Earl (11-22-2019)
Earl (11-22-2019)
Earl (11-22-2019)
Who decided to award trump's completely unqualified daughter a bunch of trademarks in order to get an "in" to her father? That would be the corrupt Chinese, hotshot.
Who decided to award trump's completely unqualified daughter and son-in-law high level positions in his administration? That would be her corrupt daddy.
Who decided to pay the grifter-in-chief millions of dollars so they could slap his name on their buildings or products around the world? That would be these people.
Who decided to start a fake university with the goal of fleecing suckers out of their hard-earned money? That would be your unqualified "professor" lol.
If I were a repub I'd steer clear of attacking HB for his business deal when there's so much ammo out there to attack the grifter for his deals. But if that's what they want to do, then they better prepare for the blowback.
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
Where's the felony in doing what HB did? You should be criticizing the Burisma people for being so eager to part with their money. What he did is no different from what trump's been doing for decades.
Even a die-hard trump fluffer like you can't be that naive.And the "evidence" against Manafort, manufactured by Ukraine, was ALWAYS incredibly shady and unverified...
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
Collusion has been a Repub mantra. It is not defined as a crime When the thief in chief heard that he repeated it over and over, The Dems have not discussed it or used the term. You are being dishonest again. Those who testified the last 2 weeks showed they were solidly grounded, intelligent and honest. That separates what they said from Trump by principle, ethics, and ability.Trump just lies and lies. The Repubs at these hearings have been clownish and desperate. They know they have no defense. Nunes and Gym Jordan have missed badly because they have nothing to use.
You know why Trump would never appear and why he would never take the oath. He is flat out dishonest. He cannot testify because he would show how far he has slipped mentally.
The reds have always attacked civil servants and these last 2 weeks have shown how wrong they are about that too.
Fact check.
"In his opening statement, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes said that Democrats had tried “to obtain nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials.”
Facts First: This is misleading. While committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff did take a 2017 call from Russian pranksters who posed as a Ukrainian government official and purported to know of “compromising” nude photos taken of Trump during a visit to Moscow in 2013, Schiff emphasized to the pranksters that he would work with the FBI, not on his own, to receive any related evidence the pranksters could provide.
The pranksters claimed to have recordings of Russians discussing the supposed compromising material. Schiff said he would welcome an opportunity to obtain copies of the recordings (not the photos themselves) -- and emphasized that he would work with law enforcement to do so.“We will try to work with the FBI to figure out, along with your staff, how we can obtain copies,” Schiff said of the recordings, as The Atlantic reported.
Schiff continued moments later: “I'll be in touch with the FBI about this.”
A Schiff spokesman told The Atlantic: “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
Althea (11-22-2019)
"Maybe Obama took Hill’s advice so that’s why he sent blankets instead of arms to Ukraine lol."
Exactly what I was wondering. I noticed she didn't expound on this little incidental yesterday.
It might be the other way around though. Maybe it was SHE who was following BAMA'S lead.
This was from a few months prior to her remarks..........
White House rebuffs Ukraine appeal for weapons
Oren Dorell
USA TODAY
9/18/14
WASHINGTON — The White House refused to include weapons in an aid package announced Thursday for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance.
The Obama administration is providing $46 million in non-lethal security assistance and $7 million for relief organizations providing humanitarian assistance to Ukrainians affected by the conflict between government forces and Russian-backed separatists in the eastern region.
The White House announcement came shortly after Poroshenko stood before a joint session of Congress and pleaded for more political support and military equipment beyond the non-lethal aid the United States has pledged.
Poroshenko said blankets and night-vision goggles from the USA are important, "but one cannot win a war with blankets!"
What the White House offered was a military aid package that will provide body armor, helmets, vehicles, night and thermal vision devices, advanced radios, patrol boats, counter-mortar radars, rations, tents and uniforms. U.S. military and civilian advisers will help Ukraine improve its defense capacity, the White House said.
The new aid brings the total U.S. assistance package for Ukraine to $291 million, plus a $1 billion loan guarantee. The Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid for fear of escalating tensions.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ress/15819211/
**********
Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine
By Jennifer Steinhauer and David M. Herszenhorn
June 11, 2015
WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.
The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.
So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.
