Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.
You did this in the other topic too.
You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"
And it's bizarre.
In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.
They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.
And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.
That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.
For one, I'm not picking 1 thing and ignoring the rest. Not sure why you'd just make up a blatant lie. And there is reason to delay the funds. Trump already explained it. He was investigating corruption and making sure the country isnt supporting Russia. You simply don't like that answer.
But you are? You don't respond to the rest of his points? Also, where did Trump say "I'm delaying it to make Ukraine isn't supporting Russia"?
I responded to his points in the other topic, and I responded to his points in this topic.
there is another possible explanation for the temporary suspension of aid. At the time, Ukraine was transitioning to a new, democratically-elected government and a review of the aid may have been justified under such circumstances.
President Trump on Wednesday linked his decision to delay U.S. military aid to Ukraine to concerns about high levels of corruption in that country, and especially to frustration that the Europeans werent doing more to assist their neighbor, which serves as a bulwark between Europe and Russia
As UR has explained better than I have, Trump stating this PAST Wednesday is shady after the whole questioning of the timelines came out. *IF* he had stated this back when suspending the aid (or even after), it would fits *your* narrative