Streetwise Professor

In his Monty MacArthur speech, the Big Oaf Formerly Known As President of Ukraine said this:

By the way, everyone knows how the U.S. government intends to allocate one billion dollars to this gangster regime. As far as I know, Article 84 22, Chapter 22, USC of US law prohibits the provision of financial assistance to the government of any state with an illegally elected president or where a legitimately elected president was deposed in a military coup or by any other illegal decision.

The Big Oaf’s masters-the Russian government-agrees:

“By all criteria, issuing funding to an illegitimate regime that seized power by force is unlawful and goes beyond the framework of the American legal system.”

The Oaf was apparently referring to 22 USC 8422, which relates to-wait for it-aid to Pakistan.  Like virtually every foreign aid appropriation since 1985, this prevents the State and Defense Departments from distributing aid to military governments that have taken power as a result of a coup d’etat.   If The Oaf’s research assistants had been more diligent they would have found the relevant language from Section 7008 of the FY2013 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which states:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to titles III through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d’etat or decree or, after the date of enactment of this Act, a coup d’etat or decree in which the military plays a decisive role:

Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such government if the President determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office:

Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to assistance to promote democratic elections or public participation in democratic processes:

Provided further, That funds made available pursuant to the previous provisos shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

Note that the language is very specific: “duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d’etat or decree or, after the date of enactment of this Act, a coup d’etat or decree in which the military plays a decisive role.”  Nothing of the sort happened in Ukraine.  The military stayed in its barracks.  Indeed, it is clearly the case that the failure of the military to intervene on Yanukovych’s behalf is what doomed him.

There was no military coup in Ukraine.  Period.  There is no military government in Ukraine.  Period.  Hell, sad to say, there’s hardly even a military.

Note how The Oaf reads into the law language that just ain’t there: he claims that a government formed “by any other illegal decision” is also ineligible for aid.  (The Kremlin and its flacks, including those on RT, also read in language that isn’t there.)

No.  The language is quite specific: “deposed by military coup d’etat or decree.”  There is nothing more, and certainly nothing about “any other illegal decision.”

Yanukovych was not deposed by military coup d’etat or decree.  Ergo, providing financial assistance breaks no law.

End of story.

Note too that 7008 permits the president to provide financial aid by affirming that a democratically elected government is in place (which is true in Ukraine), and to provide aid to support elections (which are forthcoming in Ukraine in May).

Arguably US law was broken when military aid was provided to the military government in Egypt that overthrew Morsi.  But there is no doubt whatsoever that US financial assistance to Ukraine would not contravene the letter or spirit of US law.

In other words, add this to the steaming, stinking pile of Putin lies.

And please direct some extra scorn at anyone (like Alex Jones, Paulians, and other assorted loons) who wafts the stench of Kremlin ordure.

When it comes to legal opinions, you are much better advised to get it from Lionel Hutz than Yanukovych and his Kremlin scriptwriters.  But hey, there is something of a resemblance.