Has any other president withheld aid to another country before?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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!

Obama withheld military aid to Ukraine to assist Trump's campaign to smear a political rival? That's a bit of a stretch.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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!

Obama withheld military aid to Ukraine to assist Trump's campaign to smear a political rival? That's a bit of a stretch.

Um, he didn't provide the military aid that was asked for, and from what ALL the ambassadors said, was sorely needed. You do understand that part, right?

a reply to: jimmyx

If it wasn't for Schiff or his whistleblower, you wouldn't know about the investigation. Therefore your entire argument is moot. If anyone interfered with Biden's campaign it was the democrats.

I find it funny that the dems wanted trump to withhold aid when that journalist got killed in the middle east.... wait... was he a Ukraine journalist?

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah...but it is not the president who should benefit, it's the country he represent that should benefit...right?

Peace

Let me know which US President in their first term that did things without having their re-election affect their decision making process.
Foreign policy, domestic spending, signing some legislation while vetoing others..... they have all done what they have done in mind of getting re-elected. To benefit themselves both financially and to boost their ego.

originally posted by: network dude
Since the entire impeachment is based on Trump withholding aid to Ukraine because he wanted in investigation into corruption (the same corruption the new president of Ukraine ran his campaign on removing) I thought it would be interesting to see if that had ever been done before. Kind of like "precedent" or something.

It is hard to get that info right off, as the Goggle likes to push "orange man bad" stories on your first. Luckily, I used a different engine.

thinkprogress.org...

Flashback: Bush Also Threatened To Withhold Loan Guarantees From Israel

Oh my:

What right-wing critics of Mitchell’s suggestion do not acknowledge is that threatening to freeze loan guarantees is hardly unique to the Obama administration. In fact, the last time such a threat was made was under President George W. Bush. In 2003, Bush made the explicit threat to withhold loan guarantees from the Israelis due to the expansion of their “security fence” deep into Palestinian territory. Bush’s father went even further. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush briefly cut off loan guarantees to the Israeli government over their settlement policies, successfully forcing “Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir…to attend the Madrid Peace Conference.”

Bush, Obama ? wait, what?

Maybe I don't understand all this. Maybe it's me. But isn't this kind of similar? Kind of a quid-pro-quo if you will? And all before Donald even decided he wanted to be president.

I am afraid it looks like this entire thing is based on nothing.

They trying to do a double whammy...First, they claim a President can't stop a payment ok'd b Congress...Secondly, they claim the quid pro quo was for political gain and not national security...

a reply to: DBCowboy

didnt we in the past sail the white fleet into japanese waters and pretty much force them to open their ports to us and the world? history is full of "quid pro quo diplomacy" its kind of how its been done for centuries

www.huffpost.com...

U.S.-Myanmar relations in the past few years have been largely based on a quid pro quo or tit for tat strategy. Some analysts also call it action for action or give and take strategy. The Myanmar government has meticulously responded to the U.S. demands for rapprochement. One best example is on the issue of political prisoners. In Oct. 11, 2011, the Myanmar government released 220 political prisoners. In response, then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made a three-day visit to Myanmar, which was the first U.S. Secretary of State’s visit since John Foster Dulles in 1955. In January and February 2012, on the anniversary of the country’s Independence Day and Union Day, the Myanmar government released more than 600 political prisoners, including prominent student leaders of the 1988 democracy uprising and ethnic minority leaders. In response, the U.S. government decided to resume diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level. The US-Myanmar diplomatic representation was downgraded to Chargé d’affaires in the aftermath of the 1988 democracy uprising and the subsequent nullification of the 1990 general election results.

back in 2013 it was a tool in diplomacy

www.jstor.org... in 1994 it was key in diplomacy with hati

lehrmaninstitute.org... this ended up sort of being one

books.google.com... Zaf7jsRvAWNzw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3mvXX5YbmAhWDJjQIHa8bD1oQ6AEwC3oECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=quid%20pro%20quo%20in%20alaska%20purchased&f=false the Alaska purchases made others think QPQ was involved again a tactic of diplomacy but one that made Europe nervous of an American and Russian potential alliance

www.inquirer.com...

