Politics
Politics Isn’t all foreign help expected to be quid professional quo?
We offer you this help– on the expectation that you will not take any of it for individual use, that you will invest it as we instruct, and on the understanding that if you do not spend the cash as we command, you will not get any more next year.
Democrats want individuals to be alarmed by a Latin expression, however, actually, making foreign aid contingent on habits is really the specifying reason that nations apparently give aid– to affect the habits of the receiving nation.
For example, for our military aid, we demand that it be spent purchasing from the American military-industrial complex. Foreign countries are lawfully bound to use the money we provide to buy weaponries from American producers.
Likewise, we typically require federal government reforms and an end to corruption. Sometimes we have required specific actions, such as when former Vice President Joe Biden required the prosecutor checking out his son’s business be fired.
So, truly, “quid pro quo” appears to be the standard instead of the exception.
The Ex-Im Bank loans money to foreign entities– the quid– and needs that the immigrants purchase American-made items– the quo.
But Democrats opine that Trump made foreign aid (welfare) contingent on examining a potential competitor, that makes the entire quid pro quo exchange somehow an impeachable offense.
But I have actually 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 challenger– Donald Trump.
Do Democrats really believe they can sweep the quid pro quo of Hillary Clinton and Christopher Steele under the carpet and overlook it?
The Senate ought to instantly begin public hearings that parallel the House hearings. The Senate hearings ought to investigate the quid pro quo of Hillary Clinton moving money to a foreign spy in exchange for the Steele dossier.
Hillary Clinton should be forced to address under oath: was there a quid pro quo?
Former CIA head and current Trump-hater John Brennan should be summoned and asked: “Did you get in touch with any foreign spy companies or agents (active or retired) to examine then-candidate Donald Trump?” Was there a quid professional quo?
Previous FBI head and present Trump-hater James Comey should be summoned and asked: “Did the FBI exchange cash with a foreign spy to collect details on candidate Donald Trump?” Existed a quid professional quo?
If Democrats want the American people to believe Donald Trump did something incorrect in asking Ukraine to examine the $50,000 a month that Hunter Biden was receiving, they will initially need to admit that their fearless leader Hillary Clinton in fact did much even worse by paying a foreign spy, Christopher Steele, cash for dirt on Trump.
To convince the American public that their impeachment inquiry is anything other than empty partisanship, the Democrats will also need to confess that the Obama administration ginned up and actively spread the now-discredited Steele file. Democrats will even more 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 devoted “quid professional quo” a lots times in trying to allure President Trump, then, and only then, will American citizens consider their impeachment query anything other than a witch hunt.
Rand Paul is serving his 2nd term in the U.S. Senate, representing the State of Kentucky.
