Offical Impeachment Thread

[OldLady]

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

Top officials were told in early August about the delay of $391 million in security assistance, undercutting a chief argument President Trump has used to deny any quid pro quo.

To Democrats who say that President Trump’s decision to freeze $391 million in military aid was intended to bully Ukraine’s leader into carrying out investigations for Mr. Trump’s political benefit, the president and his allies have had a simple response: There was no quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know assistance had been blocked. the freeze was directly linked to Mr. Trump’s demand. That did not deter the president, who on Wednesday approvingly tweeted a quote by a congressional Republican saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had “provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.”

In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

weeks earlier than acknowledged.

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

Ukraine Knew Trump Was Freezing Aid Over Biden

Ukrainian officials knew for months that President Donald Trump was withholding key military aid to their country over demands that Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rival and 2020 candidate Joe Biden, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The report, based on interviews and documents the Times obtained, directly contradicts Trump’s claim that there could not have been an improper quid pro quo arrangement because Ukrainian officials did not know the United States was withholding $391 million in military aid.

Instead, top Ukrainian officials reportedly knew of the aid freeze as early as the first week of August ― just days after Trump requested Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden during a July 25 phone call.

Ukraine Knew Trump Was Freezing Aid Over Biden, New York Times Reports | HuffPost

So he didn't know when the call was made, got it. Great unbiased sources I might add. LMAO

.

NYT doesn't publish without confirmation of facts. Their opinions may not please you but they wouldn't be publishing something like this, which is news, not op ed, if it hadn't been corroborated. Now, I know that you folks will just continue to find a Ukranian official who says they didn't know. You go for it. The truth continues to come out; you can't drown it out forever.

Remind us again how many stories the NYT has had to retract. BTW early Aug is still AFTER the July call.

.

Who cares about the phone call anymore? It's gone way beyond that.

Yet you idiots keep bringing it up, go figure.

.

Where did I do that?

 

[OldLady]

actually she said that rotten rudy smeared her & trump agreeing that she was 'bad news' is enough. btw, there NEVER was a reason given for her dismissal, even if idonny just didn't like her. no reason at all.

She wasn't dismissed, she was reassigned. And the president doesn't need a reason.

.

uh - ya. i know & have said that in other posts. the question is ---- by the abassador herself - was that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the prez - but why was she 'smeared'?

Perhaps because she didn't support the incoming Ukraine admin or our president.

.

lie.

Not what Zelensky said. LMAO

.

What did he say?

 

[OldLady]

well i know that if it were & president tinkles had the evidence to show it was, he sure as hell would do EVERYTHING he could to show the witch hunters how wrong they were. he would hold a televised 'event' with spotlights, a red carpet, & probably make it a pay per view so he could make $$$ off it.

but none of that is gonna happen. & we both know why.

Then maybe we can make a trade: Ask the President for those witnesses, and in return, we get to question the whistleblower and the person he or she got their information from; the person that was listening on the phone.

Sound like a good deal to you???

Sounds more like the Kavanaugh scam that never was. How about burden of proof goes on the prosecution, and you don’t have to do or say anything. Like in real criminal law? It’s good enough for everything else. Shit, the alleged victim said he wasn’t a victim, and that’s not good enough. WTF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just trying to demonstrate to these hypocrites that they are hypocrites.

They want Trump to give them anything and everything for them to try and prove guilt, yet they defend Schiff Face when he doesn't do the same for his defense. Their claim is Trump is trying to hide something, while it is they who are hiding things by not bringing all their evidence forward. So far, they brought nothing.

Schiff Face kept secret meetings taking place in the basement for weeks, and carefully choosing the so-called witnesses that he though made his best case. Now we see his best witnesses are nothing but he said/ she said people, and nothing of substance.

I have news, overhearing a conversation is not hearsay. Witnesses matter.

Trump is toast.

You can't impeach somebody over what somebody said they heard, because liars are everywhere in the Democrat party.

And you say that in support of TRUMP?

 

[RealDave]

Biden got what he wanted via threats and mysteriously his son ends up on a Ukrainian gravy train
Trump asked for and got nothing

Trump is being investigated and his primary accuser is hidden

What Nation and what planet are we on?

On with whistleblower laws, assfuck.

The WB reported a crime. You stupid fucks act like this is a case of rape where Trump raped the whistleblower.

