Senator Rand Paul wrote an oped at Breitbart this week that slays the Democrat argument for impeachment based on an alleged Trump “quid pro quo” agreement with Ukraine.
‘
Despite the fact that it never happened and the Ukrainian officials said it never happened, Rand Paul explains that if President Trump pushed for a quid pro quo that this is not only legal but is common in US aid agreements.
‘
Despite the fact that it never happened and the Ukrainian officials said it never happened, Rand Paul explains that if President Trump pushed for a quid pro quo that this is not only legal but is common in US aid agreements.
And then Rand Paul spells out all of the truly lawless quid pro quo deals between Democrats and foreign players.
Via Breitbart:
Isn’t all foreign aid supposed to be quid pro quo?
We give you this aid — on the expectation that you will not steal any of it for personal use, that you will spend it as we instruct, and on the understanding that if you don’t spend the money as we command, you won’t get any more next year.
Democrats want people to be alarmed by a Latin phrase, but, really, making foreign aid contingent on behavior is actually the defining reason that countries supposedly give aid — to influence the behavior of the receiving country.
For example, for our military aid, we demand that it be spent buying from the American military-industrial complex. Foreign countries are legally bound to use the money we give them to buy armaments from American manufacturers.
Likewise, we often demand government reforms and an end to corruption. Sometimes we have demanded specific actions, such as when former Vice President Joe Biden demanded the prosecutor looking into his son’s company be fired.
So, really, “quid pro quo” seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
The Ex-Im Bank loans money to foreign entities — the quid — and demands that the foreigners buy American-made goods — the quo.
But Democrats opine that Trump made foreign aid (welfare) contingent on investigating a potential rival, which makes the whole quid pro quo exchange somehow an impeachable offense.
But I’ve yet to hear Democrats complain about the money (quid) that Hillary Clinton paid foreign spy Christopher Steele to get dirt (the quo) on her political opponent — Donald Trump.
Do Democrats really believe they can sweep the quid pro quo of Hillary Clinton and Christopher Steele under the rug and ignore it?
The Senate should immediately commence public hearings that parallel the House hearings. The Senate hearings should investigate the quid pro quo of Hillary Clinton transferring money to a foreign spy in exchange for the Steele dossier.
Hillary Clinton should be compelled to answer under oath: was there a quid pro quo?
Former CIA head and current Trump-hater John Brennan should be summoned and asked: “Did you contact any foreign spy agencies or agents (active or retired) to investigate then-candidate Donald Trump?” Was there a quid pro quo?
Former FBI head and current Trump-hater James Comey should be summoned and asked: “Did the FBI exchange money with a foreign spy to collect information on candidate Donald Trump?” Was there a quid pro quo?
If Democrats want the American people to believe Donald Trump did something wrong in asking Ukraine to investigate the $50,000 a month that Hunter Biden was receiving, they will first have to admit that their fearless leader Hillary Clinton actually did much worse by paying a foreign spy, Christopher Steele, money for dirt on Trump.
To convince the American public that their impeachment inquiry is anything other than empty partisanship, the Democrats will also have to admit that the Obama administration ginned up and purposefully spread the now-discredited Steele dossier. Democrats will further have to admit that Robert Mueller’s $35 million investigation found the Steele dossier to be pure fiction.
When the Democrats admit that they have committed “quid pro quo” a dozen times in trying to entrap President Trump, then, and only then, will American voters consider their impeachment inquiry anything other than a witch hunt.
No comments:
Post a Comment