The reason aid was temporarily held from the Ukraine
One of the unanswered questions in the House Intelligence Committee's made for TV "Impeachment probe" is the question of why aid for the Ukraine was temporarily held up. The answer may already have been given. This past weekend during one of the private deposition's in the basement of the Capitol, Mark Sandy (OMB official) testified directly as to the reason why.
Now we have to wait for the release of the deposition to get to that important fact. The release of all information is at the discretion of the lord high Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
Rep Lee Zeldin (R-NY) has called for a delay in the upcoming impeachment hearings until those transcripts are publicly available. "You still have those several transcripts, including both David Holmes and Mark Sandy, that haven't been released to the public. I believe that we should not go forward with the next open public hearing until the rest of these transcripts are out because I would have questions to ask of these witnesses come Tuesday morning based off of what we heard," Zeldin said.
We will all have to wait to see if Adam Schiff is really interested in truth.
Either way it will eventually come out.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
113 visitors
That deposition should be released immediately. It will be hard to withhold the facts.
As usual, provocative smearing of the President or his family will be deleted
What do you want, everyone to testify at once?
[DELETED]
Seems they don't apply to Biden either. Of course he has that all important D behind his name.
What does the left have about letting information come out that might disprove their narrative? Of course that would defeat their "Impeach Trump at all costs mantra".
[DELETED]
So Vic, first you were screaming because the hearings weren't open, and now you're supporting someone who says the open hearings should be stopped for a while.
And many people have already testified as to why the aid was held up - you just didn't like the answer, so you're seeking a conspiracy theory that will let you convince yourself that it's all a deep state conspiracy against Trump.
Because of the rules the democrats set up, any testimony from the closed sessions cannot be used for further questions in the open sessions. Zeldkin is asking for the unreleased testimony to be released before any more open sessions occur as so far the only releases support the Democrats.
Ya, the GOP wanted Volker and Morrison because they thought that their testimony would support Trump. How did that work out for them?
Judging from Zeldkin's prior questioning, we're not missing much.
Oh and BTW, the deposition rules are NOT unique to these hearings. They are across the board House rules. Those rules were written by the GOP.
FAIL.
It would have been easy to hold open hearings from the beginning instead of holding auditions to find out what people would say. Too bad you held a partisan political kangaroo court.
And many people have already testified as to why the aid was held up
I haven't heard anyone say they knew why and that includes today's two witnesses. It appears that is you who are afraid of the answer. It also appears that the definitive answer was given in closed door session over the weekend. Neither you nor I know what it was. I'm asking for that information. I'm sure all those reading this would like to know.
I didn't hold a court at all; strange wording you have there.
Several people have said the aid was held up because Ukraine hadn't publicly promised to investigate the debunked crap about the Bidens. I'm surprised you aren't aware of that, considering that's the reason why all this crap is happening in the first place.
You seem deeply invested in it.
Several people have said the aid was held up because Ukraine hadn't publicly promised to investigate the debunked crap about the Bidens.
Who specifically?
Link Please?
You have to be shitting me.
Bill Taylor? Trump himself?
There is no point in further discussion with someone who is apparently feigning ignorance about something he's discussing at great length and being deliberately obtuse in the hopes that people will buy into the bullshit about this all being a hoax. Have a nice day.
Neither has given a reason for the hold and I notice you couldn't give a link. Thank you for making my point.
It's an investigation, not a trial.
Why the BS Vic. The Minority got the SAME TIME in the depositions that the Majority and you KNOW it. Again, it's an investigation, NOT a court of ANY kind.
That's pretty telling. There were FOUR witnesses today Vic.
That answer has been testified to multiple times. As already stated, it looks like you don't like the answer.
It does? Where did you read that Vic?
All you have to accept the facts that you've already heard Vic.
At the time I wrote that only two had appeared. Two in the day and later two in the evening. Thanks for reminding us though.
That answer has been testified to multiple times.
Really? Maybe you would like to tell us what it was. Don't forget the link.