 

[RealDave]

So you're saying it is just a coincidence that Trump withheld the military aid just days before the phone call. And it's just coincidental that Trump dropped a request that Zelensky open a corruption investigation when discussing military aid in the phone conversation. And of course, it's just a coincidence that Biden's son worked for the company to be investigated. And it was coincidental that Trump fired the Ambassador to the Ukraine, who was not on the Trump team, just weeks before the phone call. And of course Zelensky's much sought after meeting with the president was being delayed.

WOW! What a strange series of coincidences.

Riddle me this: If Zelensky took Trump's request as a threat, how is it he had no idea US aid was being held up? I mean, if an inspector comes to my house to complain my house paint is chipping, and I offer him 100 to ignore it, we both know I bribed him. I gave him a hundred bucks, and he got in his car and left.

What the left is trying to claim here, is that Trump bribed Zelensky, and Zelensky had no idea he'd just been bribed. Yes, Trump wanted to know the association between Hunter and Ukraine. After all, the drug addict got a job in a field he didn't know anything about, in a country he didn't know anything about; not even the language, all while his father was not only the VP, but in charge of goings on in the country.

I did not claim Zelensky took Trump's request to be a threat at that time. As you said, he did know the funds were frozen. At that time, Zelensky would could consider it a simple request for a favor. However, in about a week, Zelensky would learn Trump's request for a favor was not a request.

Zelensky was told to work with Juliana which made sense because Trump had removed the ambassador. Obviously Juliana's part in this was to act as Trump's go between in regard to a public announcement of the investigation and providing details to the president. No doubt, there would have been an announcement of an investigation had the whisleblower's complaint not come out about 2 weeks after the phone call.

Again, more Thought Police claims. And please tell me where you purchased that crystal ball, because all the ones I purchased never seemed to work.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to put the pieces together.
Trump recalls the Ukraine ambassador a few weeks before freezing Ukraine military aid. Zelenski's meeting with Trump is put on hold. Trump ask Zelenski to open an investigation of the Bidens. He sends Giuliani to the Ukraine and ask Zelenski to work with him. The whistleblower exposes Trump's scheme to force Zelenski to open an investigation. The House announces an investigation of Trump. Military aid is restored.

So tell me, when was Zelensky "forced" to do anything? And why would Yovanovich have anything to do with interfering between Trump and Zelensky? He didn't need her out of the way for anything. What meeting was put on hold? It was a phone call, something that doesn't need too much scheduling.

This entire farce is based on he said/ she said, why did Trump do X, what mind reading Democrats thought Trump was thinking, but no actual hard evidence of their claim.

If the Democrats are stupid enough to proceed with this impeachment, it will be the first impeachment in our history based on no facts, but plenty of assumptions. Our Constitutional authors are rolling in their graves, because if they thought it could ever come to this, the Constitution would be 50 pages long with lots of color pictures so that Democrats could understand.

We have a slew of witnesses that have testified as to what Trump was doing. Get real.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I wonder if the mods might start a week 2 thread ? This one is too big to be informative.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you if a president bribes a foreign power with military aid in order to discredit his political opposition. However, most people would consider that misuse of executive power, bribery, and a violation of his oath of office.

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

First, jackass, why would the President of the Ukraine admit he accepted a bribe? Second, why would he piss off Trump when Trump controlled the funding.

Using funds to try to bribe a foreign official is illegal

Biden was leading in the polls. Joe Biden was the centrist. He was kicking Trumps ass in e ery poll.

Nice Try but Trump is toast.

Congress controls funding you moron

And T-Rump tried to circumvent congress you moron.

 

[Lesh]

Ukraine eventually got the aid. There are no grounds for impeachment.

Two days after the WB complaint reached Congress (and only days before it expired).

That's hardly a defense

He got CAUGHT

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wonder if the mods might start a week 2 thread ? This one is too big to be informative.

Agreed, but when others start a new thread on the subject, they close it down and everybody is jammed into this one. You can't follow it, and it's very time consuming to seek out anybody that replied to your comment, so you just give up after a while.

 

[Jitss617]

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

First, jackass, why would the President of the Ukraine admit he accepted a bribe? Second, why would he piss off Trump when Trump controlled the funding.

Using funds to try to bribe a foreign official is illegal

Biden was leading in the polls. Joe Biden was the centrist. He was kicking Trumps ass in e ery poll.

Nice Try but Trump is toast.

Congress controls funding you moron

And T-Rump tried to circumvent congress you moron.

