No, he didn’t…
There’s absolutely no support for that interpretation of the video.
Doesn’t change the fact he still threatened to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians fired the prosecutor - which they did - then they got their aid. That’s called quid pro quo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/08/joe-biden-is-hypocrite-ukraine/
Apparently @IcebergSlim doesn’t want to see the truth. The TRUTH to him, is how much he despises Trump. And the fact, no matter what Trump has done, or is doing, will never change how he feels about Biden.
So much so, he is willing to post on here (what HE considers is “TRUTH”), and the Truth to him, is all that matters - no matter where he gets his sources from. Which most of the time is from the left media (aka MSM).
The fundamental flaw in your claim is its irrelevant. The extortionist doesn’t have to carry out the threat or have the capability to carry it out to commit the crime. Neither does a public official conditioning an act on shielding his son’s scam require the capability to carry out the threat to be criminal bribery. 
It’s absurd to require foreign officials, in this case the new Ukrainian government, to guess if the second most powerful leader in the Executive branch can carry out his corrupt threat. 
It’s only “irrelevant” because it vaporizes the Ugly Tranny/Parnas/Shokin/Solomon narrative.
And I can’t help noticing how niggardly you people are with citations…but it must be tough to cut and paste what you’re told on the radio.
do you have any idea who Marc Thiessen is?
A columnist focusing on foreign and domestic policy for the WaPo?
Not particularly close…
Check out his bio.
He served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush from 2004 to 2009 and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from 2001 to 2006.
What’s your point?
Hardly a liberal shill…
After the Scrub disaster, he and his friends put together a trough for unemployable veterans of that administration…
Where he cranked out propaganda, while Obama was POTUS.
Your opinion doesn’t refute the fact Biden engaged in criminal activity when he threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor charged with investigating his son’s Burisma scam was fired. You cannot dispute the obvious corruption on Biden’s part so you just repeat the opinion spoon fed to you typically by the WaPo or NYT with the meat of the article hidden behind a pay wall.
Even Obama administration officials saw the problem you are trying to deny.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he worried Ukrainian officials would use Hunter Biden’s position at the company, Burisma Holdings, as an opportunity to influence his father. Kent said he tried to convey his opinion to Joe Biden’s office, but that a staffer told him the vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to address the issue because his other son, Beau, was battling cancer.
Biden justified Hill’s concern when he issued his ultimatum to the Ukrainians.
Biden told them to call the Kenyan if they doubted his authority to withhold the money.
They had questioned his authority in saying that he couldn’t do it because he wasn’t the President. Biden replied with “Call him.”
It’s on the video, doofus! It happens near the 00:57 mark.
1 Like
Narrative isn’t validated by repetition.
Your opinion doesn’t refute the fact Biden engaged in criminal activity when he threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor charged with investigating his son’s Burisma scam was fired. You cannot dispute the obvious corruption on Biden’s part so you just repeat the opinion
That the VP is not so empowered is a fact, not an opinion…
No…because in so doing, Biden was executing official US policy in coordination with other countries and IGOs…
Which is why he can go on record with his actions…please note the contrast with the Trump Tower meeting in which Don Jr. was ready to barter US security for gossip.
Because Biden was tasked with executing official US policy…
Why do you meatheads have such difficulty grasping this distinction?
This clip, title, and description were not created by C-SPAN.
But ah seen it on tha innahtubes…
The release of the money had already been approved under US policy. The requirement to fire the prosecutor of his son’s blatantly corrupt company was tacked on by Joe Biden.
Extortion was part of Schmobamas policy foreign and domestic.
tt53 is a lonely old coot, huddling deep in his closet, dreaming of being protected by large soft men…
yes…he is authorized by POTUS to execute official US policy.
Uh…no…
The aid Grifty held up illegally could only be made available to Ukraine after they had been certified as sufficiently corruption free to receive it…all relevant departments had done so, including the Pentagon.
The case of Biden was completely different
Shokin became prosecutor general in February 2015. Over the next year, the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund criticized officials for not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine …
The U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation. Embassy personnel had called for U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to be tied to broader anti-corruption efforts, including Shokin’s dismissal, this person said.
Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion [in U.S. loan guarantees] if Ukraine didn’t crack down on corruption reportedly came in March [2016]. That same month, hundreds of Ukrainians demonstrated outside President Petro Poroshenko’s office demanding Shokin’s resignation, and he was dismissed.