But that's not exactly true. The United States engages in quid pro quos all the time when it comes to foreign assistance. Our aid is not charity; Americans expect to get something in return for it. We have leveraged U.S. assistance in exchange for a host of objectives: economic reform, democratic reform, better pursuit of corruption, access to strategically important areas and so on. In 1978, Jimmy Carter agreed to provide Egypt with billions of dollars in foreign aid in exchange for making peace with Israel, as part of the Camp David Accords. That was a quid pro quo. In 2004, George W. Bush created the Millennium Challenge Account, which required countries to meet a host of eligibility requirements — free speech, free assembly, rule of law, property rights, transparency — before they could receive a grant of aid. That program was one big quid pro quo. Congress imposes quid pro quos on U.S. foreign aid all the time, as well. Democrats howled when Trump cut aid to Central America earlier this year, but as Lester Munson, former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, points out, "If you look at the appropriations bill that actually provided the president with the money to give assistance to Central America, there are 15 different reasons you might suspend the aid there." Even former vice president Joe Biden has admitted to a quid pro quo with Ukraine. He held up $1 billion in loan guarantees (a quid) to get them to fire a prosecutor who was not investigating corruption (a quo). This was perfectly legitimate, he says, and he may well be right.

President Trump did NOT withhold any aid whatsoever.

None at all.

Even though the Ukraine government did NOT begin any investigation that he asked for. He STILL didn’t withhold one single cent.

Hence why he won’t be impeached.

a reply to: network dude

Well... withholding aid in exchange for personal, political gain is the problem.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

The only reason Trump gave back the aid is that he got caught! Bank robbers get caught all the time, and the money is returned, yet they still face consequences? Heck, someone can agree to do sexual acts with an underage girl who doesn't even exist and get arrested without touching a thing!

In fact, if you think about it, if it wasn't illegal to withhold the aid, why did Trump return it asap once discovered?

a reply to: darkbake

Yeah yeah, that’s why he gave them the aid.

So says cNn

originally posted by: network dude
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.

You show that you are doing nothing but listening to the Republicans on this and not doing your own research. Here's a quick list of military aid Obama admin provided.

counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, secure communications, training aids, logistics infrastructure and IT systems, tactical UAVs, and medical equipment.

Oh and I'm sure they might have given them some blankets as well.

a reply to: darkbake

did you follow the hearings? So far, nobody can do any more than say the think or they feel like, Trump withheld the aid because he wanted the announcement. Trump said he was concerned with corruption. So I think it comes down to what can be proven. And so far, it looks like there isn't proof that Trump did this just to pick on Biden.

a reply to: Auth3nt1k

counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, secure communications, training aids, logistics infrastructure and IT systems, tactical UAVs, and medical e

DB said ‘no weapons’.
Your list includes no weapons.
But you knew that, right?

a reply to: Gryphon66

how does an investigation of trump " help the nation " ?

a reply to: chr0naut

how did // does giving the aid [ to the ukraine ] advantage all the citizens of the US????

Was that for personal gain?
Was that for a political advantage?
Or was it for national security or some other reason that would benefit the whole country and not just the president who apparently thinks he can do whatever he likes.

a reply to: network dude

The president is not being impeached for withholding funds. He is being impeached for abuse of power in withholding those funds which he did for a completely selfish and personal reason.
Because he is a completely selfish person.

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

How much was to benefit Franklin Delano Roosevelt personally? Did he get a new wheelchair out of the deal. New legs?

The thing you guys fail to see is that he did this for HIMSELF... not for the USA.
Thats the difference here. He did this for trump not for America.
He used his office for personal gain.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

The president is not being impeached for withholding funds. He is being impeached for abuse of power in withholding those funds which he did for a completely selfish and personal reason.
Because he is a completely selfish person.

and how do you know that?