Devin Nunes is spending all his time spreading conspiracy theories.
John Solomon’s reporting is proving alll those so called conspiracy theories Dems gripe about to be real and true.
After CNN Business reached out to a representative for The Hill for comment, The Hill Editor-In-Chief Bob Cusack announced in a Monday morning email to staffers that Solomon's work was under review.
"As you are aware, John Solomon left The Hill earlier in the fall, but in light of recent congressional testimony and related events, we wanted to apprise you of the steps we are taking regarding John Solomon's opinion columns which were referenced in the impeachment inquiry," Cusack wrote.
"Because of our dedication to accurate non-partisan reporting and standards, we are reviewing, updating, annotating with any denials of witnesses, and when appropriate, correcting any opinion pieces referenced during the ongoing congressional inquiry," Cusack added.
Nunes is fishing to try and get the two witnesses to reveal the whistleblower.
Well we can assume that it was Vindman that told the whistleblower and like I said the WB is most likely someone Schiff, the dems and the media have known for a long time and is most likely working for the NSC.
The identity of the whistleblower is insignificant. Nunes wants a distraction in order to focus attention away from the facts which are horrible for Trump.
Oh yes, don't look hear and don't look there, just listen to Adam Schiff. The WB is needed to answer questions, some of which involve his meetings with Schiff & Schiff's staff.
Does anyone believe Schiff doesn't know who he is?
Like the "Russian Dossier"..... The "Whistle Blowyou " started it all too. Seems very significant to me.
That is a striking similarity. Both of those investigations (as well as others) began under murky circumstances. Certain people don't want anyone to look at that.
It's only significant to people who can't be bothered to look into the facts, but rather prefer to make inane one liners.
What facts?
Numerous other people have verified the whistleblowers acount of the phone call. The testimony of the whistleblower himself is completely unnecessary.
I thought you were following the hearing. Maybe not evidently.
The "Whistle blowyou " had ALL the FACTS (according to Shitty Schiff) !
Whom.....by the way.... hasn't produced SHIT on all the Irrefutable "Evidence" he said he's had since January 2017 !
This "Other" SHIT we're listening to is all about how these "Testify" type people …… " FELT " ….nothing more.....nothing less !
Suppose we wanted to ask the WB where he learned of it? Was it at the WH or Langley VA? There are questions and we don't care if you put a sack over his head. He needs to testify. The US Senate will ask him to testify.
I'll be brave and say:
Democrats, Liberals and Progressives don't want anyone to look at that.
The evidentiary parts of the phone call are not in dispute.
Demanding the whistleblower testify is a distraction.
Oh, I am. Today, for instance, I have deduced that it was Vindman who contacted the WB. I kind of suspected that before. What did you learn today?
Everything other that the dem narrative is labeled a distraction. Just like the way all these investigations began is distracting!
You can have a truth seeking process or secrecy, not both!
Democrats need these "expert witnesses" to opine on what is impeachable and what isn't because they can be presented as unbiased. They are testifying as experts on Ukraine, which is fine, but then by extension, the Democrats are trying to use them as unbiased experts on impeachment in a Ukraine matter.
The Democrats have a problem because they know it's not objectively clear that what was going on was at the the level of "impeachable" versus simply being unusual. At least with Watergate, we had an actual identifiable and understandable crime (burglary), knowledge of that crime, and an extended and clear effort to cover it up. People understood how that could be impeachable. This Ukraine thing just looks like two presidents talking. If there's a crime here, it's kind of hard to find the victim.
So this way, when they do vote to impeach, they can claim it's not because of partisanship. On the contrary, it pains them to take this terrible step, but they are only doing what they must and responding to what the experts have told them. Zero responsibility and plausible deniability come Election Day next year.
But that doesn't matter !
They're giving it their worst shot anyway !
It's nothing more than all about the "Vote" in 2020 for them !
Trumps "USING" the treaty between us and Ukraine:
"Treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine which obligates the leaders of both countries to cooperate fully and together on investigations of corruption, particularly criminal matters and corruption that involves both the United States and the Ukraine."
