Trump openly admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry

[iluvatar5150]

...perhaps because it's not a relevant point to the question at hand: Why did the President withhold security aid for 51 days?

I’ve been wondering that, too. I’ve asked a couple people here and have yet to receive an answer.

 

[Bobber]

...perhaps because it's not a relevant point to the question at hand: Why did the President withhold security aid for 51 days?

I'd think this issue was VERY relevant. The Republicans were pointing out that President Trump did a lot more than Obama. Obama provided pillows and blankets and Trump provided military equipment to ward off Russian attacks. The point is if Trump basically froze up their usages in a practical sense then it would have been brought up in the hearing as a substantive point by either the Dems or the experts in the field the witnesses that Trump didn't do as much as Obama.

 

[A_Thinker]

Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine — hundreds of miles from the battlefield. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless.

From the public testimony given, it appears that the Javelins are more a deterrent to more Russian aggression than anything else.

 

[wing2000]

I'd think this issue was VERY relevant. The Republicans were pointing out that President Trump did a lot more than Obama. Obama provided pillows and blankets and Trump provided military equipment to ward off Russian attacks. The point is if Trump basically froze up their usages in a practical sense then it would have been brought up in the hearing as a substantive point by either the Dems or the experts in the field the witnesses that Trump didn't do as much as Obama.

eh, it was a bit more than pillows and blankets (you should know better than to take the committee members' characterization at face value)

The Obama administration did draw criticism for its refusal to approve lethal assistance to Ukraine, including the Javelin missile sale Trump cited. But it did commit to Kyiv more than $600 million in security assistance and equipment, including armored Humvee vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, countermortar radars, night vision equipment, and medical supplies.
Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine

...in any case, emphasizing that Trump did give more lethal aid (Javelins) - only increases the mystery as to why the President delayed it.

 

[A_Thinker]

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," Trump openly admitted to holding up military aid to Ukraine to pressure the government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory about Ukrainian election interference and Democratic collusion.

In other words, Trump acknowledged doing the very thing he has repeatedly denied and will likely be impeached for. The president started off by referencing the broad outlines of the conspiracy, suggesting Ukraine is hiding a Democratic National Committee "server" that contains evidence of Ukrainian meddling.

Then, crucially, he tacked on: "We're looking for corruption, there's tremendous corruption, and why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries where there's this kind of corruption?"

Side note - If this isn't enough for you, the full interview is insane. It seems like he's cracking.

Trump, himself, is our best asset ...

 

[cow451]

Trump, himself, is our best asset ...

Comrades! Presidential Trump is biggest asset in history of American assets. Huge asset!

 

[Go Braves]

That same MP has made a number of dramatic and questionable claims in the past. I’d be careful about taking everything at face value if I were you.

Lmbo, yep. That link that got posted here must be going all around on the right-wing blogs since it's been posted by others in Donald's base here. All so proud to hold it up, lmbo. The main source is a Russian propaganda troll site. So proud. Another example of the kind of misleading moronic conspiracy theory bull Donald just loves.

As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media

A misleading claim about the head of the Ukrainian energy company at the heart of the House impeachment inquiry went viral across conservative pockets of social media Wednesday, receiving hundreds of thousands of retweets and shares from some of the president’s most ardent online supporters.

The incorrect story, first disseminated by the finance blog ZeroHedge, claimed that Mykola Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, had been indicted over money laundering related to the Biden family. Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, was previously on Burisma’s board of directors.

In fact, there was no announcement of an indictment. Ukraine’s chief prosecutor, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, announced in October his office would conduct a wide-ranging review of all previous cases involving Burisma, and Wednesday said he was including possible embezzlement in the investigation, according to Reuters.

ZeroHedge apparently misconstrued the original Russian article from the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency, which did not mention an indictment. The Interfax-Ukraine News Agency operates as part of Interfax, a Russian news outlet.

But that didn’t stop allies of President Donald Trump from widely disseminating the false account of an indictment, seizing on some truthful elements while wildly extrapolating others to offer conservatives and Trump loyalists a welcome alternative to the day’s news, in which Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, implicated numerous members of the Trump administration in the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

 

[childeye 2]

How you can take a hypothetical question being posed Why should we be the only ones giving all the aid all the time comment and twist it into an admission of some kind of wrongdoing is beyond me..

He didn't say he withheld aid from Ukraine..

For what it's worth, this is what I currently see:
We already know that Trump ordered the withholding of aid to Ukraine a short time before the phone conversation with Zelensky. He has openly said so several times. His current explanation as to why he did so is for two reasons.

