Why is it conservatives have such a hard time understanding what impeachment is (Page 7): quid = the money Congress already allocated for you. quo = an announcement that you are...

straightUp Loc: California

padremike wrote:

"To have a quid you must have quo." Is that unreasonable? If not, name them.

quid = the money Congress already allocated for you.
quo = an announcement that you are investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple, really. I guess none of the smoke and mirrors worked on me because I still remember the actual charges.

padremike wrote:

It is completely unreasonable, however, if one is a progressive and have only the destruction of the President in their limited hate filled sight.

I would agree if that were the case.

padremike wrote:

Name the actual crimes that were charged against the President. You can't.

Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as in the two articles of impeachment. Did you forget those already?

Or is this about that absurd argument that a president can't be impeached unless he commits a crime as defined in criminal code? Maybe if you actually read the Constitution.... You can do it, it's not that hard. Here, I'll even help...

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Bribery isn't even buried in the pile of whatever high Crimes means... Bribery is actually stated as an impeachable offense in a manner than could NOT be any clearer. And now we have these "fixers" actually trying to justify the bribery. The comedy is priceless.

padremike wrote:

At the worst it is merely your thought crimes against Trump's thought crime.

Trump's attempt to bribe the president of the Ukraine wasn't just a thought. Nor were his orders to his staff to refuse cooperation with Congress.

padremike wrote:

Finally, if you could find no merit in the legal defences points made by the Trump team yesterday you might be a typical propagandize non-thinking, blind, dumb and ignorant progressive whose eyes are crosed, whose mother never dressed him right and Jesus don't love you either. Other than those little things you're probably a nice guy. 🤗

I see. So this an emotional issue for you based on your hatred for the progressive stereotype. (yawn)

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

straightUp wrote:

I see. So this an emotional issue for you based on your hatred for the progressive stereotype. (yawn)

The only counter argument we will ever agree on is my hatred for the moral relativistic and destructive ideas and forces governing the Marxist (progressive) philosophy and agenda.

I attempted to end our last discussion with a good natured jibe. That attempt would have been unrecognisable by any pompous jackass.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

straightUp wrote:

I don't know much about Dershowitz's history but h... (show quote)

If they are a hater like you, I am sure it did nothing to convince anyone. WE all know that. This "trial" is a show for the public, nothing more. I doubt even the rino's will decide anything based upon the presentations given by either side.

That being said, how could you possibly know how terms of foreign aid are laid out. Show me one example of a regime's conditions related to foreign aid if, in deed, it is clearly documents and agreed upon in writing. It might be at times but it certainly isn't the majority of the time.

And, of course, the quid pro quo stipulated by Biden; was it pre-agreed on, documented, and publicly laid out prior to him laying down his threat to withhold aid?

Please, provide many long winded obfuscating responses for me to ignore since that is how you typically respond. No facts, just bloviation s on endless single comment segments.

American Vet

Pariahjf wrote:

Do the research----this is a dig DEEP item.

You made the claim - you provide the cite. Otherwise one can assume you simply made it up....

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

straightUp wrote:

I don't know much about Dershowitz's history but h... (show quote)

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't know that a quid pro quo has been and probably always will be a common and effective negotiating tool, both in international trade and in foreign relations and diplomacy. You could say a quid pro quo is, in fact, common in everyday life. People exchange favors all the time. "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

The terms for military aid for Ukraine in this case was clearly defined and was a contingency allocation, it was not specified in some sort of long-term foreign aid policy. This particular military aid package would never have come up had Russia not annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. This all occurred in 2014, on Obama's watch. Obama failed to take European security seriously for most of his presidency, and his complacency paved the way for renewed Russian revanchism in Ukraine.

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?
see also
Facebook rejects Biden's request to remove Trump campaign ad about Ukraine

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

These one time allocations happen all the time. Congress allocated a specific amount for this particular package and set the schedule for fulfilling the obligatory conditions. This aid package was on the books at the time an election in Ukraine resulted in a regime change which resulted in a complete rethinking of US/Ukraine relations.

On 21 April 2019, the day Zelensky was sworn in, president Trump called to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, president Trump made the "impeachable offense" of calling president Zelensky asking him for a favor. He asked Zelensky if he would look into corruption in his government that had a direct effect on US national security. At that time the military aid contingency package was on hold, and at the time of the "impeachable" phone call was made, president Zelensky DID NOT KNOW the aid package was being withheld. Oh, the horror of it.

