Has any other president withheld aid to another country before?

a reply to: operation mindcrime

That's like saying your favorite boxer is winning although he keeps hitting his opponent below the belt.

There's nuance to that one though, and it's hard for me to blame Republicans and or Trump supporters.

The left paid for foreign opponent research and used it disingenuously in our own court system. So I can empathize why they don't care about this circumstance with Trump when it's really just a similar tactic they used on him.

Personally, I think both sides are barely different enough for their supporters to distinguish their side... But for most independents/moderates, it's giant douche and turd sandwich. The left cries foul when Trump is using a rebranding of their tactics, and the right is laughing that it's blowing up in their face.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah that's where the failure in communication starts. I have to be honest I never had a big interest in politics but you have got to give it to Trump...there is no way around him.

I stepped into this after all the stuff the left pulled off under Obama and only work from the knowledge I gathered during this particular impeachment scandal.

Where you guys are equating two wrongs making a right, I am merely looking at this particular case where Trump held up aid to Ukraine for reasons that still need to be ruled on.

Peace

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

Trump threatened to close the southern border unless Mexico started policing their side.

What a monster.

Oh my.

originally posted by: network dude
Has any other president withheld aid to another country before?

Most likely they have. But I am a firm believer that every United States President should give aids to other countries.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Where you guys are equating two wrongs making a right, I am merely looking at this particular case where Trump held up aid to Ukraine for reasons that still need to be ruled on.

I don't think most Americans would say there is anything resembling virtue in our current political system. It's quite possibly why there are more independents than democrats or republicans, and why half are so apathetic they don't vote.

Right now we're a shell of what we used to be IMO. That doesn't make me love my country and it's people any less, I say that because I give a sh##... Just like I don't shy away from something when one of my siblings is messing up (like I have when I was their age). (edit: strike. There should be much more context for that... But I'll leave it, and won't elaborate to make sure thread stays on track)

Unfortunately there are many to gain from America not uniting, and they are vastly successful in their endeavors to keep groups fractures. Right vs left, racial tension, generational tension, ect.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
Has any other president withheld aid to another country before?

Most likely they have. But I am a firm believer that every United States President should give aids to other countries.

Did we steal that from Bayer's corporate motto?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

How does an investigation into Joe Biden help the nation?

How does rooting out corruption in a corrupt country that the US is giving aid to help the country?

I swear, if you folks would look at this without the "Trump is a bad guy" glasses on, you might see that there isn't much to this. Remember, if the whistleblower hadn't blown, nobody would know Trump asked for this, and he would have been quietly ignored, or quietly given the information. And if the information suggests corruption, then this was all for the best. The best for the USA, not just Trump.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: lakenheath24
You can bet they all have and why in the hell WOULDNT they? Pretty sure Obama held up aid to Pakistan...and of course we have Reagan and the contras.

This was a stupid thing for Dems to do. Thets the whole bit about foreign aid...do as we say or no hay.

jesus, the above examples are COMPLETELY different, and not being discussed at all, in the impeachment hearings...why?...because NONE of those "aid-hold-outs" were used to bribe a foreign leader into announcing an investigation into their American political opponents.....

it sounds like from this thread, that nobody has heard a word said, or what the impeachment is even about....

Jesus Jimmy, it's like you just aren't smart enough to have understood what you saw. Tell me, of all the witnesses you saw, which one had proof that Trump withheld aid to get his announcement? I remember hearing a lot about what people thought, or what they heard others thought. But the only thing I heard that was direct from Trump was he wanted nothing other than for the president to do the right thing.

It's not what you think it's what you can prove. and your post doesn't look favorable for either option.

Are they? Is the bribery statute different somehow for the given case? And how does one console the fact that ole Hillary looked for dirt on T-man in the SAME country.



a reply to: jimmyx

originally posted by: lakenheath24
And how does one console the fact that ole Hillary looked for dirt on T-man in the SAME country.

that's different. I have no reasoning to support that, but I just thought I'd save someone from typing it.

a reply to: jimmyx

What if the investigation was initiated before Biden was a political opponent.

That's where the case falls apart.

US Government KNEW in February Burisma Case was reopened

Solomon, who now works for Fox News, explained that the Ukraine anti-corruption organization, NABU, ironically started by Joe Biden, requested a reopening of the investigation into Burisma, its shady owner, and its unusual transactions in February of 2019.

By March 28th, the general prosecutor’s office agreed to open an investigation and filed a “Notice of Suspicion”.

At the heart of the investigation are illicit funds that were running through Burisma from 2010-2015.

Joe Biden announced his presidential run on April 25, 2019. So at the time that the investigation into Bursima, and Hunter, and others was launched, Joe Biden was nothing more than citizen Joe Biden.

