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.

 

AID Money for Ukraine was Ordered to be Frozen 90 mins After Call

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrankBruder
a reply to: network dude

So you think the Ukraine is so stupid that they did not know a "shake down" was happening?



Maybe you can provide proof of this "shake down", since the House Dems couldn't find it, when people that were star witnesses for the Dems testified under oath that in the end, Trump did not seek quid pro quo. And we know that Ukraine did not know that aid was withheld, and that aid was resumed.
edit on 23-12-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrankBruder
Everyone knows what Trump was trying to do:Get Ukraine to announce a investigation for corruption of Joe Biden.

That is what this is all about.

Simple.

I am not going to insult all of the folks who are insulting me - childish.

But I can put our a question: Is what he did worthy of removal?

We can discuss that, but all of this other noise is silly - the Senate will resolve this in a few weeks, and it is up to them, their ideas about the constitution, power, and elections that will inform their choice.



No, "everyone" does not know. You have a feeling.

You might like to jump from your feelings to a discussion about whether your feelings mean the President should be removed, but you won;t find any objective people willing to engage on that debate. It might work in a liberal echo chamber, but not here.

Before that debate, please provide the evidence that the President sought Ukraine's cooperation because he wanted them to help him win the 2020 election.

edit on 23/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: KrankBruder
Again, read here

www.congress.gov...

The answer is no, he will not be removed.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Oops guess I was wrong. I edited my post to prevent bad info.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrankBruder
a reply to: network dude

So you think the Ukraine is so stupid that they did not know a "shake down" was happening?



someone may well be stupid here, time will tell. Now, you seem to be evading the question. Trump wanted an investigation. He withheld the aid. IF he withheld the aid and wouldn't give it up until he got his investigations, that would be a quid-pro-quo, agree?

But as Zalinsky had no idea the aid was being withheld, and then there is the little known fact that Zalinsky has said multiple times he felt no pressure and wasn't "shook down" at all. With all that, you have a nice theory in your head, but no way to get it out. In the end, the aid was given, no investigations were announced, and everyone did about what they normally do.

SO we are left with a social justice warrior impeachment. Folks like you are desperately searching for someone who had their feelz hurt, yet nobody can be found. No crime has occurred, and nobody has been wrongly investigated.

No quid pro quo, no withholding of the aid in return for something, no crime. Yet, Trump has been impeached, and awaits pelosi to grow a tiny, tiny pair of gnads and take her weak ass case to the senate to be laughed at.

And to satisfy your continued question that needs no answer, no, Trump hasn't done anything regarding this that would warrant his removal IMHO. And If he was to do something that bad, it would likely be ignored due to the amount of times the assholes on the left cried wolf.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Oblique9043

Yes information keeps coming out.
Newly released emails show that trump had the funds frozen almost as soon as he got off the call with Zelinski.
That won't change the spin though.
And the name of the whistleblower is still the most important thing to discover. Of course.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


It is not a feeling. It is a review of the evidence presented.

I have seen a lot of evidence presented, and some of it my Trump supporters (Sondland) who said that Trump wanted a deal to discredit Biden. This guy gave Trump $1,000,000 dollars to his inaguration! I guess he is pro-Trump.

But this guy comes out and says "quid-pro-quo?"

That is pretty much proof to me.

We all know what he was doing, and some of us can admit it.


It is obvious.


It is not only history that is recording this, it is normal folks who can see what has happened.

Have fun trying to make this about something other than a US president trying to gain foreign assistance in slandering a political rival. Because that is what it is.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem
So, what should be done to Biden and Obama? Or was that not a crime Biden bragged that he committed with Obamas approval and blessing?

If Biden ever got into office, should he be impeached and removed the moment he set foot in office? Should he be imprisoned? Should Barack be put under house arrest now, or moved to Guantanamo?


Biden doesn't count because he Trump rival.

So obviously it's a crime, or something, I tink.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrankBruder
Everyone knows what Trump was trying to do:Get Ukraine to announce a investigation for corruption of Joe Biden.

That is what this is all about.

Simple.

I am not going to insult all of the folks who are insulting me - childish.

But I can put our a question: Is what he did worthy of removal?

We can discuss that, but all of this other noise is silly - the Senate will resolve this in a few weeks, and it is up to them, their ideas about the constitution, power, and elections that will inform their choice.



Bias test
Do you believe there should, or shouldn't be a investigation for corruption of Joe Biden?



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

That my dear is just another talking point that is not true but keeps getting pushed to the fore.

Probably because there is no defense for the actions he took. And this sounds like some kind of out.

Oh Ukraine knew from before this. They asked people about where the money was.

