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

Well, I think the following information, in regards to what Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said today, will poke yet another hole in the Democrat's impeachment farce. I wonder how the Dems will spin this? They're very good at deflection, especially with Schiff running this clown show.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.

Prystaiko’s comments came a day after William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, testified in the first televised hearing of the impeachment inquiry.

“I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance,” Prystaiko was quoted as saying by Interfax.

Taylor pointed to Trump’s keen interest in getting the eastern European ally to investigate Biden and reiterated his understanding that $391 million in U.S. security aid was withheld from Kiev unless it cooperated.

www.reuters.com...

Yesterday, Ambassador Taylor came off as a coached fool, who got his damning information from a staffer, who supposedly overheard a July 26 phone call between Trump and Sondland.

Jim Jordan blasted Ambassador Taylor’s “clear understanding” that Trump's administration would not release security assistance funds to Ukraine until the Ukraine president committed to an investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election.

Did anyone else notice Taylor's nervous "grin" when he was being called out by Jordan? Taylor's information is based on heresay and according to Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko, it never happened!

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?

a reply to: shawmanfromny
Wow
Seems house dems made a mistake

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?

A crappy deal brokered by "career politicians" and deep state actors, not a career businessman. No businessman I know would make a deal where businessman1 gives $$$ to businessman2 to use to buy product from businessman1 without any interest or other benefit. Unless, there is a benefit, a secret benefit of some sort regarding nepotism hiring of unqualified family members of businessman1 as a way to work around finance and tax laws.

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.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Did anyone else notice Taylor's nervous "grin" when he was being called out by Jordan?

I thought he looked like a kid who'd been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. While standing on top of the counter with dirty shoes. Having climbed up on his mama's upholstered favorite chair. Thinking he could maybe charm his way out of it but feeling pretty sure he was screwed.

"I'm not here to take one side or the other or to advocate any particular outcome ..."

Yeah, right. Too little ass coverage, too late. The guy is a traitor, IMO, just like all the rest of his cohort. If they were all tried and convicted of treason and lined up against a wall at Gitmo and shot, I don't think it'd be too harsh.
:

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 ONLY way that the left has an impeachment case is if they can convince the world that Ukrainian officials are all lying.

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.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Exactly.

They didn't agree with Trump's policy, so they did everything in their power to stop him.

Guess what you self important buffoons, ambassadors don't make policy. They are there to carry out the Presidential policy. Whether they agree with it, or not, it is the purview of the president, not unelected, appointed lackeys.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Why is it supposedly every "Patriot" who tries to sink Trump has numerous skeletons in their closets and seems to hang out with other shady Never Trumpets?

It's like they can't even find a squeaky clean person to use in this charade.

They must be running out of these slimey Deep State types soon.

C I A agents... AKA deepstate disquised as ambassadors. a reply to: Mach2

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.

The devils in the detail , of course he didn't spell it out because with the right wording and delivery the meaning of the threat would be obvious.
I'm sure they both knew what they were talking about and the implications involved , block your ears and cover your eyes if you choose but Prystaiko is engaging in damage limitation , no holes poked.

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?

a reply to: DBCowboy
Anyone who disagrees with the house dems is obviously lying.
BAMN
#resist
Remember?

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?

He can't provide you direct evidence because he has none, he'll probably throw you some liberal links on the Hearsay, I mean he is already doing the tap dance and spin within the context of this thread, but direct evidence? None exist and HE KNOWS IT.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yet you cling to it happened.

Not clinging to anything , Prystaiko is a politician speaking in a way politicians speak , " did not explicitly link" does not mean there was no link.

Can you show me actual evidence of it?

You think I taped the call , because if I didn't how would I have evidence that isn't in the public domain

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.

This is my conclusion as well.

These guys remind me of College Professors; admittedly intelligent and knowledgeable of the subject matter but also stuck in a myopic view of the world that begins and ends with them being the smartest person in the room. Anything to the contrary is met with bigotry and snobbery.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yet you cling to it happened.

Not clinging to anything , Prystaiko is a politician speaking in a way politicians speak , " did not explicitly link" does not mean there was no link.

Can you show me actual evidence of it?

You think I taped the call , because if I didn't how would I have evidence that isn't in the public domain

Even Mr. Trump is innocent until proven otherwise. You do not have actual proof, so: he is innocent.

It’s not that hard is it?

Also: Trump and other 1st hand persons say the request was about corruption, no matter who it is.
Dems claim, based on second hand info and hearsay that is was ONLY about political dirt.
The burden of proof is on the Dems, to proof it was NOT about corruption, but just what they claim it is. I do not see a possibility to proof that honestly without calling both Biden’s. Clear them, to proof Trump was just trying to hurt his possible opponent. Now it seems there was a legit reason to investigate the Biden’s.

It is all just a political stunt to influence the 2020 elections.

a reply to: Goedhardt

Even Mr. Trump is innocent until proven otherwise You do not have actual proof, so: he is innocent.

Funny , I thought it was President Trump but perhaps you're right ... Mr seems more fitting.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Goedhardt

Even Mr. Trump is innocent until proven otherwise You do not have actual proof, so: he is innocent.

Funny , I thought it was President Trump but perhaps you're right ... Mr seems more fitting.

You are right, but he is not my president. I actually hope we will get someone like him here though.