1) He felt that it was unfair that only the United States should put up the money, so he wanted other countries, particularly in Europe to put up money also. Apparently Trump didn't know nor did I, that Europe and it's countries already pay more than we do.

2) He wanted to make sure Ukraine was honest because Trump didn't want to give money to a corrupt country. This reason is why Trump asked the rhetorical question of why should we give money to a corrupt country?

We already know that Trump wanted Zelensky to look into the crowdstrike/server theory wherein Ukraine and the Democrats conspired to hack the DNC and then say it was Russia. We know this from his telephone conversation with Zelensky. That, by itself was asking for a personal favor that would be unethical since it would benefit him politically by raising the perception that the Democrats plotted the whole Russia interference investigation so as to smear him. Hence Trump calls it a hoax. Trump also mentioned that Zelensky should investigate Biden/Burisma in the same phone call.

The whistleblower not only gives a report that Trump is asking for personal political favors from the new Ukrainian President that will help Trump to win the 2020 elections, but he also is pressuring Zelensky to carry out those favors. The Whitehouse will not release any documents concerning this, nor will they allow staff to testify. However some staff who no longer work there or were subpoenaed and defied whitehouse orders do testify. Testimony given so far has shown an effort by some official U.S. diplomats and also unofficial operatives working to get these investigations announced publicly by Ukraine in exchange for a white house meeting, which Zelensky desperately needs to show U.S. support for Ukraine against the aggression of Russia.

The withheld aid becomes another issue that also factors in as a form of additional pressure, and it was unhelpful that Mulvaney first indicated it was intentional and then withdrew that initial indication by clarifying he misspoke or was misunderstood.



​

 

[cow451]

For what it's worth, this is what I currently see:
We already know that Trump ordered the withholding of aid to Ukraine a short time before the phone conversation with Zelensky. He has openly said so several times. His current explanation as to why he did so is for two reasons.

1) He felt that it was unfair that only the United States should put up the money, so he wanted other countries, particularly in Europe to put up money also. Apparently Trump didn't know nor did I, that Europe and it's countries already pay more than we do.

2) He wanted to make sure Ukraine was honest because Trump didn't want to give money to a corrupt country. This reason is why Trump asked the rhetorical question of why should we give money to a corrupt country?

We already know that Trump wanted Zelensky to look into the crowdstrike/server theory wherein Ukraine and the Democrats conspired to hack the DNC and then say it was Russia. We know this from his telephone conversation with Zelensky. That, by itself was asking for a personal favor that would be unethical since it would benefit him politically by raising the perception that the Democrats plotted the whole Russia interference investigation so as to smear him. Hence Trump calls it a hoax. Trump also mentioned that Zelensky should investigate Biden/Burisma in the phone call.

So enters in the whistleblower. The whistleblower not only gives a report that Trump is asking for personal political favors from the new Ukrainian President that will help Trump win the 2020 elections, but he also is pressuring Zelensky to carry out those favors. The Whitehouse will not release any documents concerning this, nor will they allow staff to testify. But testimony given so far by those who defied the Whitehouse or are not currently employed there any longer, has shown an effort by some official U.S. diplomats and also unofficial operatives working to get these investigations announced publicly by Ukraine in exchange for a white house meeting that Zelensky needs to show U.S. support of Ukraine against the agression of Russia.
​

3) Trump asked for a political favor, using military aid as leverage.
4) The aid was released shortly after the Administration heard the whistle blow.

 

[childeye 2]

3) Trump asked for a political favor, using military aid as leverage.
4) The aid was released shortly after the Administration heard the whistle blow.

Number 3 is based on the word "though". Zelensky says we're about ready to buy more Javelins and Trump responds, "I want you to do us a favor though". The word "though" implies a condition that needs to be met to obtain something in the prior sentence. I get that.

Number 4 implies that the aid was released only after the whistle blower being reported (in other words only after being caught). That's currently hard to prove. Additionally there is also the phone call from Sondland confirming for Trump that Zelensky will do anything Trump wants the day after the July 25 phone conversation.

Sondland's testimony that he presumed that the President was withholding aid till he got the investigations weakens the case in that respect. The Democrats need documents and perhaps more witnesses such as Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton.

Nonetheless, it remains wrong for the President to ask for political help from Zelensky to help him win the 2020 elections and it's wrong to promote a dangerous conspiracy theory that greatly benefits Russia and diminishes our own intelligence agencies and U.S. stature geopolitically.

 

[cow451]

Number 3 is based on the word "though". Zelensky says we're about ready to buy more Javelins and Trump responds, "I want you to do us a favor though". The word "though" implies a condition that needs to be met to obtain something in the prior sentence. I get that.

