Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

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
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. 

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.

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
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
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
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
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.

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? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

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? 

Karlan just told him to fuck off.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Pasken said:

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

I agree. Pointing out that LBJ abused his power for personal gain is a brilliant defense strategy. 

Posted
Just now, Red Five said:

Isn't it true that Obama once wore a tan suit while eating 57 arugulas with spicy mustard!! Don't wait for the translation, answer the question!

And yet the GOP still didn't impeach him!



×
×
  • Create New...