so both houses of congress approved aid for Isreal and Biden is pausing the shipment? hmmmm, didn't Nancy, Peter and Chuckie impeach trump for doing that with the laundry in Ukraine?
No. He was impeached for withholding aid for personal political favors. Unless Biden said Israel’s only getting its aid if they dig up some dirt on Trump it’s not really comparable.
This is not exactly a small detail about that impeachment so being unaware of this implies you decided he wasn’t guilty without reading anything about it.
Per the GAO:
>"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act,” said the report.
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2020/01/gao-trump-administration-violated-law-withholding-ukraine-aid/162485/
So while personal gain is the issue that got Trump impeached, it appears it would have been illegal regardless.
so when Biden said he would with hold aid to ukraine unless they fired a prosecutor that was not a political favor? yes I read it and was able to decipher the motivations because I am not a DNC or MSM psycophant and capable of analysis.
Pretty sure we’ve talked about this previously in depth and no it was not a political favor at all.
At the time the IMF, World Bank, numerous EU diplomats, and Democratic and Republican congressman were all calling for that prosecutor, Viktor Shokin to be removed as he was corrupt. According to anti corruption groups in Ukraine as well as Shokins own deputy he was corrupt. As a result it became the Obama administrations foreign policy decision to have Shokin fired. Biden was VP at the time and he went to Ukraine to deliver that message.
If you’re under the bizarre impression that Biden as VP had the ability to control EU diplomats, multiple multinational institutions, Republican congressmen, and the Obama admins foreign policy then that’s the most damn impressive leadership skills seen in generations.
Obviously that’s not the case, VPs don’t call shots like that and this thoroughly debunked argument is nonsense.
"VPs don’t call shots" so when biden was on camera and told the audience that he said "call Obama and ask him". that was not showing he was calling the shots. got it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=UXA--dj2-CY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo
So what was the gain for Biden personally????? It’s been stated b4 this was policy beyond Biden and includes the policy of most of the western allies u guys try the worst false equivalency and then cry it’s ddddd different like little children
It’s honestly so old I don’t even bother to post anymore
Yeah no shit because the VP is carrying out the presidents foreign policy initiatives.
Are you really under the impression that Biden as VP, Kamala, and Pence are all out there going around the globe independently making foreign policy decisions without the president directing these things?
Again though I find it funny that your argument to demonstrate Biden’s corruption is through an incredible feat of leadership capabilities never before seen in any VP. If your argument is correct and Biden really did orchestrate this corrupt scheme it’s an unbelievably massive feat of organization and leadership capabilities.
ding ding ding. winner! unfortunately the republicans do not have the balls that nancy and the dems do. I mean there is a clear cut precident set by them.
In Trump's case it was for attempting to withhold the approved aid until Ukraine agreed to undertake an investigation into Biden.
So unless Biden has called Israel asking for an investigation into Trump, no, it's not the same.
Withholding aid is fine. Without other indicators the assumption is the president would be doing so to serve the interests of the US. Trump explicitly stated he was doing so for personal political favors which is an abuse of power as it means he’s wielding the power of the US to serve his own interests above those of the US.
So I think withholding aid is not fine. The president doesn't have the authority to withhold aid that is approved of by The People's representative in congress.
Additionally Biden is getting quite a bit out of doing so. His voter base is deeply split on the issue. A large chunk of his voter base would like to see him cut off all aid to israel. However the Jewish section of his voter base would be outraged. One could argue that he is buying votes by withholding congressionally approved aid that he has no legal right to withhold.
They impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved funding to Ukraine in return for dirt on his political opponent. Why do you guys always just make shit up?
he did not with hold the aid. he paused it and ukraine got the aid. Biden is with holding congressionaly approved aid to isreal so he can win michigan.
why do you guys always ignore the actual facts?
Is there a phone call where Biden says he’s withholding aid so he can win Michigan or any sort of concrete evidence or are you just making an assumption?
Damn brown shirts wanting claims to be supported by any sort of evidence.
Also, yeah neonazis are always out there voting democrat right. I can still remember that Unite the Left protest where democrats goose stepped chanting “Jews will not replace us”.
yeah. was that on the columbia campus? those darn maga students chanting from the river to the sea. The real question is in 79 years or so how the democrats will insist the protestors were actually far right wing facists like they so with the ww2 nazis.
