WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings

How much aid did the Obama administration provide to Ukraine?

 

So Trump wanted to know what Ukraine's role was in gathering opposition research against his candidacy (upon which the Russia narrative was built) and Biden threatened to withhold aide if Ukraine did not stop the investigation of corruption into the company that paid his kid a ridiculous amount of money BECAUSE he is Joe's kid. Seems the demonrats want to impeach Trump for exactly what they did to .. Why is it so hard to understand why we continue to support the President? To stop this kind lawlessness and one sided justice is why we elected him.. Had HRC been elected, Epstein would be alive, Weinstein would still be a big HW exec (oh,, wait,, he still is). ISIS would still be building a caliphate, the NORKs shooting missles every other week... etc.. etc.. and none of the corruption of the Obama admin would ever have been revealed (getting it prosecuted seems to be another matter.. but here is so much, I guess that it takes time to investigate.. afterall the demonrats spent two years to investigate absolutely NOTHING.

 

I don't have to supply you an exact date and time and it was internal deliberations and after the phone call and meeting. So what? And again a so-and-so told so-and-so. A President has a duty to protect out taxpayer dollars from being used corruptly and achieve out goals don't you agree?

 

I 100% agree..... and here, the Ukraine aid went through the proper review process and this president was told the aid should be made as Ukraine has made great steps under Zelensky to begin to clean up whatever was wrong...

So Trump is, once again, substituting his... what? Gut intuition?? that the Pentagon analysis wasn't correct or sufficient...

That argument fails on so many levels...much like this president...

 

Are you sure you want to hitch your wagon to this story?

The latest phase of the disinformation campaign has focused on what Giuliani calls crucial new evidence: an affidavit from the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden got fired in 2016. But the sudden appearance of this sworn statement, six months after Giuliani and his allies began claiming that Biden had acted with corrupt intent to get that prosecutor removed, raises questions about who orchestrated the filing of that affidavit and how the effort to smear Biden might be related to a Ukrainian billionaire’s fight against extradition to the United States to face bribery charges.

In the sworn statement, which was submitted to a court in Austria last month, Viktor Shokin, the former prosecutor general of Ukraine, claims that he was forced out because he was leading “a wide-ranging corruption probe” of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company that paid Biden’s son Hunter to sit on its board.

In fact, there is no evidence that such a probe ever existed. Shokin was forced to resign following complaints from international donors to Ukraine, and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, that he had failed to pursue cases against corrupt former officials — including the owner of the gas company that employed Hunter Biden.
---------------------
Giuliani, however, is dedicated to spreading lies about Biden’s role in Ukraine on Trump’s behalf, so he has taken to waving Shokin’s affidavit in front television cameras with a theatrical flourish, as he did in an appearance on ABC in which he mistakenly stated that it had been online for six months. Shokin, in fact, delivered his sworn testimony in front of a notary in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, on September 4, according to a note on the document.

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/17...ump-smear-biden-evade-u-s-corruption-charges/

 

You should know by now that this is the allegation made by Giuliani and it has absolutely zero bearing on the truth.

 

Yep.
The only one.
The key.
And what did Sondland say Trump said?
Page 105, 1-25; Page 106, 1-23:




https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6540412-Gordon-Sondland-Testimony

Sondland:
The President -specifically- said he did not want a quid-pro-quo.

 

Well, to be fair, except for the misspelling of the word aid, the first 9 words of what you bolded is factually correct.. From there, the rest of that is crap and been debunked all day long...

 

Yeah, but this conversation was when the cover up officially began.... September 9th.... the day the WH got the letter from Schiff that Congress was on his ass.... and literally the first time anybody even considered that there was a QPQ going on...

I want to know what Trump told Sondland on the 9/1 phone call... surely I don't need to acquaint you with that one...

And any other call Sondland had with Trump from July onwards...

 

Look at you, dismissing the proof that Trump did not want QPQ, and that both Sondland and Taylor knew it.

Let me know when you can cite a source that says he did, and provide a quote of the text to that effect.

 

The only one available for testimony, as of now. Presumably, Giuliani, Mulvaney and Pompeo would also have direct contact with the President. Sondland may have just been the message carrier and have been erroneously chosen for the role for his naivety and to be the "fall guy," to enable "plausible deniability."

 

-Lots- of speculation there. Good luck.

 

He testifies again next week...so we may learn more.

 

Good luck.

 

You should've named this thread "Watch the total Shiff Show, and drink some more Koolaid while fawning over anything that looks like it might help our side".

 

I'm guessing next Wednesday.... unless he wants to commit perjury...

BTW, Trump saying he didn't want QPQ isn't proof he didn't want (or do) QPQ...

And QPQ isn't a thing anyway...

Go back to your "Password" days.....The word... is Extortion

 

LOL, and Ukraine didn't know about it so where is the quid pro quo?

 

How will Sondland repeating his prior testimony constitute perjury?

It's three orders of magnitude more evidence to that effect than you have to the contrary.

Well yes - the Democrats know QPQ won't hunt, so they moved the goalpost.

 

The released transcript basically says "you want the Javelins, I want investigations into Joe Biden and his son and Ukrainian interference in our election. Give me the investigations and you get the Javelins." You do this for me, I do that for you...that's a quid pro quo. If it's done in the national interest, it's legal; if it's done for personal gain, it's an abuse of power and an impeachable offense.

 

It was stupid to fall into the Trump trap of QPQ, but they've dug themselves out quickly enough (except for you people refusing to drop it). That was a legit goalpost move, but the point is you need to set your own goalposts and not use the ones Trump set.

Sondland has already adjusted his testimony once, and now we know he's left out more things... Remember, Sondland came BEFORE Taylor and Morrison, deposition wise.. Both have now said Sondland was saying everything was dependent on investigation announcements.... Now we need Sondland to say that came from Trump and voila.... the Senate can refuse to convict...

SNIP
Sondland’s admission corroborates what several other witnesses had alleged, finally making it indisputable: The Ukrainians were told by the Trump administration about a quid pro quo involving hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance. That is, Sondland told a top Ukrainian official that if they wanted the aid, they should make a public statement committing to investigating Burisma (the natural gas company Hunter Biden sat on the board of) and purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
ENDSNIP

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...gordon-sondland-testimony-changed-impeachment

 

Cite the source and quote the text to that effect.

 

So many mental leaps of faith in this post it's almost impressive. Bravo, no one will ever convince you that trump did anything wrong on anything.

 

I know you own a computer, since you are posting on here....recommend you use it, especially the "Google" function....



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.../gordon-sondland-testimony-update-impeachment

 

Right. And when specifics are mentioned, what did we get? The Bidens and crowdstrike. What a load of sh**.

 

Onus is on you to support your claims.

Uh huh. And where did that directive come from?
Cite the source and quote the text to that effect.