[Williams]

Not only was it in his authority but the aid was not actually withheld it was granted within the time period required therefore he could not possibly have violated the law.

[oldasrocks]

So it boils down to Trump trying to protect the American Taxpayers money from crooked politicians on the take.

[Liz]

pjmedia.com

Five Times Obama Put Conditions on Foreign Aid and Democrats Didn’t Care
BY MATT MARGOLIS DECEMBER 10, 2019

The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party over this impeachment nonsense knows no bounds. Last week I noted five examples of Barack Obama obstructing justice that they had no problem with. Sadly, there’s plenty more hypocrisy to point out.

Democrats have been so desperate to paint Trump’s actions as unprecedented, they’ve even argued that any time conditions are put on foreign aid that’s tantamount to an illegal quid pro quo. When White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney noted that conditions are put on foreign aid “all the time,” the media and the Democrats blew up, claiming this was an admission of a corrupt quid pro quo because, obviously, any condition for aid can’t be anything but. Right?

Of course, everyone knows that Mick Mulvaney was substantively correct. Conditions are put on aid all the time. In fact, some 2020 Democrats are calling for conditions on aid to Israel. Where were the allegations of a quid pro quo? It has already been established that there are legitimate reasons to want to investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, and even the Democrats’ own witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma raised legitimate questions.

So, let’s get back to the issue of conditional aid. Quid pro quo or standard operating procedure? Well, if Democrats want to argue that conditional aid is a quid pro quo by default, then I guess Barack Obama should have been impeached.

Here are five examples of Barack Obama placing conditions on foreign aid to align with his political agenda that Democrats didn’t have a problem with.

5. Colombia
Despite years of giving Colombia military and economic aid, in 2016, Obama made that aid conditional on the Colombian government negotiating a peace treaty with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a terror-group backed by former Cuban President Fidel Castro. FARC has “slaughtered and tortured hundreds of thousands of civilians, pumped unfathomable amounts of cocaine into the United States, kidnapped and raped children, and much more.” Yet thanks to Obama’s pressure, nearly half a billion in American taxpayer dollars went toward putting FARC terrorists in the Colombian government without ever being held accountable for their crimes.-—snip——more at pjmedia.com

[old curmudgeon]

And so we have another example of how deep the slime is in the swamp.

Oh yeah, what else does one find in the swamp besides vicious critters?

MUD!

[Jeff Chandler]

not actually withheld it was granted within the time period required

[boomop1]

OMB is run by RATS, the entire workforce in the government are democRats. The Giant Deep State.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Suppose that election had gone to a candidate who was a pro-Russian? Suppose further that newly elected pro-Russian Ukrainian President threw in with Vladamir Putin and joined him in his plans to reconstruct the Russian Empire, turned and with Russia militarily attacked their neighbors. Tell me, would President Trump still be obligated to expend those foreign aid military funds, sending javelin missiles, and support the new Ukraine regime, or would he be justified in making the decision to hold that aid in light of the change in international conditions?"

That's an excellent hypothetical, and given the recent history of the Ukraine, it is not at all far-fetched. Much foreign aid has a direct connection to national security, and is thus within the purview of the president.