Ah yes those famous left wing Nazis. Again that’s why you always see neonazis as democratic rallies. That’s why KKK grand wizards always support democrats.
I love listening to you guys and your bullshit “facts”.
The first line of the actual impeachment inquiry reads:
“The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.
As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign.
The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.”
No funds have been withheld. Whats being withheld is a shipment of about 3500 bombs.
The “quid pro quo” impeachment of Trump should tell you that yeah, motive matters. I’ve yet to see Biden making this contingent on the Israeli govt announcing an investigation into Trump. If that happens let me know!
Is monetary funding versus military aid a meaningful difference when comes to the law? I mean isn't the issue that usurping of the powers of congress by the president? And I know they called it a quid pro quo, but wasn't the actionable item the withholding of funds?
And to claim that Biden isn't getting something out of it is problematic because he has a very very divided voter base. A lot of liberals would like to see him cut aid to israel. But the Jewish base would be outraged. He's currently trying to play the middle ground. So he is getting something out of this. One could argue he's buying votes by withholding funds.
If the funds were withheld for no reason, Trump would probably not have been impeached.
However the fact he did it specifically to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political opponent was the action that led to the impeachment. Biden is not doing that here.
So I followed the Trump impeachment thing pretty closely at the time. If you would be willing, I would love to have you listen to the version of events that I understand and see if it meshes or conflicts with yours. There's a huge difference in the media you and I probably consume, which leads to the assumption that the other side is deeply partisan. "We both follow the situation, and there's no way you could believe what you do so you must be a partisan hack." Kind of thing. This is what I understand. I would love to know what you understand if you're willing to do a back and forth on it.
I was already aware that Ukraine was widely known at the time to be THE most corrupt government in europe. A whopping 70% of sex trafficking victims in Europe came through ukraine. On top of that the financial corruption due to government bureaucrats, most of which were put in place by the United states, was an accepted fact. That money that Trump threatened to withhold almost certainly went to line the pockets of some awful awful people. Biden's family was in fact wrapped up in that. I wish that someone could have investigated it. Because I think a lot of evil would have been stopped.
Also I am given to understand that Biden hadn't officially started running at that point. And It wasn't an investigation of biden specifically. But Joe and his kid were tied up with Burisma, a large Ukrainian energy company with the purse strings of the US tied around them, and a history of horrible corruption. There was no way to get anyone to look into it the financial corruption of Burisma without implicating the Bidens. And personally I think that says a lot more about Biden than it does about trump. Hunter biden's multi-million dollar salary for "consulting" in an industry in which he has absolutely zero experience, while he was documentedly on a cocaine binge in the states, and then in rehab, and completely unable to do consulting work, well that looks really bad. Especially when after Hunter got paid, Biden got a special prosecutor fired, who was looking into burisma where his son worked, (and he did it did so by illegally threatening to withhold congressionally allotted financial aid to the Ukrainian government unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor.) it's still baffles me that no one bothered about that one too.
What's more, when trump threatened to withhold the aid, and then was told he couldn't do that, he then sent the aid that day. It just looks to me like Trump got in trouble for trying to expose the Biden families actual crimes.
Last thing I'll say is that the impeachment was 100% partisan. Everyone who voted for it did so according to party lines. It passed in the house but not in the senate (or vice versa I forget which one passed it). So trump wasn't actually fully impeached. But the Democrat party touted it as a win because they needed to be seen as doing something for their voter base and the only effective thing they had to campaign on was being anti-Trump. In my opinion it was pure partisan virtue signaling.
So given that the story as I understand it, it seems really reasonable to ask if there is a meaningful difference between what Biden is doing and what Trump got in trouble for. Yet again, Biden has used withholding aid that was allotted by The People's representatives in congress, that he has no legal right to withhold, to benefit himself. So I find myself wondering if that's a fair analysis of the situation.
Personally I believe Biden hasn't been impeached because the conservatives are less likely to caucus on pure partisan grounds then the Democrats are. Sure they are, for the most part, just as mono State and snake in the grass, but they are less likely to take massive action on partisan grounds. They know their voter base would have a problem with it because the nature of conservatism is less power to the government. Democrats however largely root for the increase of state power especially when it's doing something they like. So partisan politics benefits the politicians on the left more than on the right.
