Biden impeachment inquiry

@darkhorse12

 It's funny that you believe that a left leaning bot is here to tell you facts and the truth 

This is incorrect.  Maybe go back to 2014 and read the bill or the press release.  That is partially what the loan was for NOT what it was contingent on.  Even the IMF at that time did not have those conditions and that was far more money.  This was mostly to prevent Ukraine from defaulting on their debt subsequent to the actions in Crimea, etc.  There were not conditions like you are talking about placed on it.  Otherwise, no money would ever be loaned to Ukraine because it has been the most corrupt country in Europe for a long time.

@BigGame90

Wait a minute you’re telling me we’ve been talking to a robot this whole time ?

Yes..

@UNIMAN

2020 Trump; Trump calls Georgia, tells them to look closer. Only need 11,000 votes. 

Wow What phone call did you listen ?  Have you always manufactured conversations to what you want to hear ? Listen to the one that will put Trump behind bars along with the rest of the MAGA trash that tried to steal the election! It’s obvious you are a not a Republican and after the party disintegrates look in the mirror at who caused it. MAGA 2025 will be no more as Trump goes to Jail.

New York post article is a example of poor journalism.  Cherry picking quotes from a report to associate progress in broad reforms to Shokin.  In reality, the report calls out Shokin for a lack of support for reforms. For example, appointing people with bad reputations to anti-corruption committees.  According to Irish times, European union welcomed the removal of Ukraine's corrupt prosecutor.

This is all so stupid. 

The Vice President of The United States has his son (who has no experience in the gas industry and he's a drug addict) sitting on a board of directors of a foreign company whose company CEO is wanted for arrest, exiled in another country hiding. Why? Because he is charged with corruption. And top exec of this company spells it out to the Vice Presidents son in Nov of 2015 that we must use all our resourses to stop legal investigations against the company and it's CEO.

And the investigations stop, the investigators fired,  and the CEO is off on all charges, free to come back to his country. 

"NOTHING TO SEE HERE PEOPLE, MOVE ALONG."

This is all so stupid. 

The Vice President of The United States has his son (who has no experience in the gas industry and he's a drug addict) sitting on a board of directors of a foreign company whose company CEO is wanted for arrest, exiled in another country hiding. Why? Because he is charged with corruption. And top exec of this company spells it out to the Vice Presidents son in Nov of 2015 that we must use all our resourses to stop legal investigations against the company and it's CEO.

And the investigations stop, the investigators fired,  and the CEO is off on all charges, free to come back to his country. 

"NOTHING TO SEE HERE PEOPLE, MOVE ALONG."

 Another deflection from tread topic. I will go there this once.

I read the transcript, here it is; https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

Trump had a belief there were issues. Ask them to recheck and make sure. The "all I need is 11,000 votes" is in reference to challanging Dominion voting machines. Trump said that was not needed even though he believed Dominion was corrupt as hell.

Sorry Joe, but everyone is entittled to their beliefs even if they are not your beliefs. 

I can see no criminal conduct in this transcript.

@BigGame90

 Left leaning bot,lol. Is that what you call someone that states facts? Why not rebut what they say with facts? 

@Raiders22

 Here’s your policy

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-foreign-aid/

NO. Only about a fifth of U.S. economic assistance goes to governments. In 2018, 21% of U.S. official development assistance went to governments, 20% to non-profit organizations, 34% to multilateral organizations, and 25% elsewhere. Typically, when the U.S. wants to support a country that is ruled by a corrupt, uncooperative, or autocratic government, U.S. assistance goes through private channels—NGOs, other private entities, or multilateral organizations. Accountability of U.S. economic assistance is high—the U.S. imposes stringent, some would say onerous, reporting and accounting requirements on recipients of U.S. assistance, and the office of the U.S. inspector general investigates misuse.

@darkhorse12

 That is not the policy as he is talking about it.  I know the process and how it is done.  He was implying the process after it is approved is that it was contingent on Ukraine fighting corruption -- it was not. 

As I told him, go read it and you will not find that in it. 

He simply does not realize how corrupt Ukraine always has been.  We were not 'rewarding' them to have good behavior.  That was not what the funding was about at all.  Again, it was not 'contingent on Ukraine reforming corruption' -- if that was the case, they would never be considered for funding, let alone receive funding. 

For example, read the part you posted about how they fund a corrupt country -- like through the private channel parts, etc.  There is a whole different method and 'below-radar' approach they use in that instance.  Simply go read what they and the IMF said at the time and how this was going to affect their inability to repay debt, etc.  