Democrats hate that kinda "Binding" stuff.
They'd rather fall on the " Not Legally Binding " sword, like they did with Iran, than actually want something Truly "Tangible".
"Feelings" matter more than anything with "Liberal" types.
WTF is your problem with the whistleblower, a US citizen, practicing his Constitutional right to petition his govern for redress?
What other questions do you have for the WB? Have you read the WB complaint and compared it to the evidence as we know it Vic? Give it a try and maybe you won't have anymore questions for the WB.
I do because I have no reason to believe that Schiff lied about it.
I know it's early for Christmas, but in the spirit of giving, I'll give you a reason.
Schiff’s false claim his committee had not spoken to the whistleblower
Not that I care. I think the obsession with the whistleblower is a distraction, but I also recognize that Adam Schiff does not have a great relationship with the truth.
I asked my wife for a subscription to WP for Christmas so alas, until then, I am unable to read your kind gift.
Who's paying his legal bills, Captain America?
Gee, I feel bad now. I should have gotten you the subscription. It is frustrating to follow a link only to be thwarted.
Which is why I chose the WP over the NYT and WSJ. I've sort of been keeping track of how many times I've hit a pay wall and which source. WP is on top. It was a choice between that and 2 new batteries for my power tool set.
I was going to ask you the same question.
I do because I have no reason to believe that Schiff lied about it.
I'm not surprised
Now we got to hear what a distinguished soldier Vindman was! That must mean we have to believe his every word! You see, you don't have to do that if you are honest & nonpartisan.
Is your posit that Vindman is lying? Spit it out.
If he doesn't wear that uniform where he works, he shouldn't be wearing it to the hearing. His demand to be called Lt Colonel speaks volumes. He is relying on his military service for his credibility. His boss had been warned about his leaking, yet he expects us to believe that he is nonpartisan.
I think Devin Nunes is quite right:
"What is the full extent of the Democrats’ prior coordination with the Whistleblower and who else did the Whistleblower coordinate this effort with?"
The military aid at the heart of the impeachment brouhaha represents a major shift in US foreign policy because it authorizes Ukraine to purchase weapon systems. The military aid was deliberately intended to escalate tensions in the region and attempt to force Russia to respond in a like manner. What has been suggested by revelations is that the US is attempting to create a full fledged civil war in Ukraine.
Congress critters are, no doubt, hoping for military contracts in their districts so they can claim to have 'brought home the bacon'. The political implications of Microsoft, Amazon, and Google competing for major military contracts shouldn't be so easily overlooked or ignored. Warfare has become a 'bread and butter' issue for political consideration.
The shift in US foreign policy indicated by the military aid package for Ukraine has obviously been the result of expert advice provided by the technocratic bureaucracy; the process has followed the status quo playbook. And the most significant allegation against Trump is his failure to conform to that status quo playbook. The political theater of the impeachment hearings distracts from the underlying shift in US foreign policy and how that altered policy came into being.
The technocrats have charged that Trump utilized an irregular channel of diplomacy. However, Ambassador Sondland replacing Ambassador Yovanovitch as the direct contact with the Ukrainian government is not an irregular channel of diplomacy. And Sondland, supposedly, would be better able to introduce EU concerns into the planned shift in US foreign policy. There isn't anything unusual about an ambassador replacing an ambassador when changes in US foreign policy occurs; particularly when the justification for changing policy has been developed by technocratic experts and required by Congressional authorization. The fallacy of a technocracy is that a rational process provides a rational result. Escalation of tensions in Ukraine may have been developed by a rational process but the desired objective would be most irrational.
Trump's apparent quid pro quo demand for Ukraine to investigate ties between the oligarchs and western politicians would drive a wedge between the Ukrainian government and the political recipients of the oligarch's attempts to meddle in US politics and foreign policy. How much did the oligarchs influence the shift in US foreign policy to escalate tensions in Ukraine?