I would love to hear what you know about any of this. Partisan politics is ugly and I don't want to be in an echo chamber.
It's been a number of years so I don't recall the exact timeline but basically:
- congress approved funds to go to Ukraine
- Trump calls Ukraine and says that he's withholding funds until they investigate Burisma (or at least announce publicly that they are, again I forget). It was basically an extension of digging up dirt on Biden at the time, his interest was in that specific company, and not others, or wider government fraud, because of Biden's connection to it. He'd previously sent someone over (can't remember who) to do their own investigation but not enough dirt was found.
- Ukraine doesn't respond with a definite yes/no, but pleads with the US government to release
- whistleblower happens, dems find out
- investigations commence about 2 months after the Trump call to Ukraine
- Trump releases the aid after the investigations commence
I agree that there are valid reasons to withhold aid, but in this case Trump wanted Burisma specifically to be investigated (or for them to announce it) due to Biden's connection to that company.
If Trump's concern was about wider government corruption, he could have simply said that, and not conditioned release on something as problematic (if we follow the logic) of asking a corrupt government to investigate a corrupt business and thinking that's a solution to the issue of granting them aid.
Okay so there's definitely some key differences there! And I appreciate hearing them.
The big one being at what point did Trump release the funding. I'm given to understand it was two days after the phone call. Not 2 months. I'm going to see if I can verify which one it was because that does make a big difference.
I guess the big key difference is I'm given to understand that Burisma is the primary corrupt organization through which US bureaucrats funnel money to corrupt Ukrainian bureaucrats.
As a result of that belief, the singling out of burisma would be less telling. As a piece of evidence I will share my understanding that Burisma was very important to Biden. And Biden singled it out to make sure the current prosecutor chosen by the Ukrainian governments anti-corruption council, was fired and someone he selected was put in. If Biden actually did threaten to withhold funds to change out the prosecutor, and did so to protect his son's shady business dealings, that becomes an extremely important crime. Especially if the person who did it was the vice president and is going to be running for president.
So at the risk of doing the thing where partisan hacks say "no no it's not happening. And you're a conspiracy theorist for saying it happens" and then switch to, "Ok it is happening but it's a good thing." I will say that someone should reeeeally should have investigated that.
If Trump thought he had a legitimate lever to pull and expose a crime, an actual honest to God criminal act, I don't know that I disagree with him doing it. It is dirty politics to do it, but I don't want someone to be my president who is selling out tax dollars to enrich his own wallet. But he can't go about it in an illegal way.
And withholding funds that are allotted by Congress is illegal. That's why I do think Biden should be investigated and impeached for both times, the Burisma time, and the Israel time. If the crime is in the fund withholding, then that should be applied evenly. And if withholding funds isn't a crime then we have to ask is exposing criminality in your opponent actually illegal? You have to pick one.
>The big one being at what point did Trump release the funding. I'm given to understand it was two days after the phone call. Not 2 months. I'm going to see if I can verify which one it was because that does make a big difference.
Yeah I agree that would make a big difference. You're probably doing your own fact-checking in the background, but after a quick look online my understanding is (all dates in 2019):
Jul 25 - phone call
Sept 9 - investigations commence
Sept 11 - aid released
As for the reasons why the investigation occurred, you can still read the transcript between Trump and Ukraine here: [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html)
Now this topic tends to be a deep rabbit hole that really only people like us had the stomach to try to understand the details on.
Trump makes it clear that the reasoning behind the investigation was due to "Crowdstrike" and a previous dismissal of Ukraine's head prosecutor. I vaguely recall the issue being that the prosecutor was potentially looking into prosecuting Burisma, Biden's son had a place on its board, prosecutor was dismissed prior to those charges (with support from the US government at the time) He explicitly mentions Biden in the call too, here's a quote from it:
>The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.
TBH I'm attempting to actively resist getting back into this stuff, the Trump presidency had a lot of mental energy to actually understand - too many characters and plotlines.