Number 4 implies that the aid was released only after the whistle blower being reported (in other words only after being caught). That's currently hard to prove. Additionally there is also the phone call from Sondland confirming for Trump that Zelensky will do anything Trump wants the day after the July 25 phone conversation.

Sondland's testimony that he presumed that the President was withholding aid till he got the investigations weakens the case in that respect. The Democrats need documents and perhaps more witnesses such as Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton.

Nonetheless, it remains wrong for the President to ask for political help from Zelensky to help him win the 2020 elections and it's wrong to promote a dangerous conspiracy theory that greatly benefits Russia and diminishes our own intelligence agencies and U.S. stature geopolitically.

A poster might argue that a President is, then, unfit for duty.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I’ve been wondering that, too. I’ve asked a couple people here and have yet to receive an answer.

You actually have been given an answer: The bribery investigation against Trump forced him to do it long before he wanted to. However, it is unclear why he did not ship it within 45 days.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Number 4 implies that the aid was released only after the whistle blower being reported (in other words only after being caught). That's currently hard to prove.

Ehh, no it's not. The story about the aid being withheld broke on August 28th. The aid was not released until September 11. I don't know if it's possible to know if the whistleblower report was the trigger, (though that was forwarded from the IG on August 26) but it's easily demonstrable that the aid wasn't released until people started making a stink about it.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I am wondering why Trump asked the Ukrainians anything and didn’t just use his Justice Department to dig up dirt on his political opponents children. It is not like the Attorney General works for the United States or anything, he is Trumps personal lawyer.

 

[childeye 2]

Ehh, no it's not. The story about the aid being withheld broke on August 28th. The aid was not released until September 11. I don't know if it's possible to know if the whistleblower report was the trigger, (though that was forwarded from the IG on August 26) but it's easily demonstrable that the aid wasn't released until people started making a stink about it.

I agree that it's easy to prove when the aid was withheld and when it was released. Trump himself said he released it after people complained. What is hard to prove is like you say, that the whistleblower was the trigger. In other words it's hard to prove beyond a doubt that it's not coincidental.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

You can't cremate a living person. What is the point of this totally inappropriate comment?

Well if you put a person in a crematorium alive , you can.

 

[FireDragon76]

Such nonsense. So Trump made it possible for Ukraine to have Javelins to defend against the Russians and he's Santa to Putin? Or was it rather the last administration that was that t Putin by giving only blankets and pillows?

The last administration was trying not to not make the situation worse, in the hopes that some kind of diplomacy could be done, but things have progressed since then.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That same MP has made a number of dramatic and questionable claims in the past. I’d be careful about taking everything at face value if I were you.

Including (with all due respect) your advice, too?

I'm not assuming it's true, nor am I assuming it "must" be false

How do we find out for sure, one way or another?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Where on earth did you get a figure of $400b from? Since 2014 the US has given something like $1.6b in security assistance.

No Quid Pro Quo: Ukraine Found Out About $400 Billion Withholding 1 Month After Trump Call

Some of the headlines read "$400B"... guess that would be a staggering sum, you're 100% sure "$400M" is the right figure?

Still a lot of money, and the President still has a "half-billion dollar point" (rounding slightly in his favor), no?

 

[Go Braves]

I agree that it's easy to prove when the aid was withheld and when it was released. Trump himself said he released it after people complained. What is hard to prove is like you say, that the whistleblower was the trigger. In other words it's hard to prove beyond a doubt that it's not coincidental.

The timeline makes it pretty dang obvious the whistleblower sounding the alarm prompted the aid finally being released. After prolonged wrangling to get it released it finally was after Donald became aware of the whistleblower. Sept. 9 is also the day of the conversation with Amb. Sondland when he was in a bad mood & said he didn't want anything from Ukraine. Lmbo. Sondland testified under oath, of course, that Donald absolutely wanted a quid pro quo.

Timeline: The curious release of military aid to Ukraine

SEPT. 9: The investigations begin

Three House committees launch a wide-ranging investigation into the allegations that Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and possibly others, tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to help the president's reelection campaign by digging up dirt on a political rival.

SEPT. 11: The aid is released

The funds are suddenly released. Senate Republicans said that happened in part because Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, threatened to block $5 billion in Pentagon spending for 2020 if the aid wasn't given to Ukraine. They said the aid was held up while Trump looked into whether Zelenskiy was serious about fighting corruption. Taylor and other diplomats involved in Ukraine were not given a reason for the aid being released.