It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Today Ukraine’s Foreign Minister's Statements Pokes BIG Hole In Ambassador Taylor's Testimony

page: 2
33
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Goedhardt

Shhhhhh....lets not ruin the impeachment charade for all the anti-Trumpers out there. After all, the Headmaster, Nancy Pelosi said today that Trump's actions, makes Nixon’s offenses “look almost small.” LMAO!!!





posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny


The Impeachment charade is a side show , the only jury that will stop the real charade is the electorate , history not Impeachment will reveal Trumps doings.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: shawmanfromny

What I came away with from actually watching the hearing (not waiting for some biased political pundit to tell me what I heard/saw) was that these two guys, and likely more, thought that the president's path toward Ukraine negotiations jeopardized all the work they have been doing for years there. That threatened them and their ego, making them feel less important than they think they are. So, they unilaterally decided THEY KNOW BETTER.

These un-elected politicians tried to drive foreign policy against the will of the president of the United States. This is NOT THEIR JOB. The sole responsibility of creating and leading foreign policy is the president, that is his job. They are there to advise and carry out the president's policy decisions. If they so disagree with the direction the president is taking, and after advising the president on the why's and what-for's, potential downsides, and other negative affects, then their legal recourse is to resign, not to usurp the president's policies and attempt to have him removed from office.




Semantics maybe, but what I got out of it was they disagreed with Team Trumps “channels” they agreed with the policy and in numerous ways declared how much better Team Trumps policies were than Obama admin’s



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
I like the part where the Ambassador admitted that this was largely based on a big arms deal including Javelin missiles. And we're also sending them cash which they in turn will be using to buy our missiles. What the hell kind of operation is this?


Ike said for us to "Beware the Military Complex". The Generals are not who he meant, IMO. The War machine chews up the Generals too but for a few.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: seaez

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: shawmanfromny

What I came away with from actually watching the hearing (not waiting for some biased political pundit to tell me what I heard/saw) was that these two guys, and likely more, thought that the president's path toward Ukraine negotiations jeopardized all the work they have been doing for years there. That threatened them and their ego, making them feel less important than they think they are. So, they unilaterally decided THEY KNOW BETTER.

These un-elected politicians tried to drive foreign policy against the will of the president of the United States. This is NOT THEIR JOB. The sole responsibility of creating and leading foreign policy is the president, that is his job. They are there to advise and carry out the president's policy decisions. If they so disagree with the direction the president is taking, and after advising the president on the why's and what-for's, potential downsides, and other negative affects, then their legal recourse is to resign, not to usurp the president's policies and attempt to have him removed from office.




Semantics maybe, but what I got out of it was they disagreed with Team Trumps “channels” they agreed with the policy and in numerous ways declared how much better Team Trumps policies were than Obama admin’s


Can you help a friend out and give us more detail? That is confusing to me that you think they said they liked Trumps policy and they were the ones interfering with it? Thanks for all in advance and my apology for any misunderstanding.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 06:47 AM
link   
So ... we can’t listen to what other people say about what other people say .... but we can listen to the Ukrainian say that he hadn’t heard anything about a link between the investigation and withholding military aid?

Hearsay or in this case, the lack of hearsay, is CLEAR EVIDENCE that something didn’t happen.

Conclusive, even.

I wonder if he heard about the investigation being linked to a Pence state visit? Or a Zelensky visit to Washington?

Or how about this ... it’s abominable that the President of the United States tried to get a foreign power to investigate an American citizen FOR WHATEVER REASON!

If Biden is guilty of crimes, let the DOJ handle it, you know, in accordance with the rule-of-law.

Nah. We’re going to take the word of the guy we think supports our position over the HERETIC THAT WOULD ATTACK GLORIOUS LEADER.

Pfft.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

ah so since this guy didn't hear it in other words no hearsay lol, it means that it didn't happen even though so many people are testifying that it did? Is every witness lying here? But this guy knows the truth? How many times did he talk to Sondeland personally? How many times did he speak with Rudy Giuliani? Or Mick Mulvaney? at all? several times? Never?
I know, everyone who testifies under oath are lying and everyone who refuses to answer questions under oath are telling the truth.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think the benefit is keeping Russia from encroaching on eastern europe which is certainly a threat.
No?



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
I must have missed where Mike Pence went to Zelenski's inauguration. When did that happen?

And I must have missed when Zelenski got that oval office visit huh? NY was as close as he got.

They got the money after being delayed only when the whistleblower story was about to hit.
Duh, even sillolme could see that.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

Yeah he was trying hard not to laugh in the mans face.
At times during questioning he lost that battle.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think the benefit is keeping Russia from encroaching on eastern europe which is certainly a threat.
No?


No. Giving someone money to buy something from you with your own money just plain a Silly thing. Something only Silly people would consider.

I'm not Silly.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: shawmanfromny

So trumps team denies it, zelenskys team denies it, the aid was released wuthout the fvaor being granted.

But some establishment officials that dont like trumps policies claim they heard someone say they heard someone say it happened.

Of course the dems are already discounting any Zlensky official who denies being pressured as being fearful if they tell the truth trump will punish them.


The aid was released when it became known that it was being withheld for the reasons stated in these impeachment hearings. I personally can't wait to hear from the person who actually postponed the aid.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Foreign Minister being unaware does not mean it was not communicated to others in the Ukrainian Gov.

I don't believe anyone testified that the Foreign minister was part of the established back-channel where Quid-Pro-Quo was purportedly discussed or negotiated for the release of aid.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: shawmanfromny

So trumps team denies it, zelenskys team denies it, the aid was released wuthout the fvaor being granted.

But some establishment officials that dont like trumps policies claim they heard someone say they heard someone say it happened.

Of course the dems are already discounting any Zlensky official who denies being pressured as being fearful if they tell the truth trump will punish them.


The aid was released when it became known that it was being withheld for the reasons stated in these impeachment hearings. I personally can't wait to hear from the person who actually postponed the aid.


Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Before Trump tapped him for COS he was head of OMB who releases the aid.
It was at his direction, on behalf of POTUS, that the Aid was held.
He has refused to testify.



edit on 15-11-2019 by Caractacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gortex

Everyone with 1st party involvement denies it. Yet you cling to it happened. Can you show me actual evidence of it? Anything but hearsay?

Did you hear that one moron Dem claiming that hearsay can be damning evidence, or something to that effect?

That was painful to listen to. He was trying to polish a turd, and he knew it.
edit on 15-11-2019 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: shawmanfromny

So trumps team denies it, zelenskys team denies it, the aid was released wuthout the fvaor being granted.

But some establishment officials that dont like trumps policies claim they heard someone say they heard someone say it happened.

Of course the dems are already discounting any Zlensky official who denies being pressured as being fearful if they tell the truth trump will punish them.


The aid was released when it became known that it was being withheld for the reasons stated in these impeachment hearings. I personally can't wait to hear from the person who actually postponed the aid.


Can you prove that?

We could use some proof of such a statement or it is BS and useless. Help us understand why you leftist do this with out proof?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Looking at this from the outside, most of the politicians are just repeating the same talking points on both sides of the isle. Democrat, Republican... They really are just shouting at each other like school children arguing.

There is the odd ray of hope that stands out. Rand Paul really stands out. I don't doubt for a second that he would nail trump to the wall if the evidence clearly supported doing that. I also don't think he would nail a democrat to the wall if the evidence did not support doing it.

The world and America would be much greater of all of them focused on working together to achieve something instead of wasting time fighting over who is right and who is wrong.




top topics



 
33
<< 1   >>

log in

join