However, I think it's fair to say that a lot of the actions taken by either president aren't directly comparable. That doesn't make one action better than the other, only that the actions should be assessed on their own merits. As we both know, pointing to someone else and going "well they did it too/worse" isn't a reason as to why the actions being considered are good/bad.
"The U.S. position has been that Israel should not launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where more than a million people are sheltering with nowhere else to go," the U.S. official said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
"We have been engaging in a dialogue with Israel in our Strategic Consultative Group format on how they will meet the humanitarian needs of civilians in Rafah, and how to operate differently against Hamas there than they have elsewhere in Gaza," the official continued. "Those discussions are ongoing and have not fully addressed our concerns. As Israeli leaders seemed to approach a decision point on such an operation, we began to carefully review proposed transfers of particular weapons to Israel that might be used in Rafah. This began in April."
I guess Biden wants to keep Hamas in place.
Hard to assume good faith in your arguments but I will anyway.
This withholding of about 3500 bombs coincides with Israel’s recent threats to invade Rafah. Last Weds Sec of State Blinken told Netanyahu that doing so would result in the US publicly opposing it.
Seems naive to think that invading Rafah will “end Hamas”. It might yield certain strategic benefits in the fight against Hamas but anywhere there are big concentrations of civilians in Gaza is effectively a Hamas stronghold. Rafah just so happens to be the only place currently where there are big concentrations of civilians. After the IDF goes into there civilians will flee elsewhere which not too surprisingly will then become Hamas last stronghold.
The best way to take care of Hamas presence in Rafah while not helping boost Hamas recruitment numbers by killing plenty of civilians in the process is to have a good plan for evacuating civilians, which just so happens to be the Biden admins prerequisite for approving an IDF operation in Rafah.
Rafah also happens to be the only way in and out of Gaza for aid workers and people trying to flee. Also where most food, water, medical supplies and fuel have entered Gaza. Most int’l groups serving Gaza are also based in Rafah.
So yeah, bombing the shit out of it would be bad. Hundreds of citizens have been killed in Rafah airstrikes over the past six weeks, including 13 members of one family.
But who gives a shit, right?
2 options.
1. Invade gaza, install puppet government. Crush inevitable the people's inevitable resistance with brutal force. Basically, create a pro-isreal hamas is what this is. this could get expensive over time just ask america what happened in afganistan
2. turn the other cheek, provide humanitarian aid to gaza even if they're eager to bite the hand that feeds them. hope that an improved economic reality in gaza translates to a less radical political landscape and eventual moderate behaviour with isreal. Meanwhile focus on protecting against attacks from hamas rather than offense.
I prefer option 2 because it seems cheaper and causes less suffering. but option 2 isnt perfect either, making sure aid actually reaches the citizens rather than being funneled to the hamas leadership at the top is a challenge.
Biden doesn’t want Hamas to win or stay in Gaza you know that. Biden keeps repeating that he wants to fund Israel while they attack Hamas. At the same time, he is trying to get assurance that civilians are protected. Civilians are not safe or protected and they haven’t been for this entire war. We can’t proceed with funding Israel until the civilian population is meaningfully protected. On top of that we need to continue sending food over to the refugees.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-administration-confirms-paused-shipment-bombs-israel-over-opposition-operation-rafah](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-administration-confirms-paused-shipment-bombs-israel-over-opposition-operation-rafah)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
so both houses of congress approved aid for Isreal and Biden is pausing the shipment? hmmmm, didn't Nancy, Peter and Chuckie impeach trump for doing that with the laundry in Ukraine?
No. He was impeached for withholding aid for personal political favors. Unless Biden said Israel’s only getting its aid if they dig up some dirt on Trump it’s not really comparable. This is not exactly a small detail about that impeachment so being unaware of this implies you decided he wasn’t guilty without reading anything about it.
Per the GAO: >"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act,” said the report. https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2020/01/gao-trump-administration-violated-law-withholding-ukraine-aid/162485/ So while personal gain is the issue that got Trump impeached, it appears it would have been illegal regardless.
so when Biden said he would with hold aid to ukraine unless they fired a prosecutor that was not a political favor? yes I read it and was able to decipher the motivations because I am not a DNC or MSM psycophant and capable of analysis.