Washinton post fact check reveals key goal for Biden's trip was to urge Ukraine to crack down on corruption.  Plan was to get Poroshenko to fire corrupt prosecutor Shokin.  Biden successfully executed US policy supported by Obama administration, congress republicans, World bank, International monetary fund and European union.  He was right to link loan guarantee to Shokin removal.  Otherwise Poroshenko would never remove Shokin.

EXACTLY!! 

And Burisma CEO walks away a free man. 

Jan 2023; Zelensky fires a slew of top officials for corruption.

August 2023; Zelensky fired the heads of military conscription in every region of Ukraine following corruption allegations that may have seen men dodge the draft.

Sept 2023 Zelensky fires defense minister for corruption. 

No one stopping any billions now. 

"He' who?  Biden?  He, as Vice-President, was okay to set 'USA policy' as he saw fit?  That does not even make sense when you say it out loud.  

"The plan' was NOT 'to get Poroshenko to fire corrupt prosecutor Shokin'. THAT was never stated at any time by anyone.  YES, that was Biden's plan; not the policy or the USA 'contingency' plan.  

There may have been a goal to get them to crack down on corruption but that is separate from getting them funds.  Ukraine has always been corrupt.  These funds had NOTHING to do with corruption.  It may look bad to fund a corrupt country, but there are WAY more than one corrupt official over there.  How did Biden decide this was the only one HE wanted fired?

Obama white house was fully on board plan to link loan guarantee to Shokin removal.  In Trump impeachment inquiry, every witness testified Biden was following official US policy in calling for Shokin removal.  No evidence Biden did anything wrong on trip to Ukraine.  Months before Biden arrival, US and European officials pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin for his failure to address corruption.  International monetary fund threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Shokin was removed.

From an article byThe NY Times Nov 2019

“The position regarding getting rid of Shokin was not Vice President Biden’s position; it was the position of the U.S. government, as well as the European Union and international financial institutions,” said Amos J. Hochstein, former coordinator for international energy affairs at the State Department and one of the few administration officials who directly confronted Mr. Biden at the time about his son.

@thirdperson

Again, you are stating this as if it were addressed explicitly; it was not.  Even there you run into the same issue Trump ran into: the Impoundment Control Act, the President has the power to propose deferring funds on a temporary basis or rescinding them altogether, subject to Congressional approval.  This is money that has been approved by Congress, and then you have the GAO and OMB to consider.  Presidents can do this (perhaps Vice-Presidents by association) but this is exactly not the way to do it.  Remember Democrats wanted to impeach Trump for even considering withholding funds.  Even in the Trump administration's letter for review it was determined they could not withhold funds past the expiration date of the fiscal year.

 No one is disputing the issue of corruption reforms being needed, or even the office of the prosecutor.  That was even addressed in Biden's speech over there.  But it was not mentioned as an absolute contingency on the funding.  It was not his decision to make on exactly what the reforms are going to be and who was going to be fired.  It is not his job to run another country by demanding that they do what he says.  The implied issues internally that the IMF and USA felt that needed addressing were laid out -- it was not their job to tell them exactly how to do them.

"The United States is with you in this fight.  We understand we're with you afar.  It’s much harder for you than it is for us.  We’ve stepped up with official assistance to help backstop the Ukrainian economy.  We’ve rallied the international community to commit a total of $25 billion in bilateral and multilateral financing to support Ukraine.  It includes $2 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and the possibility of more. 

Yesterday I announced almost $190 million in new American assistance to help Ukraine fight corruption, strengthen the rule of law, implement critical reform, bolster civil society, advance energy security.  That brings our total of direct aid to almost $760 million in direct assistance, in addition to loan guarantees since this crisis broke out.  And that is not the end of what we're prepared to do if you keep moving."

Even later in the speech he mentioned corruption reforms being needed and in particular the office of the prosecutor.  But it was not a contingency at all.

Certainly, the administration had to back his play afterwards -- what else were they going to do.  

But it was not his decision to make and even though apparently the Burisma, and most likely Hunter, were not even being investigated at the time -- it still looked very bad for him to take it upon himself to do this.  Then he put the administration in a bad position.  Then he follows it up by, more or less, bragging about it.  Then follows that up by lying about Hunter's situation.  

It was a bad look, it was not within his purview, and set a bad precedent.  Look what happened, almost directly because of this, the very next administration.