Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45987

Posted
Posted

I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45987

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

Government data is fun, for those who want to dig in:

Oops dot gov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected.  Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45987

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected.  Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim. 

Not that facts matter, but Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform.  If ANYTHING, less scrutiny would be warranted, not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3308

Posted
Posted
Just now, Tuco said:

The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected.  Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim. 

Of course, they had every reason to be concerned about the potential for increased corruption under Zelensky, given he had just been elected on a platform of - check notes - ahh, yes - anticorruption ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upgrayedd

Upgrayedd 5815

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Gap03 said:

Of course, they had every reason to be concerned about the potential for increased corruption under Zelensky, given he had just been elected on a platform of - check notes - ahh, yes - anticorruption ...

Well, someone here got elected on swamp drainage . . . . 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beantown Express 2.0

Beantown Express 2.0 6559

Posted
Posted

How come none of the Dems on this committee have asked to enter into the record that "Jim Jordan is a total dipshit and lying to the American people" and then ask for a formal vote on that.  In fact they could do it over and over on all these clowns.  The sad thing is I am starting to believe that this country can't be saved.   I guess I should get my bottle of Pappy ready to take to the ledge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28788

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

Chalupa! 

It all goes back to Manafort and Yanukovych. And Putin's efforts to maintain control over Ukraine and its resources which were "lost," or at least threatened, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. When the Trumpublicans talk about corruption in Ukraine, they mean Putin's definition of Ukrainian  corruption. Pro-democracy in Ukraine, and defiance of Kremlin control, is what they mean by "corruption."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
  • Author
Posted

such an odd talking point all these republicans are invoking, asking for more "fact-witnesses".

if the facts were on their side, we would (presumably) be hearing from bolton, mulvaney, pompeo, or even trump.  but which fact witnesses do they want?  hunter biden.  insanity.

the democrats continue to make the argument that it was just about the announcement, which shows it's for political gain, and election interference.  the gop says trump was interested in corruption, which is why the aid was withheld.

if the gop really wanted fact witnesses that prove the corruption/investigation angle, they should somehow produce some random ukranians who say their lives were being turned upside-down by investigations into their own corruption.  the gop should produce evidence of other investigations they were/are currently conducting.  this seems like a no-brainer.  obviously they won't do this, because these people don't exist, but that's never really stopped them before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 12002

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pasken said:

This is the first republican of the day that I think is making a reasonable point. 

Except when he doesn’t.

Half the examples are not for political reasons.

the other half are dubious / I’ve never heard of them. Is he Just making shit up about LBJ and all the Goldwater stuff? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...