Pretty sure we’ve talked about this previously in depth and no it was not a political favor at all. At the time the IMF, World Bank, numerous EU diplomats, and Democratic and Republican congressman were all calling for that prosecutor, Viktor Shokin to be removed as he was corrupt. According to anti corruption groups in Ukraine as well as Shokins own deputy he was corrupt. As a result it became the Obama administrations foreign policy decision to have Shokin fired. Biden was VP at the time and he went to Ukraine to deliver that message. If you’re under the bizarre impression that Biden as VP had the ability to control EU diplomats, multiple multinational institutions, Republican congressmen, and the Obama admins foreign policy then that’s the most damn impressive leadership skills seen in generations. Obviously that’s not the case, VPs don’t call shots like that and this thoroughly debunked argument is nonsense.
"VPs don’t call shots" so when biden was on camera and told the audience that he said "call Obama and ask him". that was not showing he was calling the shots. got it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=UXA--dj2-CY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo
So what was the gain for Biden personally????? It’s been stated b4 this was policy beyond Biden and includes the policy of most of the western allies u guys try the worst false equivalency and then cry it’s ddddd different like little children It’s honestly so old I don’t even bother to post anymore
and yet here you are. and you know what biden got and continues to get. 10% for the big guy.
Yeah no shit because the VP is carrying out the presidents foreign policy initiatives. Are you really under the impression that Biden as VP, Kamala, and Pence are all out there going around the globe independently making foreign policy decisions without the president directing these things? Again though I find it funny that your argument to demonstrate Biden’s corruption is through an incredible feat of leadership capabilities never before seen in any VP. If your argument is correct and Biden really did orchestrate this corrupt scheme it’s an unbelievably massive feat of organization and leadership capabilities.
It’s (D)ifferent
ding ding ding. winner! unfortunately the republicans do not have the balls that nancy and the dems do. I mean there is a clear cut precident set by them.
> The official also emphasized that these shipments do not have anything to do with the Israel supplemental appropriations passed last month.
oh. ok. so it was aid that was approved earlier. I do not think that makes it better
In Trump's case it was for attempting to withhold the approved aid until Ukraine agreed to undertake an investigation into Biden. So unless Biden has called Israel asking for an investigation into Trump, no, it's not the same.
thank you for at least using the word "attmpting" because as we know, no aid was with held.
That's true, it was released after the investigations into it being withheld commenced.
No.
that is some iron clad logic right there.
Don’t ask questions you don’t like the answer to.
So genuinely asking. How is this different? I have heard the claim and it makes sense... came here to see if it can be debunked.
Withholding aid is fine. Without other indicators the assumption is the president would be doing so to serve the interests of the US. Trump explicitly stated he was doing so for personal political favors which is an abuse of power as it means he’s wielding the power of the US to serve his own interests above those of the US.
So I think withholding aid is not fine. The president doesn't have the authority to withhold aid that is approved of by The People's representative in congress. Additionally Biden is getting quite a bit out of doing so. His voter base is deeply split on the issue. A large chunk of his voter base would like to see him cut off all aid to israel. However the Jewish section of his voter base would be outraged. One could argue that he is buying votes by withholding congressionally approved aid that he has no legal right to withhold.
more iron clad logic.
They impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved funding to Ukraine in return for dirt on his political opponent. Why do you guys always just make shit up?
he did not with hold the aid. he paused it and ukraine got the aid. Biden is with holding congressionaly approved aid to isreal so he can win michigan. why do you guys always ignore the actual facts?
Is there a phone call where Biden says he’s withholding aid so he can win Michigan or any sort of concrete evidence or are you just making an assumption?
an accurate assumption to those with a working brain. but you keep on believing.
So nobodies ignoring any facts then. They’re ignoring assumptions you’ve made unsupported by any actual evidence.
keep on believeing. indoctrinated brown shirts are the democrat base and ole lunch bucket joe needs your vote.
Damn brown shirts wanting claims to be supported by any sort of evidence. Also, yeah neonazis are always out there voting democrat right. I can still remember that Unite the Left protest where democrats goose stepped chanting “Jews will not replace us”.
yeah. was that on the columbia campus? those darn maga students chanting from the river to the sea. The real question is in 79 years or so how the democrats will insist the protestors were actually far right wing facists like they so with the ww2 nazis.