Question: If president Zelensky was unaware of a freeze on the military aid package and the subject did not come up during the call, how in the hell could anyone suggest that president Trump was using it to strong arm Zelensky in an effort to force him to conduct an investigation into corruption?

In the event, president Trump released the aid package ahead of the obligatory dead line and the Ukraine government has now expanded its investigation into Burisma corruption. Progress, baby.

Footnote: Yours truly does not expect this report to impress the smartest brain on earth. But those of you who are not self-righteous intellectuals might get something from it.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Blade_Runner wrote:

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't know that a quid pro quo has been and probably always will be a common and effective negotiating tool, both in international trade and in foreign relations and diplomacy. You could say a quid pro quo is, in fact, common in everyday life. People exchange favors all the time. "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

The terms for military aid for Ukraine in this case was clearly defined and was a contingency allocation, it was not specified in some sort of long-term foreign aid policy. This particular military aid package would never have come up had Russia not annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. This all occurred in 2014, on Obama's watch. Obama failed to take European security seriously for most of his presidency, and his complacency paved the way for renewed Russian revanchism in Ukraine.

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?
see also
Facebook rejects Biden's request to remove Trump campaign ad about Ukraine

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

These one time allocations happen all the time. Congress allocated a specific amount for this particular package and set the schedule for fulfilling the obligatory conditions. This aid package was on the books at the time an election in Ukraine resulted in a regime change which resulted in a complete rethinking of US/Ukraine relations.

On 21 April 2019, the day Zelensky was sworn in, president Trump called to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, president Trump made the "impeachable offense" of calling president Zelensky asking him for a favor. He asked Zelensky if he would look into corruption in his government that had a direct effect on US national security. At that time the military aid contingency package was on hold, and at the time of the "impeachable" phone call was made, president Zelensky DID NOT KNOW the aid package was being withheld. Oh, the horror of it.

Question: If president Zelensky was unaware of a freeze on the military aid package and the subject did not come up during the call, how in the hell could anyone suggest that president Trump was using it to strong arm Zelensky in an effort to force him to conduct an investigation into corruption?

In the event, president Trump released the aid package ahead of the obligatory dead line and the Ukraine government has now expanded its investigation into Burisma corruption. Progress, baby.

Footnote: Yours truly does not expect this report to impress the smartest brain on earth. But those of you who are not self-righteous intellectuals might get something from it.

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't... (show quote)

Per Schiff, delaying militarily aid endangered our national security. I guess refusing aid for 8 long years is different!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Blade_Runner wrote:

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't know that a quid pro quo has been and probably always will be a common and effective negotiating tool, both in international trade and in foreign relations and diplomacy. You could say a quid pro quo is, in fact, common in everyday life. People exchange favors all the time. "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

The terms for military aid for Ukraine in this case was clearly defined and was a contingency allocation, it was not specified in some sort of long-term foreign aid policy. This particular military aid package would never have come up had Russia not annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. This all occurred in 2014, on Obama's watch. Obama failed to take European security seriously for most of his presidency, and his complacency paved the way for renewed Russian revanchism in Ukraine.

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?
see also
Facebook rejects Biden's request to remove Trump campaign ad about Ukraine

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

These one time allocations happen all the time. Congress allocated a specific amount for this particular package and set the schedule for fulfilling the obligatory conditions. This aid package was on the books at the time an election in Ukraine resulted in a regime change which resulted in a complete rethinking of US/Ukraine relations.

On 21 April 2019, the day Zelensky was sworn in, president Trump called to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, president Trump made the "impeachable offense" of calling president Zelensky asking him for a favor. He asked Zelensky if he would look into corruption in his government that had a direct effect on US national security. At that time the military aid contingency package was on hold, and at the time of the "impeachable" phone call was made, president Zelensky DID NOT KNOW the aid package was being withheld. Oh, the horror of it.

Question: If president Zelensky was unaware of a freeze on the military aid package and the subject did not come up during the call, how in the hell could anyone suggest that president Trump was using it to strong arm Zelensky in an effort to force him to conduct an investigation into corruption?

In the event, president Trump released the aid package ahead of the obligatory dead line and the Ukraine government has now expanded its investigation into Burisma corruption. Progress, baby.

Footnote: Yours truly does not expect this report to impress the smartest brain on earth. But those of you who are not self-righteous intellectuals might get something from it.

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't... (show quote)

The stench of democrat hypocrisy is nauseating!!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Blade_Runner wrote:

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't know that a quid pro quo has been and probably always will be a common and effective negotiating tool, both in international trade and in foreign relations and diplomacy. You could say a quid pro quo is, in fact, common in everyday life. People exchange favors all the time. "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

The terms for military aid for Ukraine in this case was clearly defined and was a contingency allocation, it was not specified in some sort of long-term foreign aid policy. This particular military aid package would never have come up had Russia not annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. This all occurred in 2014, on Obama's watch. Obama failed to take European security seriously for most of his presidency, and his complacency paved the way for renewed Russian revanchism in Ukraine.

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?
see also
Facebook rejects Biden's request to remove Trump campaign ad about Ukraine

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

These one time allocations happen all the time. Congress allocated a specific amount for this particular package and set the schedule for fulfilling the obligatory conditions. This aid package was on the books at the time an election in Ukraine resulted in a regime change which resulted in a complete rethinking of US/Ukraine relations.

On 21 April 2019, the day Zelensky was sworn in, president Trump called to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, president Trump made the "impeachable offense" of calling president Zelensky asking him for a favor. He asked Zelensky if he would look into corruption in his government that had a direct effect on US national security. At that time the military aid contingency package was on hold, and at the time of the "impeachable" phone call was made, president Zelensky DID NOT KNOW the aid package was being withheld. Oh, the horror of it.

Question: If president Zelensky was unaware of a freeze on the military aid package and the subject did not come up during the call, how in the hell could anyone suggest that president Trump was using it to strong arm Zelensky in an effort to force him to conduct an investigation into corruption?

In the event, president Trump released the aid package ahead of the obligatory dead line and the Ukraine government has now expanded its investigation into Burisma corruption. Progress, baby.

Footnote: Yours truly does not expect this report to impress the smartest brain on earth. But those of you who are not self-righteous intellectuals might get something from it.

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't... (show quote)

Good post, by the way!

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Blade_Runner wrote:

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't know that a quid pro quo has been and probably always will be a common and effective negotiating tool, both in international trade and in foreign relations and diplomacy. You could say a quid pro quo is, in fact, common in everyday life. People exchange favors all the time. "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

The terms for military aid for Ukraine in this case was clearly defined and was a contingency allocation, it was not specified in some sort of long-term foreign aid policy. This particular military aid package would never have come up had Russia not annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. This all occurred in 2014, on Obama's watch. Obama failed to take European security seriously for most of his presidency, and his complacency paved the way for renewed Russian revanchism in Ukraine.

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?
see also
Facebook rejects Biden's request to remove Trump campaign ad about Ukraine

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

These one time allocations happen all the time. Congress allocated a specific amount for this particular package and set the schedule for fulfilling the obligatory conditions. This aid package was on the books at the time an election in Ukraine resulted in a regime change which resulted in a complete rethinking of US/Ukraine relations.

On 21 April 2019, the day Zelensky was sworn in, president Trump called to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, president Trump made the "impeachable offense" of calling president Zelensky asking him for a favor. He asked Zelensky if he would look into corruption in his government that had a direct effect on US national security. At that time the military aid contingency package was on hold, and at the time of the "impeachable" phone call was made, president Zelensky DID NOT KNOW the aid package was being withheld. Oh, the horror of it.

Question: If president Zelensky was unaware of a freeze on the military aid package and the subject did not come up during the call, how in the hell could anyone suggest that president Trump was using it to strong arm Zelensky in an effort to force him to conduct an investigation into corruption?

In the event, president Trump released the aid package ahead of the obligatory dead line and the Ukraine government has now expanded its investigation into Burisma corruption. Progress, baby.

Footnote: Yours truly does not expect this report to impress the smartest brain on earth. But those of you who are not self-righteous intellectuals might get something from it.

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't... (show quote)

👍👍👍👍👍

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

PeterS wrote:

This meme below goes around and around on my Faceb... (show quote)

All I get is Trump winning the 2020 election

straightUp Loc: California

Blade_Runner wrote:

Wow! The smartest brainiac in the universe doesn't know that a quid pro quo has been and probably always will be a common and effective negotiating tool, both in international trade and in foreign relations and diplomacy. You could say a quid pro quo is, in fact, common in everyday life. People exchange favors all the time. "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

No, it's not... I watched that argument develop too. You should probably stop listening to Trump's idiot lawyers if you're just going to believe everything they say. In its most general form you can maybe stretch the meaning of "quid pro quo" to a nice diluted synonym for "agreement". But that isn't what the term is used for in most legal cases. The common and effective negotiating tool in "international trade and in foreign relations and diplomacy" is open discussion and agreement all of which already occurred BEFORE Congress signed the check. Not the wink-wink-nudge-nudge from an idiot who thinks he can hold up the check to get some personal favors. Dugh!

Blade_Runner wrote:

The terms for military aid for Ukraine in this case was clearly defined and was a contingency allocation, it was not specified in some sort of long-term foreign aid policy.

No sh*t Sherlock. Ya know where else those terms were not defined? In Trump's conversations with Zellensky. Oooooh!

Blade_Runner wrote:

This particular military aid package would never have come up had Russia not annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. This all occurred in 2014, on Obama's watch.

Newsflash! It didn't ALL occur on Obama watch... in fact, the fighting is still happening right now! This is why a lot of people are so pissed off that Trump was playing games.

Blade_Runner wrote:

Obama failed to take European security seriously for most of his presidency, and his complacency paved the way for renewed Russian revanchism in Ukraine.

That's such BS. The rage is between Ukrainians and Russians INSIDE the Ukraine. It's half invasion and half civil war. The idea that spending more money on "European security" would have made any difference is incredibly naive. But I get it... blame anyone, anything... just take the focus off Trump's violation of the Constitution. Yup, got it.

Blade_Runner wrote:

br i b Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Uk... (show quote)

Yeah, it's called staying out of the fight. Why on earth would WE want to get involved in another civil war? We're already involved with one in Syria, isn't that enough? Shit, we can't even win the wars that Bush started two decades ago that crashed our economy. You want more?

Blade_Runner wrote:

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

A really good one... that we will provide humanitarian aid but not take part in the fighting - that's between the Russians and the Ukrainians.

Look, none of the Trump supporters ever cared or even knew about the Ukraine until now and ONLY because Trump got caught trying to bribe Zelensky so now all of a sudden everyone is an expert in the Ukraine.

Blade_Runner wrote:

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

Well, that's the difference... Obama didn't want pour gasoline on the fire and Trump doesn't care as long as he gets a sale - cha-ching!

Blade_Runner wrote:

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

Always nice to be thanked by corrupt dictators and murders. If Trump was more like Obama he might enjoy the experience of being thanked by the true leaders of the world.

Blade_Runner wrote:

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy.

Trump isn't being attacked for a "temporary delay"... He's being attacked for using the aid to gain a personal favor. Totally different. Try to keep up.

Blade_Runner wrote:

It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?

That's the difference between playing games with a promise and not making a promise in the first place.

Blade_Runner wrote:

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.[/i]

These one time allocations happen all the time. Congress allocated a specific amount for this particular package and set the schedule for fulfilling the obligatory conditions. This aid package was on the books at the time an election in Ukraine resulted in a regime change which resulted in a complete rethinking of US/Ukraine relations.

On 21 April 2019, the day Zelensky was sworn in, president Trump called to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, president Trump made the "impeachable offense" of calling president Zelensky asking him for a favor. He asked Zelensky if he would look into corruption in his government that had a direct effect on US national security. At that time the military aid contingency package was on hold, and at the time of the "impeachable" phone call was made, president Zelensky DID NOT KNOW the aid package was being withheld. Oh, the horror of it.

br And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let... (show quote)

Trump didn't ask for an investigation... he only asked for an announcement. He wanted Zelensky to *say* he was investigating the Bidens so as to sabotage Biden's campaign because he knows that Biden can beat him easily in 2020. If Trump wanted a real investigation, he had every standard channel available to him to make that request, but he didn't. Probably because a real investigation requires *some* degree of evidence, at least enough for probable cause, so now what? How can a president get a foreign country to announce an investigation into someone without probable cause? Well, that's where bribery comes in and that explains all the back-channel stuff with his personal lawyers and the orders to his staff to not cooperate with Congress.

If people can't see this, they are either in denial because Trump is more important to them than their own integrity or the integrity of the republic OR they are really, really, really naive.

Blade_Runner wrote:

Question: If president Zelensky was unaware of a freeze on the military aid package and the subject did not come up during the call, how in the hell could anyone suggest that president Trump was using it to strong arm Zelensky in an effort to force him to conduct an investigation into corruption?

He wasn't. Trump never pushed for an actual investigation. He specifically asked Zelensky to "announce" an investigation. That's all Trump wanted - it didn't matter if there's an actual investigation, the announcement is all that was needed to harm Biden's campaign.

Blade_Runner wrote:

In the event, president Trump released the aid package ahead of the obligatory dead line and the Ukraine government has now expanded its investigation into Burisma corruption. Progress, baby.

Yes, as soon as Congress caught wind of Trumps little game, he released the funds real quick. It was almost comical. Burisma, BTW is always being investigated and the Bidens? Well, they're NOT being investigated at all... Meanwhile, Joe Biden's rating have gone up.

Looks like another Trump failure.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Blade, straightup's idiotic ways of responding to 20 things on the same comment preclude any way of discussing or arguing with him. Actually, it reminds me of how girls like to argue and fight.

So she, is just going to try to one up anyone with "lip." It doesn't even have to make sense for her to feel victorious. But like her sister girl Rachel, it will be highly enjoyable to what her when Trump wins again. LOLOL!

Bottom line, it's a waste of time with straight up.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

straightUp wrote:

Yes, as soon as Congress caught wind of Trumps little game, he released the funds real quick. It was almost comical. Burisma, BTW is always being investigated and the Bidens? Well, they're NOT being investigated at all... Meanwhile, Joe Biden's rating have gone up.

Looks like another Trump failure.

You do not know what the President asked.
You process information on what you believe, what you think, what you imagiine not on what is irrefutable. Your mob felt justified in beginning the impeachment process from the beginning of President Trump's first day. That matters. Yet Progressives completely disregard that particular truth as meaningless, only the final objective matters. Their tactics were not mere dirty politics; their actions were seditious, a programmed deliberate coup. You, being a naturalized citizen, now eagerly participate in the destruction of this nation's Democratic Republic and that is not understating the eventual outcome, it is not hysterical hyperbole.

One of your progressive icons is Bill Maher. He recently said "What’s galling is the people who hate bullying are always bullying … the people who love diversity, except of opinion. There’s only one true opinion." I expect you cannot recognize your own kind.

Harry Reid took a sledgehammer to the Senate legislative process forever calling for and then forcing the nuclear option. Progressives applauded then immediately cried foul and went postal when Conservatives appointed two new Associate Supreme Court Justices using Harry Reids nuclear option. The genie was now out of the bottle. The camaraderie and civility of the Senate destroyed by Harry Reid and Democrats. The future will see the attempted impeachment of the majority of elected presidents. All this because Progressives hate the President for legitimately winning the Presidency. If Democrats had not abolished The House Committee On Unamerican Activities your mob would rate the top of the list. I say this because the Progressive philosophy and agenda pose the greatest threat America ever faced.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

nwtk2007 wrote:

Blade, straightup's idiotic ways of responding to 20 things on the same comment preclude any way of discussing or arguing with him. Actually, it reminds me of how girls like to argue and fight.

So she, is just going to try to one up anyone with "lip." It doesn't even have to make sense for her to feel victorious. But like her sister girl Rachel, it will be highly enjoyable to what her when Trump wins again. LOLOL!

Bottom line, it's a waste of time with straight up.

Thank you. I was going to make an attempt at responding to that gobbledygoop. You saved me the displeasure of doing so. Straightup's pseudo-intellectual convoluted balderdash is a waste of bandwidth.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Blade_Runner wrote:

Thank you. I was going to make an attempt at responding to that gobbledygoop. You saved me the displeasure of doing so. Straightup's pseudo-intellectual convoluted balderdash is a waste of bandwidth.

Blade, there are many of us who both enjoy and learn much from your comments. We cannot tell you how much you are appreciated