The claim that Trump wanted an investigation of a political rival is based upon the presumption that Joe Biden is a political rival. Democrats have jumped the shark by presuming that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee for the general election. Until Biden wins the nomination he is just another Democratic politician with a history. And simply competing against other Democrats for the nomination is not sufficient to claim the status of a political rival to an incumbent President. Joe Biden is a candidate for the Democratic nomination; Biden is not yet a candidate for the Presidency.
There is a lot of smoke being generated by political Washington but there has been little substance. The important underlying issue is really about why and how the shift in US foreign policy toward Ukraine came about.
The more Vindman says, the more evidence he gives us of his personal agenda. He knows what the President is wrong but he can't seem to get his tongue to say what Biden did was wrong! That's called a political bias.
Joe Biden advanced the foreign policy towards Ukraine that Alexander Vindman helped create. Vindman is an Ukrainian immigrant. While Alexander Vindman was brought to the US at the age of two, he was still exposed to the political ideology that opposed the Soviet Union. Vindman still has familial ties to Ukraine. That's why Vindman is an expert on Ukraine. It should not be surprising that Alexander Vindman would have an anti-Russia bias. That isn't a problem unless Vindman's involvement in developing foreign policy is motivated by that anti-Russian bias rather than objective analysis.
One important unintended consequence of the cold war is that it transformed Russia and its satellites from a Socialist republic into an oligarchy. An oligarchy has many similarities to a feudal monarchy. Defeating the Soviet Union in the cold war did not expand democracy as was expected or promised.
The status quo failed to deliver global peace and prosperity. Vindman, like many others, are clinging to an ideological theory that has proven to be more fiction than fact.
I think we can agree that these are not simply "patriots", but more likely people with a personal agenda.
One problem I see with that argument is that patriotism is a personal agenda. Individual biases influences what one considers patriotic.
Patriotism, by its nature, is extremely nationalist. An American patriot is all about America being first and foremost. A patriot excoriating nationalism would be an example of an oxymoron.
Questioning an official's biases shouldn't be conflated with questioning their patriotism. Many in the technocratic bureaucracy are rather obviously biased and are pursuing a policy agenda that conforms to those biases. However, a motivation to strengthen and benefit the United States over other countries would be patriotic.
Just as a motivation to gain personally by withholding aid to another country would be unpatriotic.
As a "Taxpayer" in this country , I would find withholding MY hard earned money that was taken by this country , from another country that still has issues, a Real Perk for ME ! Maybe they can use MY "taken" money for something "Worthwhile" in this country instead ?
Which is what Biden did. What Trump did was withholding aid to try to smear a political opponent.
Trump gave them the "BIG BOOM" thingies they have been requesting, and followed the "Corruption Treaty" to a tea, instead of giving "Blankies" and "Passifiers" they got before, and that Joey "Look the other way" as to Son Biden corruption !
Political gain is not tangible. Influencing government policy for political gain isn't any different. Democrats are expecting to politically gain from the impeachment proceedings. Is abusing Congressional oversight authority to win elections really morally superior?
Escalating tensions in the region by authorizing military aid for purchase of weapon systems also provides political gain for followers of certain political ideologies. Placing weapon systems in Ukraine to militarily confront Russia is considered a political win for those with an anti-Russia bias.
At present, Ukrainian foreign policy is being using by many political factions to pursue political gain. None of the politicians have explained why Ukraine is vitally important to the United States.
That is an example of bias toward what is perceived as patriotic. Those biases are justification for claiming one political form of patriotism is more acceptable than another. But acceptance is really dependent upon shared biases and not upon shared love of country.
Patriotism cannot exist in the absence of a nation. Tear down the nation and there cannot be patriots. Patriotism is conjoined with nationalism; one cannot exist without the other. Someone following a political ideology that national borders are unimportant cannot be a patriot. Someone devoting their efforts toward establishing and maintaining a global world order cannot be a patriot unless that world order is subservient to a single nation.