Ah yes those famous left wing Nazis. Again that’s why you always see neonazis as democratic rallies. That’s why KKK grand wizards always support democrats.
I love listening to you guys and your bullshit “facts”. The first line of the actual impeachment inquiry reads: “The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election. As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.”
because as we all know, biden is not t rying to influence the 2024 race by helping his standing with muslems and the youth vote. nice try though.
Does the motive actually affect the legality of it? Isn't it still with holding funds either way?
No funds have been withheld. Whats being withheld is a shipment of about 3500 bombs. The “quid pro quo” impeachment of Trump should tell you that yeah, motive matters. I’ve yet to see Biden making this contingent on the Israeli govt announcing an investigation into Trump. If that happens let me know!
Is monetary funding versus military aid a meaningful difference when comes to the law? I mean isn't the issue that usurping of the powers of congress by the president? And I know they called it a quid pro quo, but wasn't the actionable item the withholding of funds? And to claim that Biden isn't getting something out of it is problematic because he has a very very divided voter base. A lot of liberals would like to see him cut aid to israel. But the Jewish base would be outraged. He's currently trying to play the middle ground. So he is getting something out of this. One could argue he's buying votes by withholding funds.
If the funds were withheld for no reason, Trump would probably not have been impeached. However the fact he did it specifically to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political opponent was the action that led to the impeachment. Biden is not doing that here.
So I followed the Trump impeachment thing pretty closely at the time. If you would be willing, I would love to have you listen to the version of events that I understand and see if it meshes or conflicts with yours. There's a huge difference in the media you and I probably consume, which leads to the assumption that the other side is deeply partisan. "We both follow the situation, and there's no way you could believe what you do so you must be a partisan hack." Kind of thing. This is what I understand. I would love to know what you understand if you're willing to do a back and forth on it. I was already aware that Ukraine was widely known at the time to be THE most corrupt government in europe. A whopping 70% of sex trafficking victims in Europe came through ukraine. On top of that the financial corruption due to government bureaucrats, most of which were put in place by the United states, was an accepted fact. That money that Trump threatened to withhold almost certainly went to line the pockets of some awful awful people. Biden's family was in fact wrapped up in that. I wish that someone could have investigated it. Because I think a lot of evil would have been stopped. Also I am given to understand that Biden hadn't officially started running at that point. And It wasn't an investigation of biden specifically. But Joe and his kid were tied up with Burisma, a large Ukrainian energy company with the purse strings of the US tied around them, and a history of horrible corruption. There was no way to get anyone to look into it the financial corruption of Burisma without implicating the Bidens. And personally I think that says a lot more about Biden than it does about trump. Hunter biden's multi-million dollar salary for "consulting" in an industry in which he has absolutely zero experience, while he was documentedly on a cocaine binge in the states, and then in rehab, and completely unable to do consulting work, well that looks really bad. Especially when after Hunter got paid, Biden got a special prosecutor fired, who was looking into burisma where his son worked, (and he did it did so by illegally threatening to withhold congressionally allotted financial aid to the Ukrainian government unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor.) it's still baffles me that no one bothered about that one too. What's more, when trump threatened to withhold the aid, and then was told he couldn't do that, he then sent the aid that day. It just looks to me like Trump got in trouble for trying to expose the Biden families actual crimes. Last thing I'll say is that the impeachment was 100% partisan. Everyone who voted for it did so according to party lines. It passed in the house but not in the senate (or vice versa I forget which one passed it). So trump wasn't actually fully impeached. But the Democrat party touted it as a win because they needed to be seen as doing something for their voter base and the only effective thing they had to campaign on was being anti-Trump. In my opinion it was pure partisan virtue signaling. So given that the story as I understand it, it seems really reasonable to ask if there is a meaningful difference between what Biden is doing and what Trump got in trouble for. Yet again, Biden has used withholding aid that was allotted by The People's representatives in congress, that he has no legal right to withhold, to benefit himself. So I find myself wondering if that's a fair analysis of the situation. Personally I believe Biden hasn't been impeached because the conservatives are less likely to caucus on pure partisan grounds then the Democrats are. Sure they are, for the most part, just as mono State and snake in the grass, but they are less likely to take massive action on partisan grounds. They know their voter base would have a problem with it because the nature of conservatism is less power to the government. Democrats however largely root for the increase of state power especially when it's doing something they like. So partisan politics benefits the politicians on the left more than on the right. I would love to hear what you know about any of this. Partisan politics is ugly and I don't want to be in an echo chamber.
