@darkhorse12
You realize what you are quoting is from 2019. In order to back up what @thirdperson is contending you have to have quotes from before that. They need to be from before the issue started to be questioned or investigated, etc. For example, around the 2015 and 2016 timeframe when the funds were being considered or when they were being agreed to be sent, etc.
Both Trump and Biden withheld aid to pressure Ukraine. But the two cases are different. Biden was fighting Ukraine corruption in line with official US policy. Anti-corruption action center applauded Biden. Senate investigation and Ukraine prosecutor Lutsuno found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. However Trump was encouraging corruption. He wanted Ukraine to drum up phony allegations to smear political opponent. So it was only Trump who tried to corruptly influence Ukraine and was impeached for defying congress. But GOP tries to distort findings of Trump impeachment inquiry.
Trump never said Give me this or you don't get the money, Biden did. Trump never said drum up phoney allegations.
Biden didn't withhold aid to pressure, rather he issued an ultimatum.
Trump wanted an investigation and all the evidence says there should be one. 
You don't fight corruption in Ukraine by having family members working with and doing the bidding of corrupt Ukrainians, exiled by their own country and a wanted fugitive, for a million plus a year.
That is joining the corruption.
Also what trump did by trying to withhold money from Ukraine was a violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Again the gop doesn’t care about the Constitution.
According to Britannica, no credible evidence of Biden's alleged corrupt motive or that of his son's alleged wrongdoing was ever produced (despite multiple investigations). To damage political rival, Trump falsely alleged that Biden wanted Ukraine prosecutor removed to halt investigation of Burisma. But Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma at that time. Instead Trump's efforts lead to his impeachment for abuse of power.
One month before Shokin was fired; https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html
The movable and immovable property of former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine Mykola Zlochevsky in Ukraine has been seized, according to the press service of the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine (PGO).
The PGO clarifies that the court satisfied the petition on February 2, 2016.
"Thus, none of the objects of movable and immovable property, which was seized under the previous court ruling, has not been excluded from Zlochevsky's property," the press service said.
Zlochevsky is suspected of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 368-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illicit enrichment).
@darkhorse12
It may well be. I am well aware of when his term began. But it was clearly stated after the fact is what I am saying. It would support his case more if he could find quotes from before then, like at the time this was happening. For example, if Hochstein, Obama, or others would have been quoted saying what he is contending, even before this happened. I just have not see them yet. 
Actually the Impoundment Control Act is what is in question. That is the issue with both of them. However, in Trump's letter this was addressed. Obviously, Obama did not send a letter. Biden did not either -- mainly because it was not his action to do.
i’m sure you will find hundreds of examples,if not thousands, of quotes after the fact in government just for the sake of security.
What security do you mean? How did you think that would apply in this instance? If anything the opposite could be argued. Make the threat or demand in real time, then in the future others that are apt to receive funds would know the requirements to receive them would be known, etc.
This was not a security issue. He is contending they knew in real time, ahead of time, that this exact concession was a requirement to receive funding. I have not seen anything to back that up, until after Biden did what he did, etc.
I agree with you on issues of security, that would be the case. But still there would be documents that could be released at a later date after the security risk was gone. At this point in this matter, because it was not a security issue, they could release anything that would make it look better for Biden; they have not done this.
@Raiders22
Since it was a bi-partisan effort to get rid of Shokin we may never see any documents about this. Sen. Portman R Ohio, Sen. Johnson R Wi and Sen. Kirk R I’ll all backed this. After reading about six or seven articles about the ICA,caseload, I only saw two Presidents names mentioned as possible violations and Biden or Obama were not mentioned.
False equivalency to compare Biden with Trump withholding of aid to Ukraine. Bad for Trump to secretly pressure Ukraine to help him in an election. Good for Biden to openly pressure Ukraine to end corruption. Biden was representing official US policy while Trump was using his position for personal gain. US and Ukraine investigations confirm Biden didn't do anything illegal. However thanks to whistleblowers Trump secret scheme failed and he was impeached by congress.
@darkhorse12
Would not be Biden at the time; it would have been only Obama. Obama was President at the time. That is another reason it looks as if Biden went rogue, as it were. Also, the reason you will not see Obama's name mentioned; it seems more and more as though he did not know and certainly did not authorize Biden to do what he did. Then Trump did the same thing, but at least he was President at the time and at least sent the letter, etc.
@thirdperson
False equivalency for you to contrast the two. Only one is being talked about now; one has been hashed out already.
It was not secret as much as Biden's.
For example:
In mid-July, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials informed the State Department and Pentagon of the president's wish to delay the Ukrainian funding, the senior administration official also confirmed.
At what point did Obama do this, or Biden on his behalf?
@darkhorse12
I am not sure what you mean about it being bi-partisan and then saying, therefore, information might not be released? You think bipartisan documents are less likely to be released? Why is that? Then you list just Republicans that supported it and not any Democrats. Was that just to say that there were Republicans supporting it at the time as well?
You could very well be right. I just do not see any information on that. Do you have any I can see?
man don’t come at these folks with facts, they only respond to the cartoon characters on CNN
Leave it up to the House GOP to put braindead politics in the way of upholding the oath to maintain the full faith and credit of the good old US of A. But yes, please do defund the FBI in the name of the thin blue line and the 100 other nonsensical slogans these Beetlejuice-vaping mouthbreathers can barf out.
Government accountability office determined that Trump aid freeze was concealed from congress and violated the law. Trump administration never informed congress of plan to withhold aid to any country to help his re-election. In contrast, all of Obama administration freezes on foreign aid were made in consultation with congress and not secrets. Serving US national interests instead of personal gain. Withholding loan guarantee to Ukraine in exchange for anti-corruption measures was part of a congress supported international effort with European union and International monetary fund.
The Office of Management and Budget's counsel wrote in a letter Wednesday that temporarily blocking hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine for months was justified, and that the office was under no obligation to tell Congress about the pause.
In the letter, Paoletta said the office held up the funding when it learned, on June 19, that Trump "had asked about" the Department of Defense's plans for military funding set aside for Ukraine.
He wrote that the office blocked the funding in order to make sure the funds were being spent "in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the purpose for which the funds were appropriated."
It was OMB's -- and the president's -- duty to do so, he wrote.
The Department of Defense reviewed the planned assistance earlier this year and in May certified that Ukraine had met necessary anti-corruption benchmarks in order to receive the aid.
Contrast this with what Biden did, or did NOT do -- while he was NOT even president. Let me know what you find.
@thirdperson
This further explains the reasoning on the letter. Where is this done for Biden?
He wrote that the office blocked the funding in order to make sure the funds were being spent "in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the purpose for which the funds were appropriated."
It was OMB's -- and the president's -- duty to do so, he wrote.
The Department of Defense reviewed the planned assistance earlier this year and in May certified that Ukraine had met necessary anti-corruption benchmarks in order to receive the aid.
Paoletta said that OMB wasn't obligated to tell Congress about the hold-up because the pause amounted to a "programmatic delay," which allows the executive branch "to conduct a process to determine the best policy for the efficient and effective use of funds consistent with the intent of the statute."
"Pauses in obligational authority are necessary for proper stewardship of taxpayer funds," Paoletta said, adding that pauses like this are different from "deferrals," which the president is prohibited from doing without notifying Congress.
"Pausing before spending is a necessary part of program execution: before obligating appropriated funds, it is incumbent upon the Executive branch to understand how an agency intends to execute a program -- and whether that option is the best use of those funds within the program authorization -- before granting it the authority to spend taxpayer resources," Paoletta wrote.
"It was OMB's understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds," the letter said. "OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the President's foreign policy."
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