Any evidence?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Riddle me this: If Zelensky took Trump's request as a threat, how is it he had no idea US aid was being held up? I mean, if an inspector comes to my house to complain my house paint is chipping, and I offer him 100 to ignore it, we both know I bribed him. I gave him a hundred bucks, and he got in his car and left.

What the left is trying to claim here, is that Trump bribed Zelensky, and Zelensky had no idea he'd just been bribed. Yes, Trump wanted to know the association between Hunter and Ukraine. After all, the drug addict got a job in a field he didn't know anything about, in a country he didn't know anything about; not even the language, all while his father was not only the VP, but in charge of goings on in the country.

I did not claim Zelensky took Trump's request to be a threat at that time. As you said, he did know the funds were frozen. At that time, Zelensky would could consider it a simple request for a favor. However, in about a week, Zelensky would learn Trump's request for a favor was not a request.

Zelensky was told to work with Juliana which made sense because Trump had removed the ambassador. Obviously Juliana's part in this was to act as Trump's go between in regard to a public announcement of the investigation and providing details to the president. No doubt, there would have been an announcement of an investigation had the whisleblower's complaint not come out about 2 weeks after the phone call.

Again, more Thought Police claims. And please tell me where you purchased that crystal ball, because all the ones I purchased never seemed to work.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to put the pieces together.
Trump recalls the Ukraine ambassador a few weeks before freezing Ukraine military aid. Zelenski's meeting with Trump is put on hold. Trump ask Zelenski to open an investigation of the Bidens. He sends Giuliani to the Ukraine and ask Zelenski to work with him. The whistleblower exposes Trump's scheme to force Zelenski to open an investigation. The House announces an investigation of Trump. Military aid is restored.

So tell me, when was Zelensky "forced" to do anything? And why would Yovanovich have anything to do with interfering between Trump and Zelensky? He didn't need her out of the way for anything. What meeting was put on hold? It was a phone call, something that doesn't need too much scheduling.

This entire farce is based on he said/ she said, why did Trump do X, what mind reading Democrats thought Trump was thinking, but no actual hard evidence of their claim.

If the Democrats are stupid enough to proceed with this impeachment, it will be the first impeachment in our history based on no facts, but plenty of assumptions. Our Constitutional authors are rolling in their graves, because if they thought it could ever come to this, the Constitution would be 50 pages long with lots of color pictures so that Democrats could understand.

We have a slew of witnesses that have testified as to what Trump was doing. Get real.

Then why haven't we seen them yet?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Biden got what he wanted via threats and mysteriously his son ends up on a Ukrainian gravy train
Trump asked for and got nothing

Trump is being investigated and his primary accuser is hidden

What Nation and what planet are we on?

On with whistleblower laws, assfuck.

The WB reported a crime. You stupid fucks act like this is a case of rape where Trump raped the whistleblower.

It's not actually a whistleblower so he or she isn't covered by anything. Even if it was, the whistleblower laws do not guarantee anonymity.

 

[OldLady]

I wonder if the mods might start a week 2 thread ? This one is too big to be informative.

Agreed, but when others start a new thread on the subject, they close it down and everybody is jammed into this one. You can't follow it, and it's very time consuming to seek out anybody that replied to your comment, so you just give up after a while.

If you used the official impeachment thread, you wouldn't have that problem, though, would you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dem Rep. Says He Will Vote NO on Impeachment, Reveals Other Dem Lawmakers “Quietly, Privately” Concerned About Schiff Show Trials

There's not many, but some Democrats have integrity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wonder if the mods might start a week 2 thread ? This one is too big to be informative.

Agreed, but when others start a new thread on the subject, they close it down and everybody is jammed into this one. You can't follow it, and it's very time consuming to seek out anybody that replied to your comment, so you just give up after a while.

If you used the official impeachment thread, you wouldn't have that problem, though, would you?

WTF do you think this thread is?

 

[Jitss617]

I wonder if the mods might start a week 2 thread ? This one is too big to be informative.

Agreed, but when others start a new thread on the subject, they close it down and everybody is jammed into this one. You can't follow it, and it's very time consuming to seek out anybody that replied to your comment, so you just give up after a while.

If you used the official impeachment thread, you wouldn't have that problem, though, would you?

WTF do you think this thread is?

She’s a little slow

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

First, jackass, why would the President of the Ukraine admit he accepted a bribe? Second, why would he piss off Trump when Trump controlled the funding.