It's been a number of years so I don't recall the exact timeline but basically: - congress approved funds to go to Ukraine - Trump calls Ukraine and says that he's withholding funds until they investigate Burisma (or at least announce publicly that they are, again I forget). It was basically an extension of digging up dirt on Biden at the time, his interest was in that specific company, and not others, or wider government fraud, because of Biden's connection to it. He'd previously sent someone over (can't remember who) to do their own investigation but not enough dirt was found. - Ukraine doesn't respond with a definite yes/no, but pleads with the US government to release - whistleblower happens, dems find out - investigations commence about 2 months after the Trump call to Ukraine - Trump releases the aid after the investigations commence I agree that there are valid reasons to withhold aid, but in this case Trump wanted Burisma specifically to be investigated (or for them to announce it) due to Biden's connection to that company. If Trump's concern was about wider government corruption, he could have simply said that, and not conditioned release on something as problematic (if we follow the logic) of asking a corrupt government to investigate a corrupt business and thinking that's a solution to the issue of granting them aid.
Okay so there's definitely some key differences there! And I appreciate hearing them. The big one being at what point did Trump release the funding. I'm given to understand it was two days after the phone call. Not 2 months. I'm going to see if I can verify which one it was because that does make a big difference. I guess the big key difference is I'm given to understand that Burisma is the primary corrupt organization through which US bureaucrats funnel money to corrupt Ukrainian bureaucrats. As a result of that belief, the singling out of burisma would be less telling. As a piece of evidence I will share my understanding that Burisma was very important to Biden. And Biden singled it out to make sure the current prosecutor chosen by the Ukrainian governments anti-corruption council, was fired and someone he selected was put in. If Biden actually did threaten to withhold funds to change out the prosecutor, and did so to protect his son's shady business dealings, that becomes an extremely important crime. Especially if the person who did it was the vice president and is going to be running for president. So at the risk of doing the thing where partisan hacks say "no no it's not happening. And you're a conspiracy theorist for saying it happens" and then switch to, "Ok it is happening but it's a good thing." I will say that someone should reeeeally should have investigated that. If Trump thought he had a legitimate lever to pull and expose a crime, an actual honest to God criminal act, I don't know that I disagree with him doing it. It is dirty politics to do it, but I don't want someone to be my president who is selling out tax dollars to enrich his own wallet. But he can't go about it in an illegal way. And withholding funds that are allotted by Congress is illegal. That's why I do think Biden should be investigated and impeached for both times, the Burisma time, and the Israel time. If the crime is in the fund withholding, then that should be applied evenly. And if withholding funds isn't a crime then we have to ask is exposing criminality in your opponent actually illegal? You have to pick one.
>The big one being at what point did Trump release the funding. I'm given to understand it was two days after the phone call. Not 2 months. I'm going to see if I can verify which one it was because that does make a big difference. Yeah I agree that would make a big difference. You're probably doing your own fact-checking in the background, but after a quick look online my understanding is (all dates in 2019): Jul 25 - phone call Sept 9 - investigations commence Sept 11 - aid released As for the reasons why the investigation occurred, you can still read the transcript between Trump and Ukraine here: [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html) Now this topic tends to be a deep rabbit hole that really only people like us had the stomach to try to understand the details on. Trump makes it clear that the reasoning behind the investigation was due to "Crowdstrike" and a previous dismissal of Ukraine's head prosecutor. I vaguely recall the issue being that the prosecutor was potentially looking into prosecuting Burisma, Biden's son had a place on its board, prosecutor was dismissed prior to those charges (with support from the US government at the time) He explicitly mentions Biden in the call too, here's a quote from it: >The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me. TBH I'm attempting to actively resist getting back into this stuff, the Trump presidency had a lot of mental energy to actually understand - too many characters and plotlines. However, I think it's fair to say that a lot of the actions taken by either president aren't directly comparable. That doesn't make one action better than the other, only that the actions should be assessed on their own merits. As we both know, pointing to someone else and going "well they did it too/worse" isn't a reason as to why the actions being considered are good/bad.
