our tax dollars into corrupt countries.
But, I suspect that it isn’t just foreign actors who are enriched by this rampant graft at our expense. The appearance of a foreign aid money laundering seems to provide a plausible explanation for the Capital Hill Millionaire phenomenon. You know what I’m talking about. Become a public servant and see your net worth explode by forty times or more. I imagine that in some of these countries there are crates of politician authored biographies stacked in warehouses purchased and leased (respectively) with American foreign aid. It would be interesting to conduct a forensic analysis of Clinton Foundation contributions from foreign aid recipients. But, who among us is actually brave enough to do it?
The Buyden Burisma bright blindness of the Democrats, federal law enforcement bureaucrats and legacy media is sufficient confirmation for me that the President is on the right track. It certainly explains the virulently implosive response inside the beltway.
Doesn't it?