So, Trump has a conversation with a newly elected president, and there is already an investigation under way into corruption that has run rampant in the country to which we are giving aid, and you expect him to go mum because a company with a political opponent's son sitting on the Board of directors is under investigation?

Heck, it's not even the political opponent who is being investigated (yet), it's his son.

Everyone complains about high taxes, many complain about the questionable wealth of the political class, and people are also sick of the cronyism, graft and corruption in politics; that is, until the person under the microscope has the opposite political affiliation.

Get you timeline right, and stop protecting the corrupt players on your team.

a reply to: network dude

Surely the issue is if Trump did it in the national interest or in his own?

Of course other Presidents have withheld air for political purposes.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude

I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...

Peace

Semantics.

A president benefits from a successful foreign policy.

And what was the advantage to the entire US, from the withholding of aid to Ukraine?

How does it advantage all the citizens of the US?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Most likely they have. But I am a firm believer that every United States President should give aids to other countries.

I agree that it is in the inerest of the US to give aid to other countries for a variety of reasons, be it direct cash infusions, military support and supplies, or stabilization operations, security guarantees, etc., but the president and congress have a responisbility to make sure that the aid is going to the cause for which it was earmarked, and not to enrich corrupt figures in the countries political hierarchy, directly (I'll admit, there will be some indirect good-will benefit most of the time).

The problem with Ukraine, is that the corruption was well-known, ongoing, and completely unchecked, to the point that congress should have paused before even extending US aid without certain guarantees. For example:

$1.8 Billion IMF Ukraine Bailout Money Deposited in Ukraine Oligarch Kolomoyskyi’s Cyprus Offshore Bank Account

A huge chunk of the $17 billion in bailout money the IMF granted to Ukraine in April 2014 has been discovered in a bank account in Cyprus controlled by exiled Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, the German newspaper Deutsche Wirtshafts Nachrichten [DWN] reported on Thursday.In April last year $3.2 billion was immediately disbursed to Ukraine, and over the following five months, another $4.5 billion was disbursed to the Ukrainian Central Bank in order to stabilize the country’s financial system.

“The money should have been used to stabilize the country’s ailing banks, but $1.8 billion disappeared down murky channels,” writes DWN

and

The U.S. Is ‘Missing’ Millions in Ukraine

I mean, the second article was from 2016, so it's not a giant mystery that Ukraine is a black hole where aid money is concerned.

a reply to: CoramDeo

This is awkward...

Not your eloquent post because you worded that beautifully.

It's just that I know Augustus and he was not saying what you think he was saying.

Peace

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude

I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...

Peace

Semantics.

A president benefits from a successful foreign policy.

And what was the advantage to the entire US, from the withholding of aid to Ukraine?

How does it advantage all the citizens of the US?

If Ukraine was in fact corrupt, and the money we sent them went to deep pockets and politicians kids, and not where it was meant to go, do you think that would be good for America? Please answer without your bias. It's important.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude

I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...

Peace

Semantics.

A president benefits from a successful foreign policy.

And what was the advantage to the entire US, from the withholding of aid to Ukraine?

How does it advantage all the citizens of the US?

Why don't you ask Obama who did it his entire time in office!

If you're going to go all, "bleeding heart" then better get your facts straight first!

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude

I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...

Peace

Semantics.

A president benefits from a successful foreign policy.

And what was the advantage to the entire US, from the withholding of aid to Ukraine?

How does it advantage all the citizens of the US?

If Ukraine was in fact corrupt, and the money we sent them went to deep pockets and politicians kids, and not where it was meant to go, do you think that would be good for America? Please answer without your bias. It's important.

Sure, except that by my reckoning, the anti-corruption stuff (sacking of the bad prosecutor, hiring of Hunter) had already happened well prior to the aid being withheld.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Hearing how important the aid was to defend Ukraine from all the ambassadors, really made me wonder why nobody had harsh words for Obama, you know, since he gave them MRE's and blankets, and no weapons. But I suppose that's a lot like why can aren't allowed to question Biden....about anything.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude

I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...

Peace

Semantics.

A president benefits from a successful foreign policy.

And what was the advantage to the entire US, from the withholding of aid to Ukraine?

How does it advantage all the citizens of the US?

If Ukraine was in fact corrupt, and the money we sent them went to deep pockets and politicians kids, and not where it was meant to go, do you think that would be good for America? Please answer without your bias. It's important.

Sure, except that by my reckoning, the anti-corruption stuff (sacking of the bad prosecutor, hiring of Hunter) had already happened well prior to the aid being withheld.

so you have information that the corruption in the Ukraine was already wiped out at the time Trump withheld the aid for a couple months? I'd like to see that.