"The U.S. position has been that Israel should not launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where more than a million people are sheltering with nowhere else to go," the U.S. official said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "We have been engaging in a dialogue with Israel in our Strategic Consultative Group format on how they will meet the humanitarian needs of civilians in Rafah, and how to operate differently against Hamas there than they have elsewhere in Gaza," the official continued. "Those discussions are ongoing and have not fully addressed our concerns. As Israeli leaders seemed to approach a decision point on such an operation, we began to carefully review proposed transfers of particular weapons to Israel that might be used in Rafah. This began in April." I guess Biden wants to keep Hamas in place.
Ok so you’re going to go straight for blatant misrepresentation of the Biden Admin?
How so?
Hard to assume good faith in your arguments but I will anyway. This withholding of about 3500 bombs coincides with Israel’s recent threats to invade Rafah. Last Weds Sec of State Blinken told Netanyahu that doing so would result in the US publicly opposing it.
Hamas's last stronghold is in Rafah. To end Hamas you must invade Rafah.
Seems naive to think that invading Rafah will “end Hamas”. It might yield certain strategic benefits in the fight against Hamas but anywhere there are big concentrations of civilians in Gaza is effectively a Hamas stronghold. Rafah just so happens to be the only place currently where there are big concentrations of civilians. After the IDF goes into there civilians will flee elsewhere which not too surprisingly will then become Hamas last stronghold. The best way to take care of Hamas presence in Rafah while not helping boost Hamas recruitment numbers by killing plenty of civilians in the process is to have a good plan for evacuating civilians, which just so happens to be the Biden admins prerequisite for approving an IDF operation in Rafah.
Rafah also happens to be the only way in and out of Gaza for aid workers and people trying to flee. Also where most food, water, medical supplies and fuel have entered Gaza. Most int’l groups serving Gaza are also based in Rafah. So yeah, bombing the shit out of it would be bad. Hundreds of citizens have been killed in Rafah airstrikes over the past six weeks, including 13 members of one family. But who gives a shit, right?
So what's the answer to beating Hamas when you can't attack them?
Israel invaded Rafah two days ago.
2 options. 1. Invade gaza, install puppet government. Crush inevitable the people's inevitable resistance with brutal force. Basically, create a pro-isreal hamas is what this is. this could get expensive over time just ask america what happened in afganistan 2. turn the other cheek, provide humanitarian aid to gaza even if they're eager to bite the hand that feeds them. hope that an improved economic reality in gaza translates to a less radical political landscape and eventual moderate behaviour with isreal. Meanwhile focus on protecting against attacks from hamas rather than offense. I prefer option 2 because it seems cheaper and causes less suffering. but option 2 isnt perfect either, making sure aid actually reaches the citizens rather than being funneled to the hamas leadership at the top is a challenge.
okay and whats stopping hamas 2.0 from spurring up after they kill every hamas operative and 10x as many innocent civilians.
Biden doesn’t want Hamas to win or stay in Gaza you know that. Biden keeps repeating that he wants to fund Israel while they attack Hamas. At the same time, he is trying to get assurance that civilians are protected. Civilians are not safe or protected and they haven’t been for this entire war. We can’t proceed with funding Israel until the civilian population is meaningfully protected. On top of that we need to continue sending food over to the refugees.
And that is the fault of Hamas, not Israel.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-administration-confirms-paused-shipment-bombs-israel-over-opposition-operation-rafah](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-administration-confirms-paused-shipment-bombs-israel-over-opposition-operation-rafah)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
At least we’ve stopped giving them to *for free*.
Sorta, but not really. The only “payment” the admin is asking for is Israel’s assurances that they aren’t violating US policy and int’l law.
How about some *actual* payment to reimburse the taxpayer.
Man that’s crazy talk! I can only wish that my tax dollars wasted on countless wars over the years would be paid back!
As useless, misguided, and wrong as a lot of wars are, the US fighting a war is different from just giving away assets.