• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine's Zelensky Bowed to Trump's Demands, Until Luck Spared Him

nota bene said:
The messenger must always be shot.
Click to expand...

Yes, the fake news messenger should be "shot", especially when he's on a fake news channel promoting fake news.
 
JasperL said:
If you listened to the interview, he sounds like an idiot, and nothing he said was specific enough to check. For the last 2 1/2 years of Poreshenko's admin, the ambassador was a she, who he called a he, for example. He said unnamed "ambassadors and other officials" told them who to hire and who to fire and other offenses unknown, but didn't mention any specifics, other than perhaps Shokin, who we know about.

He also repeats the laughable lie that there was no pressure, although we know there was pressure, overt pressure, outlined in part in the OP and the texts and the testimony, such as Sondland telling Yermak Sept 1 as I recall - aid was contingent on publicly announcing the investigations.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.
 
ocean515 said:
Explanations have been given.

It is in the President's preview, any President for that matter, to insure corruption has been addressed, and will continue to be addressed.

Sending hard earned money from American citizens deserves that scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Oh we know 'explanations' have been given and they have varied from "concerns" over corruption, even though the Under Secretary of Defense had "certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption (and) increasing accountability", to waiting for "Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine because they're not doing it. Which they are and have been doing. But here's the good news. Well....perhaps depending on your point view. Using the OMB to delay this aid creates a paper trail that can be followed.

Ukrainian Funding Delay Created a Paper Trail That Congress Should Follow - Just Security

The legal authority used to delay Ukraine funding creates a paper trail

There is potentially more to discover about this decision to halt the funding. OMB prevented the release of this funding through its apportionment authority, a bureaucratic process that necessarily creates a paper trail.

The purpose of apportionments is “to prevent obligation or expenditure at a rate that would indicate a necessity for a deficiency or supplemental appropriation.” In other words, OMB uses this authority to ensure that agencies do not spend funding too quickly, such that they run out before the end of the fiscal year.

Most funding is apportioned automatically, but some funding is subject to account-specific apportionments. The apportionment is a formal written document and, as set forth in OMB Circular A-11, these apportionments “are approved by an OMB Deputy Associate Director (or designee) and typically include specific amounts.” It’s important to note that an OMB deputy associate director is a career employee, not a political appointee.

Amounts in apportionments can be identified by time (known as Category A) or by program, project, or activity (Category B). It is not unusual for the apportionment to require in writing that an agency take specific steps before funding is apportioned, such as providing a spend plan for a particular program. Generally, however, these determinations are made by career staff at OMB—it is highly unusual for such a request to come from a high-ranking political official.

Thus, congressional investigators can determine a significant amount of information by examining the apportionment, including when the funding was halted, what explanation was provided for the delay, and who at OMB approved of the action."

Ruh Roh!
 
Moderate Right said:
Fact is, Ukraine got their aid and they didn't investigate Biden. Yet another nothingburger.
Click to expand...

And here is another popular Trump defense that is spewed by several here who have no understanding of the law whatsoever. They wish to assume that because Trump got caught, and sent the money, that everything is a-okay. Because failed crimes are not really crimes, right?
 
ocean515 said:
It gets old having to repeat myself.

The WB complaint had nothing to do with releasing the funds. The President couldn't withhold the funds without Congressional approval.

Your desire to ignore this fact makes it simple to dismiss any further comment you have on this issue.
Click to expand...

Your desire to ignore what happened makes your motivations quite clear.
 
Herkamer63 said:
Fake news. The Ukraine government already were looking into Biden before Trump's phone, and the transcript, which has been released weeks ago, between both presidents does not show Trump pressuring nor threatening Zelensky by holding money to the country of Ukraine. It derails Eric Ciaramella's (the "whistle blower", or the more accurate description saboteur) claims about the phone call and what this thread is trying to say. It's all been debunked, so Mr Moderator move this thread from here to the Conspiracy Theories section. This would fir in much better over there since none of this is true nor even proven. Thank you!
Click to expand...

Holy crap not a single thing you posted is true.
Please do share where you get these facts from?
 
ocean515 said:
The Act does not allow the President to withhold funds already approved by Congress, without Congressional approval.

Dream up any scenario you want to fit your bias, but that is a fact.
Click to expand...

And yet he did, I don't get why you suddenly are opposing trumps actions???
 
Cardinal said:
One of the sadder defenses for Trump's attempt at extorting a foreign power to interfere in an American election is that the victim of the extortion wasn't aware that military aid was being withheld. Nobody with more than two brain cells to rub together bought this defense, but it was a defense, pitiable though it may be.

That defense, like every other pathetic attempt at a defense, has likewise crumbled.

Lindsey Graham has given us a preview of the final GOP defense: "I'm not going to look at the evidence. Go to hell."



Ukraine’s Zelensky Bowed to Trump’s Demands, Until Luck Spared Him - The New York Times

Fake news, anonymous sources, yadda yadda yadda.
Click to expand...

"Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy"

fyi

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

"The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.

In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.

In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said. "
 
ocean515 said:
No funds were withheld. Ukraine received the funds Congress approved.

True, or not true?
Click to expand...

Yip the very minute after trump got caught illegally withholding said funds...:lamo
 
SCrider said:
Yes they came after they were held up by Trump, and only after the WB report came out. True?
Your attempts to bracket this are pathetic at best. Why go through this much effort to defend someone who said they did it.
Click to expand...