Mischaracterizing your political opponents by lying about how they feel about border control is something we often see in authoritarian fascist nations like Russia which is a democracy in name only. Democrats, liberals, progressives, all care very deeply about our national borders and have worked hard at immigration reform to fix the current obviously broken system, but get smeared by their political opponents because they want to do so with empathy and intelligence instead of fascist xenophobia and bigotry.
While the United States certainly is no global government, it is laughably naïve to imagine that being protectionist and not taking a leadership role in forming global consensus with other world leaders and nations would be in our best interest. Hiding under a rock or in some back woods hollar may be fine for many Trump supporters, but that's not how the most powerful military on the planet should be operating when so much of our financial strength comes from partnerships around the world, partnerships that we must protect for the very survival of our nation. We spent the last half century fighting a cold war to protect American ideals around the world, to see so many Americans apparently abandon those ideals and support an illicit relationship between a murderous Russian dictator who wants to destroy western democracy is frankly shocking. To see Trump supporters wearing pro-Russia t-shirts and to hear Trump himself often repeat Russian propaganda and lies is something I never imagined I'd ever see in a country that used to be so dedicated to the rule of law and fighting that very same evil. To make such a shift is truly a slap in the face to all those who gave their lives to defend western democracy and American ideals.
Immigration policy is established by treaty between sovereign governments. Democrat's unilateral approach to immigration undermines diplomatic relations with other countries and weakens the ability of the United States to argue that other countries must fulfill their sovereign responsibilities and obligations.
Immigration policy works the same way as does the Paris accord on climate change. Each country has sovereign obligations and responsibilities. If other countries do not fulfill their sovereign obligations and responsibilities then any objectives of diplomatic policy becomes unenforceable; all bets are off.
Democrats unilateral approach to immigration really is premised on ignoring the importance of national sovereignty; not only for the United States but for other countries as well.
Global cooperation depends upon strengthening the independence of sovereign nations. Non-state entities forming partnerships actually weakens global cooperation by weakening the right of sovereign nations to exist.
Global cooperation that weakens the independence of sovereign nations gives rise to separatist movements, oligarchies, and ultimately global anarchy. Global cooperation really does depend upon nationalism.
Partisanship is an overt political bias that is distinctly separate from patriotism. Loyalty to political party does not qualify as patriotism; the ends do not justify the means.
It's only a mischaracterization for some of them.
Beto O'Rourke laughs at this statement.
Some have. Yes. And it's the right thing to do.
But far too many have simply shut down to throw an extended tantrum because they can't think of anything other than how Trump is a big meanie.
You honestly believe that? Based on what specifically? I see little or no evidence of that, especially in the last half dozen years or so.
Why, supporting DACA and sanctuary cities, counties, and states really means that they are just all gung-ho to protect our border, don't ya know!
Watch what they have done--not what they SAY.
Yes.
Based on my own views and those other progressives who I have discussed immigration policy with, as well as watching the many attempts by Democrats both in congress and the Senate to tackle immigration reform and their continued funding for border security. Just because Democrats don't want a contiguous milti-billion dollar boondoggle border wall doesn't mean we don';t care about the border, that's all bullshit fed to you by lying right wing pundits.
You see no results because any attempts to change things have been blocked by Senate Republicans. The house Democrats have passed numerous immigration bills since taking the majority January 2019.
The Democrats even worked with Republicans during the Bush years to get a comprehensive immigration bill passed but it was killed by a segment of Republican legislators who feared reprisal from their xenophobic base.
"Dashing the hopes of millions of immigrants seeking legal status and exposing a deep lack of support among Bush’s own Republicans , the bill fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed in the 100-member Senate to advance toward a final vote.
A crestfallen Bush conceded defeat and said he was moving on to other issues such as balancing the federal budget when it became clear the immigration legislation would not be revived during the final 18 months of his two-term presidency.
“ A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn’t find common ground. It didn’t work ,” said Bush.
I guess 2007 was just a bellwether for the extreme divisiveness to come that was primarily embraced by disaffected right wing xenophobes.
