|
|
|
|
|
|
by HardlyCurious
1032 days ago
|
|
|
The corruption is just as obvious as the denials. He bragged about leveraging foreign aid to get the lead investigator fired as part of an effort to fight corruption in the Ukraine. Think about. If your trying to fight corruption, and you have evidence this lead investigator is corrupt, couldn't you just present that evidence to get them fired? Unless of course the corruption goes higher. In which case, the futility of the action is obvious. The defense doesn't make sense on the merits. The investigator who got fired claims it was because of who he was going after. I don't know if he is honest or corrupt, but I do know that Ukraine claims he wasn't fired or pressured to resign but rather resigned on his own. So someone can't get their story straight. Media outlets who went out of their way to say there was nothing wrong here all pretty much acknowledged that it at least 'looks bad' |
|
|
Corrupt people (whether the corrupt official or the people corrupting them or both) often have political leverage to make that technique ineffective; that’s rather the point of political corruption.
Using aid as leverage to get other states to act in ways that local corruption would otherwise make politically unviable is neither novel nor evidence of corruption on the part of a US Administration.
In fact, its long been a foundational element of US policy in a number of areas where corruption is viewed as a wide danger.