But if it is soothing to you to believe they didn't know and therefore were not pressured then you are welcome to your view.
But it's wrong.
**************************************************************************************************************************************** **
My edit. In July the department of defense took calls from Ukrainians asking about the money. The same day that trump made that phone call Zelinskis people reached out to Laura Cooper Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and EU. Her staff took calls asking where the money was. Probably because once Zelinski spoke with trump he got nervous about what was going to happen to that aid.
But no pressure. Just blow up the phones asking where the cash is.





edit on 12232019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Oblique9043

Unless I was sure that my payments were not being misused I would not pay either.

We don't 'owe' Ukraine anything.
What is this 'aid' going to anyhow?
Do they have proof?



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrankBruder
a reply to: Krakatoa


It is not a feeling. It is a review of the evidence presented.

I have seen a lot of evidence presented, and some of it my Trump supporters (Sondland) who said that Trump wanted a deal to discredit Biden. This guy gave Trump $1,000,000 dollars to his inaguration! I guess he is pro-Trump.

But this guy comes out and says "quid-pro-quo?"

That is pretty much proof to me.

We all know what he was doing, and some of us can admit it.


It is obvious.


It is not only history that is recording this, it is normal folks who can see what has happened.

Have fun trying to make this about something other than a US president trying to gain foreign assistance in slandering a political rival. Because that is what it is.


the evidence is the witnesses. Of them all, only two had any first hand knowledge of anything. Vindman, who was on the call and his only useful input was to agree that the transcript was correct. Then there was Sonland, who's only first hand knowledge came from his meeting with Trump in which Trump told him he wanted NOTHING from Zalinisky and wanted him to do the right thing.

If you have other relevant proof, please display it. If you disagree with what I wrote, explain why.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrankBruder
a reply to: Krakatoa


It is not a feeling. It is a review of the evidence presented.

I have seen a lot of evidence presented, and some of it my Trump supporters (Sondland) who said that Trump wanted a deal to discredit Biden.



Did he? You are saying that Sondland testified that Trump wanted a deal in order to discredit Biden....
Can you link that please?

Here's what Sondland said under oath - quote:


In July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended
security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians
needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was
suspended, but I never received a clear answer.
In the absence of any credible explanation for
the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur
until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016
election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro
quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson. And I also shared my concerns with
the Ukrainians.


You've claimed to have some extraordinary new statement from Sondland - where did you get it and can we see it please???
edit on 23/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Imagine that Ukraine is a charity like oh, say PETA.

You have been sending donations on a regular basis because you were under the impression that they provide homes for animals. You hear a rumor that all the money you donated so far went to killing animals and you ask PETA to do an investigation and provide proof that they do not euthanize animals and you stop your next donation from being sent.

Should That be a crime?
No.
How is it different from The President 'not' sending money?

Aid to a country other than the United States is not an obligation 'of' the United States.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oblique9043
Theres no denying that Trump did this to hold out for the quid pro quo. He only released the money after he found out he was busted. How can any of you deny this? What other reason is there? The mental gymnastics ought to be gold medal worthy in here.


Are you saying that quid pro quo never happens and is illegal or wrong in anyway? If Trump wanted concessions on corruption in general to include Biden's son, Hillary's emails, and 2016 election what part of this is illegal or even wrong.

We are only talking investigations here that can go any which way good or bad for the party being investigated. The liberals have turned it into something that is routinely done as now deemed illegal by them. They also find no problem with investigating Trump as a party nominee to actually create fake dirt in the process while now screaming that just asking for a look into a candidate of many (not the actual party's nominee) as illegal and impeachable...

Biden will not be a party's nominee, even Obama will not vouch for him.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Did he? You are saying that Sondland testified that Trump wanted a deal in order to discredit Biden....
Can you link that please?



200 congress members said that...lol must be true. Sondland actually said no such thing, not even close...



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Innuendo and hearsay, you don't actually know.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: VforVendettea
Why haven't you already heard that the money was already approved and that Ukraine had passed a rigorous screening to make sure they had corruption in hand. That was approved. That was already done.
So that was not a valid reason for trump to hold it up.
They had already been approved. Screened. Their steps to corral corruption were sanctioned by the US. All good.


AND WHAT IS THE AID GOING TO?
Come on... Russia taking over Crimea? Sitting on their eastern border looking for any chance to invade and take more land from them? Any of this sound familiar?
edit on 12232019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: VforVendettea
Why haven't you already heard that the money was already approved and that Ukraine had passed a rigorous screening to make sure they had corruption in hand. That was approved. That was already done.
So that was not a valid reason for trump to hold it up.
They had already been approved. Screened. Their steps to corral corruption were sanctioned by the US. All good.


Show me that report. It's probably in the same place your Hunter Biden exoneration papers reside. but again, thanks for providing your comedy, you always deliver.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

We really should be giving 'aid' to our own citizens first.
Maybe rebuild the failing infrastructure?




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join