Jeffery Dahlmer had his fans as well...
 
ocean515 said:
It is in the President's preview, any President for that matter, to insure corruption has been addressed, and will continue to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Why was Yovanovitch, whose focus was on corruption, recalled? Why did Trump think corruption wasn't being addressed when his own DoD certified that it was being addressed? Do you have any evidence that there was a reasonable presumption that Ukraine wasn't sufficiently addressing corruption? Do you have anything to show that Trump's claim that he thought corruption wasn't being addressed had any basis behind it? If corruption was such a problem, then why were they trying to leverage the power of the US government to install their buddies on the board of a Ukrainian gas company? If corruption was a problem then why would they defend the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's refusal to hand over evidence to UK fraud investigators related to Burisma and its oligarch? Why are all career professionals that have been doing this for decades state that there wasn't a reason to withhold the aid? Why has every agency that we so far have heard from say the same thing?

If this was about corruption, then why would the release of the aid hinge on whether or not Zelensky goes in front of a microphone and publicly announces an investigation into Biden? If it was about corruption, then why wouldn't Trump be releasing the aid to Zelensky who ran on an anti-corruption platform? If it was about corruption, then why wouldn't Trump be supporting the removal of prosecutors that have failed to pursue corruption investigations?
 
akyron said:
"Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy"

fyi

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

"The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.

In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.

In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said. "
Click to expand...

Nice rant.
 
Cardinal said:
... the victim of the extortion wasn't aware that military aid was being withheld.

Ukraine’s Zelensky Bowed to Trump’s Demands, Until Luck Spared Him - The New York Times
Click to expand...

That article is a great read!

Nearly all Mr. Zelensky’s top advisers favored his making the public statement, said one of the officials who participated in the debate. United States military aid, they agreed, as well as diplomatic backing for impending peace talks to end the war outweighed the risks of appearing to take sides in American politics.

...

Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on Sept. 13 with Fareed Zakaria, the host of a weekly news show on CNN.

Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.

Word of the freeze in military aid had leaked out, and Congress was in an uproar. Two days before the scheduled interview, the Trump administration released the assistance and Mr. Zelensky’s office quickly canceled the interview.
Click to expand...
 
Bullseye said:
LOL, well done. A superb regurgitation of all the LW clichés of the last few years. What you don't seem to grasp is that, no, Trump didn't anything wrong - he was pushing for legitimate investigations; that fact that a potential political opponent and his family are involved doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

If Trump gave a rat's ass about corruption, he wouldn't have spent his life ripping people off. He wouldn't have started a fraudulent university. He wouldn't have been ordered to buck up 2 million just now related to the misuse of funds from his foundation. And he'd have insisted that Netanyahu be ousted before sending another penny to Israel.

I understand why you didn't bother to actually address any of the specifics I mentioned. You can't. If you could have you would have.
 
Jay Falcon said:
And here is another popular Trump defense that is spewed by several here who have no understanding of the law whatsoever. They wish to assume that because Trump got caught, and sent the money, that everything is a-okay. Because failed crimes are not really crimes, right?
Click to expand...

Not in Trumpland where they are too stupid to pull off a crime.
 
ocean515 said:
Long day. How does that change the point? Or, do you not have one and you're just playing grammar Nazi?
Click to expand...

No, I was gonna correct you yesterday. If you don't know the basic terms employed in the discussion and issue, how are we to believe you understand the nuance better than everyone else?
 
Atomic Kid said:
Oh we know 'explanations' have been given and they have varied from "concerns" over corruption, even though the Under Secretary of Defense had "certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption (and) increasing accountability", to waiting for "Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine because they're not doing it. Which they are and have been doing. But here's the good news. Well....perhaps depending on your point view. Using the OMB to delay this aid creates a paper trail that can be followed.

Ukrainian Funding Delay Created a Paper Trail That Congress Should Follow - Just Security

The legal authority used to delay Ukraine funding creates a paper trail

There is potentially more to discover about this decision to halt the funding. OMB prevented the release of this funding through its apportionment authority, a bureaucratic process that necessarily creates a paper trail.

The purpose of apportionments is “to prevent obligation or expenditure at a rate that would indicate a necessity for a deficiency or supplemental appropriation.” In other words, OMB uses this authority to ensure that agencies do not spend funding too quickly, such that they run out before the end of the fiscal year.

Most funding is apportioned automatically, but some funding is subject to account-specific apportionments. The apportionment is a formal written document and, as set forth in OMB Circular A-11, these apportionments “are approved by an OMB Deputy Associate Director (or designee) and typically include specific amounts.” It’s important to note that an OMB deputy associate director is a career employee, not a political appointee.

Amounts in apportionments can be identified by time (known as Category A) or by program, project, or activity (Category B). It is not unusual for the apportionment to require in writing that an agency take specific steps before funding is apportioned, such as providing a spend plan for a particular program. Generally, however, these determinations are made by career staff at OMB—it is highly unusual for such a request to come from a high-ranking political official.

Thus, congressional investigators can determine a significant amount of information by examining the apportionment, including when the funding was halted, what explanation was provided for the delay, and who at OMB approved of the action."

Ruh Roh!
Click to expand...

Fine follow it.

The funding was provided.

Anything else?
 
GDViking said:
And yet he did, I don't get why you suddenly are opposing trumps actions???
Click to expand...

The President did not stop the funds from being distributed. He could not do that without Congressional approval.

Learn some facts, or explain how he could do that against the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act.
 
ocean515 said:
Fine follow it.

The funding was provided.

Anything else?
Click to expand...

Only when it became clear that their ruse was about to exposed did they release it. All the testimony that has been given have all intersected around this point. The walls are closing in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom