It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Iscool
The difference is they look for conditions that benefit the USA or the world.
Not their personal endeavors and goals.
What were the conditions that congress put on Ukraine before they got the aid that was allocated for them for this year?
If this is common you must know what conditions congress pressed for when they agreed to this money for weapons to use against the Russians.
Of the expanded U.S. military assistance to strengthen Ukraine's defense capabilities, only $100 million is designated for lethal weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship weapons for coastal defense.
Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, inside the U.S. Capitol, Nov. 16, 2016. Portman originally launched the effort to combat Russian propaganda in eastern European countries.
FILE - Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, is pictured inside the U.S. Capitol, Nov. 16, 2016.
Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who authored the Ukraine aid amendment, said the bill contains language that aims to limit U.S.-Russian cooperation until Russia frees 24 Ukrainian sailors captured in international waters of the Kerch Strait off Crimea last November.
"The legislation ... demonstrates our commitment to stand with the people of Ukraine and the international community in calling for the release of the illegally detained sailors who were fired on and captured by Russian forces in international waters on November 25, 2018," Portman, who co-chairs the Senate Ukraine Caucus, said Thursday on the chamber floor.
Portman said the language of his amendment makes the sailors' release "a condition for the U.S. military cooperation with Russia."
"We need to take the firm stance against Russia's blatant disregard for the international law," he said, referring to the Kerch attack and Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, the first forcible seizure of territory in Europe since World War II. The annexation triggered war in Ukraine's east and multiple rounds of U.S.- and EU-led sanctions that have since wreaked havoc on Russia's economy.
originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Gryphon66
To be fair, the Dems brought this upon themselves. They made such a hoopla over the hearsay of a whistleblower that when Trump released the call transcript, it did not say what they thought it would say.
Now they are scrambling to find something and anything to save face, thus why even the whistle blower cannot give testimony. The call in and of itself, was quickly proven to be non-sequitur.
It is difficult to take these testimonies seriously due to that initial accusation being so inaccurate.
And the call shows bribery and extortion.
THAT NO ONE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE IT DIDNT GO THROUGH REGULAR CHANNELS.
A Poroshenko victory would mean a continuation of Ukraine’s ongoing positive trends. A Tymoshenko victory could be destabilizing, especially if she decides to attack the “establishment” and seek a quick deal with Russia. A Zelenskiy victory could change “everything,” especially if he adopts incompetent policies that enable the oligarchs to retake control of the economy, fuels inflation by raising wages and pensions, and invites Russian invasion by neglecting security and defense.
Not surprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin is hoping for, and may be committed to doing everything possible to bring about, a Poroshenko defeat—which may be the best reason for reelecting the incumbent president. Tymoshenko would be preferable to Poroshenko for Putin, but, being unpredictable, could be cause for concern. A Zelenskiy victory would be Putin’s dream scenario.
There's no way you're gonna spin this to make me think differently.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: panoz77
I am saying that it is unreasonable to continue to claim that the witnesses who are testifying should be discounted because they were not part of the Trump-Zelensky phone call.
We all know the content of the phone call. The witnesses can FACTUALLY TESTIFY to the setting, history, meetings, memos, conversations they had in the several months’ lead-in to the call.
They can also express their opinion of the phone call.
I’m suggesting that it’s a fallacious argument to keep up the “har har they asked their brother’s mamma’s wife’s dog.”