I don't know. I'm not really seeing it. Believe me, I'd be happy to wrong, though.
All of those stories chart a pretty consistent course by Democrats - one which syncs up with my own observations and memories. As a general matter, Democrats have prioritized easing immigration restrictions, spreading amnesty, and where they signed on to something that helped with border enforcement, it was done begrudgingly and so they could get something they wanted.
I don't think I see anybody on the Left today willing to say that illegal immigration is a problem - or even (if they don't think it's a big problem) concede that it's wrong. That extreme position was not the case even 10 years ago.
For me, I bet we could probably absorb more legal immigrants than we do and I'd like to see us do something for the people who were illegally dragged here as kids. I think there is nothing wrong with immigration as a general matter and we should try to be kind, especially to so-called dreamers.
But I also recognize that it's foolish to cut such people any kind of break without making significant improvements in border security. The announcement of any kind of benefit for illegal aliens will only stimulate more illegal migration. That just strikes me as common sense. It tends to strike many modern Democrats as racist - a connection that makes no logical sense to me - and that shuts down all discussion of the matter.
It is a problem, just not as large a one as many xenophobes try to make it out as. We do end up spending tax payer money for undocumented immigrants, though after you factor in the billions they pay in social security and income taxes when they use stolen social security numbers it's not the massive tax drain as some like to claim by only telling half the story or the story that fits their predetermined narrative.
We need comprehensive border security to keep out illicit drugs, gang members, terrorists and any other violent criminal. The apparent desire for everyone on the right to demonize the non-violent migrant family seeking a better or safer life for their children need to be processed like anyone else who is guilty of a misdemeanor, which is what illegally crossing the border is. It's not more "criminal" than a speeding ticket.
So while I appreciate that strong border enforcement is necessary for any sovereign nation, the rabid foam at the mouth reaction from some in response to the average non-violent undocumented immigrant or those children brought here involuntarily but know no other country themselves, seems like it can only be based in some deep racial hatred.
If this was really about stopping illegal immigration, those with any brains know that it has to be a multi-prong attack, just going all in on hundreds of extra miles of expensive to build, expensive to maintain border wall in low traffic areas that can be defeated in under 20 minutes by inexpensive portable reciprocating saw. I would much rather we spend the border money on an electronic surveillance fence as well as working with the unstable countries of origin these immigrants are most often coming from to incentivize them to improve safety and their economy so as to reduce their populations desire to flee. And then we need a fair pathway to citizenship for honest, hard working immigrants wanting to share in the American dream which makes us all stronger. The idea that America is "full" is just racist bullshit thrown out by morons who have no clue as to what makes America truly great and truly prosperous. This nation has been built by hard working immigrants determined to make a better life for they and their families. To try and slam the door on those behind us is both callous and cowardly.
When he was only a candidate, Trump put out a ten-point immigration plan . Building a wall was only the first point, but it's all anyone talks about and many people have been falsely convinced that it's the only step he wants to take.
JORDAN: Why didn't you go directly to your superior with your concerns?
VINDMAN: It was a really busy week. Also the lawyer told me not to talk to anyone else.
JORDAN: And yet you talked to your brother, to George Kent, and a CIA person you won't name.
And for the rest of you - Make sure you call him Lt Colonel!!!!
How many took note that Vindman was asked by the Ukrainian government to serve as defense minister for the country? Nerm had pointed to Vindman's connection to the Ukraine in Post 9.1.
We also had our suspicions confirmed that it was Vindman who talked to/used the WB.
We witnessed an amazing interaction between the Chairman (Schiff) and Vindman's attorney raising the specter of Schiff effectively protecting himself as well as the whistleblower from any examination of their relationship/coordination.
The Republicans finally dug in on the question of whether the President committed a crime.
The problems with the bureaucracy were on full display. We found out that there had been warnings of Vindman having poor judgement and leaking, yet nobody ever fired Vindman.
Opposition to impeachment is now growing among independents:
The sickening sham continues today