True, on both counts.
Posted on 02/06/2025 12:00:03 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
While the influence USAID funding exerts on foreign populations to induce and influence regime change may sometimes be subtle at best, other times it is much more apparent. Joe Biden’s trip to Ukraine as Vice President in March 2016 may be one of the more well-known examples.
After the 2020 Election and the exposé of the Hunter Biden Laptop From Hell, quite a bit of attention was given to an outburst that Joe Biden made during a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018.
During his remarks, Biden infamously bragged about pressuring Ukraine officials to fire Viktor Shokin, the special prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a board member making almost $1 million per year.
Biden recalled going to Kyiv for the “12th or 13th time” to announce a third billion-dollar loan guarantee. He said he had gotten a commitment from Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President who was installed following the ousting of Viktor Yanukovich during the Maidan Revolution, and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to “take action against the state prosecutor.” But when Biden arrived, the two Ukrainians had yet to remove Shokin.
“‘I’m leaving here in, what, six hours? If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,'” Biden recalled saying.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
This has been well documented for years. This USAID money laundering back and forth to Burisma and the Bidens is but one of many reasons why Biden pardoned his family.
I’ve said all along - Ukraine is not a “country”
Post Cold War, it was a kleptocracy controlled by Russia and its oligarchs. The United States and EU simply arranged a coup to switch it to control by Western politicians and oligarchs.
It became a black-box for money laundering, biolabs, and countless political schemes, as it was easily controlled, far away and nearly impossible to penetrate.
Ukraine is a CANCER on the US body politic, put there by the deep-state and their Uniparty cronies. Even worse, the people of Ukraine sacrificed a million of their men and had their home destroyed for these evil schemes
Zeepers are paid assholes.
So, USAID was just a bagman?
These people are sociopathic and psychopathic “leaders”. They have no concern for anyone other than themselves (and maybe their family). These criminals all need to receive Justice for their ongoing crimes.
In reality, The Big Guy was using OUR money to bribe Ukrainian officials into firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, where Hunter was a board member making a MILLION a year?
Why am I not shocked at all?
True, on both counts.
Then-VP Joe Biden---center above---bragged at the Council on Foreign Relations Jan 2018 about withholding a
"$1 billion loan guarantee" appropriated by Congress to Ukraine until the prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired.
That was USAID.
That is how Nuland and her cronies at the Obama State Dept were able to fund the Maidan and overthrow the Yanukovich admin, a move which was favorable to a relationship with Russia, THEIR NEIGHBOR, in exchange for a US-Friendly regime.
THAT is how Mikheil Saakashvili went from Georgian President for two terms to Ukraine's Odessa Oblast governor (after being educated in the US).
========================================================
This revelation has to be the single greatest blow in the battle against the Deep State, to date.
“...get back to serious diplomacy.”
You can’t be serious.
That bears repeating every now and then.
Did rhen-pres Obama know VP Biden was threatening to withold appropriated funds?
constitutionalcenter.org
snip
The Constitution’s Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending in the federal budget in the Appropriations Clause, which reads in part, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The Constitution then delegates to the president the task of spending approved funds in the Take Care Clause, which requires the chief executive “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The most noted example of a conflict over impoundment took place in the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon refused to spend funds on numerous programs approved by Congress. During public hearings on the matter in 1973, Nixon’s critics said the president was using his impoundment powers to effectively veto programs by cutting off their funds. “There has never been a more appropriate time than the present to take up this crucial constitutional question of the role of the Congress and its relationship with the executive and whether or not we have co-equal branches of Government,” said Sen. Hubert Humphrey.
President Nixon’s supporters believed that Nixon was managing funds in an inflationary environment using his Take Care powers. “The President’s obligation to faithfully execute the laws plainly includes an obligation to prevent waste. Impounding to save the taxpayer’s dollar has always had the full support of the Congress,” argued Assistant Attorney General Joseph T. Sneed.
Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in response to the controversy. Title X in the act is commonly referred to as the Impoundment Control Act (or ICA), and it requires the president to report to Congress when he impounds funds as a deferment (or a temporary delay) or a recission (a permanent cancellation) of spending.
Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending.
The Supreme Court considered the impoundment question in Train v. City of New York (1975) after the ICA was passed. The city sued after it did not receive funds allocated to it under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. President Nixon had vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode the veto. Nixon then reduced program spending. In his unanimous opinion, Justice Byron White wrote that “the sole issue before us is whether the 1972 Act permits the Administrator to allot to the States under § 205(a) less than the entire amounts authorized to be appropriated by § 207. We hold that the Act does not permit such action, and affirm the Court of Appeals.”
Another effort to give the president more flexibility in controlling how funds allocated by Congress are spent was the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The act amended the ICA “to authorize the President to cancel in whole any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, any item of new direct spending, or any limited tax benefit signed into law.” Such moves required certain conditions, including reducing the federal budget deficit and not impairing “essential Government functions” or causing “harm” to “the national interest.” Congress could override a spending cancellation by the president using an expedited process.
snip
My Grandfather was born in Russia, in the 1890’s. His hometown is now claimed as Ukraine. This was before there was a Communist Russia. It is historically Russia. Ukraine is like the plains of the US to Russia historically.
FJB in October 2020, "We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.