Using funds to try to bribe a foreign official is illegal

Biden was leading in the polls. Joe Biden was the centrist. He was kicking Trumps ass in e ery poll.

Nice Try but Trump is toast.

Congress controls funding you moron

And T-Rump tried to circumvent congress you moron.

Any evidence?

You’re shiting me, Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wonder if the mods might start a week 2 thread ? This one is too big to be informative.

Agreed, but when others start a new thread on the subject, they close it down and everybody is jammed into this one. You can't follow it, and it's very time consuming to seek out anybody that replied to your comment, so you just give up after a while.

If you used the official impeachment thread, you wouldn't have that problem, though, would you?

WTF do you think this thread is?

She’s a little slow

Not sure if it's that, or she was just making a joke.

 

[Jitss617]

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

First, jackass, why would the President of the Ukraine admit he accepted a bribe? Second, why would he piss off Trump when Trump controlled the funding.

Using funds to try to bribe a foreign official is illegal

Biden was leading in the polls. Joe Biden was the centrist. He was kicking Trumps ass in e ery poll.

Nice Try but Trump is toast.

Congress controls funding you moron

And T-Rump tried to circumvent congress you moron.

Any evidence?

You’re shiting me, Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes Do you have any evidence

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you saying running for office makes one immune form investigation? If not, we have a treaty with Ukraine on criminal investigations, I haven't seen where politicians are exempted form that treaty.

.

Investigate them all. But only picking one & wanting an announcement more than the actual investigation should be a hint.

Did any of the others have a son raking in millions from Burisma while they were running point for the country? Even officials from the maobama admin expressed concern, but when Trump express the same concern it's suddenly impeachable. Give me a freaking break.

.

NOTHING that Biden may have done will undo what Trump has done. NOTHING

Here's what he did: apply the signed treaty.

This one:


We have a signed treaty to that effect....



If that is a problem.....
....why did Bill 'the rapist' Clinton sign a treaty with the Ukraine with exactly the same purpose?????


"Formal Title

• Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998, and with an Exchange of Notes signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application.

Date Received from President

• 11/10/1999 Text of Treaty Document available as:
  • TXT"
  • TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
    
    __________
    
    MESSAGE
    
    from
    
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
    
    transmitting
    
    TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL
    ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH ANNEX, SIGNED AT KIEV ON JULY 22,
    1998, AND WITH AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WHICH
    PROVIDES FOR ITS PROVISIONAL APPLICATION
    
    Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Of course you didn't know this, huh?

Really, A Trump over calling Bill Clinton a rapist. Who did he rape? Did you forget Trump's rape accusation of a 14 year old? Really?

What US investigation did Trump ask for help with?

It appears that everyone else knows.....except you, RealDumb.


Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm


And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time | Breitbart



And the Liberal elites have admitted what we on the right have said for decades.


1. Had it not been for Trump's election....none of this would be happening!
With Hillary running, the whole rape-apologist program of the Democrats came to the forefront....and they had to pretend that Trump was on the same level (the gutter) as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

Here's the 'divide:' the Democrats with at least a double digit IQ are ready to admit the truth, the rape history that the Right has been revealing about Clinton for...what....decades.

You, a total dunce, are still fighting the war you've lost.

2. Which Liberal outlets are now admitting what we on the Right have said for decades?

The New York Times

MSNBC

The Atlantic

Slate


Vox



Politico



"So the recent wave of liberals “reckoning” with Bill Clinton’s sexual offenses should be put into proper context. It is not the beginning of the end for the Clintons atop the Democratic Party. It’s just the end.

….the mea culpas from Bill’s defenders proliferating through lefty media, from the New York Times to Politico to Vox, are anything but brave. They’re convenient." https://nypost.com/2017/11/16/dems-...ses-is-the-final-nail-in-the-clintons-coffin/



3. On the other side....lying low-life imbeciles.....you.....who can't keep up with the program.



“Maher asked, "Could Bill Clinton, if he had done what he did in 1998, survive today or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?"

Farrow explained, "Bill Clinton is a different conversation. He has been credibly accused of rape. That is nothing to do with gray areas. That is, you know, I think the Juanita Broadderick claim has been overdue for revisiting."

Farrow also said that he is "heartened by the fact that people now routinely express outrage about Bill Clinton and particularly those more serious allegations about him." Ronan Farrow Says Juanita Broaddrick's Rape Claim Against Bill Clinton Should Be Revisited





Is there anything....ANYTHING.....you Leftists have been right about?