The push by lawmakers to arm Ukraine’s beleaguered armed forces threatens to open a rift between the United States and key allies, especially Germany and France, at a time when the Obama administration has been working to demonstrate unified support for extending European economic sanctions against Russia that are scheduled to expire at the end of July.
Legislation to authorize lethal military aid for Ukraine has gone to the White House before, but Mr. Obama has not acted on it. And while this bill authorizes the weapons it cannot compel the administration to send them. The measure is largely meant to put renewed pressure on the White House.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has championed the effort to send arms to Ukraine for more than a year, dismissed the fears that it would worsen the conflict and unravel the international coalition.
Citing the attacks on Ukraine as “one of the most shameful and dishonorable acts I have seen in my life,” Mr. McCain said in an interview that the response so far to Russia’s aggression had been insufficient. “They are not asking for a single boot on the ground,” he said on the Senate floor Thursday, adding, “I am a bit taken aback by the vociferous opposition” to weapons help.
Earlier this week, the Ukrainian prime minister, Anseniy P. Yatsenyuk, met with lawmakers in Washington to make the case for military and financial aid, and was met with sympathy.
“There has been a strong bipartisan well of support for quite some time for providing lethal support,” said Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California. “We have offered Russia all kinds of exit ramps and they were clearly not interested in taking them.”
But in the latest sign of the reluctance by the White House, Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, gave a speech on Thursday in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in which she excoriated Russia but did not mention sending offensive weapons as a possibility.
Instead, she focused on combating the Russian misinformation campaign, praising the Ukrainians for undertaking a government overhaul and warning only vaguely of a tougher stance by the United States.
In Kiev on Thursday, a Ukrainian military spokesman reported that three soldiers had been killed in attacks by Russian-backed separatists, and at least 13 were wounded in the latest fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk. Officials from the self-declared, pro-Russian separatist republics said that two of their soldiers had been killed and at least two more wounded in attacks by the Ukrainian military.
While the United States has been providing nonlethal assistance, and American military instructors have begun training Ukrainian troops in western Ukraine, President Petro O. Poroshenko has also made clear he would welcome more help in the form of weapons, as he seeks to build up his country’s military to face down the threat from Russia.
“We have an effective form of cooperation, but not with lethal weapons, with the United States, Canada, U.K.,” Mr. Poroshenko said in an interview in his office last week. “We are very satisfied with the current level of cooperation but we would be happy if the level of this cooperation would be increased.”
The bipartisan pressure developing on Capitol Hill, however, comes at an awkward time. Mr. Putin in recent days has repeatedly blamed the Ukrainian government for continuing cease-fire violations, while calling on the United States and its European allies to pressure Kiev to fully put the peace accord in place.
That has set the stage for a pitched debate between lawmakers and the White House that could well undermine Mr. Obama’s repeated assertion that the United States sees no military solution to the conflict in Ukraine.
“I have never seen a more aggressive and emotional debate than I have on this question,” said Matthew Rojansky, the director of the Kennan Institute in Washington and expert on Russia and Ukraine. Mr. Rojansky said the debate is “reminiscent of that when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.”
Reflecting the view of many experts, Mr. Rojansky added, “There are valid arguments on both sides but you don’t get to walk this back. Once we have done this we become a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on earth that can destroy the United States. That’s why this is a big deal.”
In his confirmation hearing in March, Ashton B. Carter, the secretary of defense, told senators that he would consider increased military assistance to Ukraine, including the sale of lethal arms, reflecting the views of some other senior administration officials.
If Congress moves forward with restrictions on the money allocated for Ukraine, a standoff with the White House could also conceivably block much-needed nonlethal aid.
Lawmakers who oppose sending weapons to Ukraine note that Washington could never send enough hardware for Ukraine to defeat Russian-backed forces militarily. And it is not clear that the Ukrainian military is sufficiently trained to make proper use of American weapons without substantial assistance by American military personnel, or that the weapons would not end up in enemy hands.
“If you’re playing chess with Russia you have to think two moves ahead,” said Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, who is among those lawmakers skeptical of providing arms. “I am afraid this could provoke a major East-West confrontation.”
Julia Osmolovskaya, the managing partner of the Institute of Negotiation Skills, a mediation group in Kiev, said Ukrainians were divided over the potential benefits of receiving weapons from the United States and the inherent risk of stoking further violence, and also perplexed by Washington’s mixed messages.
Jennifer Steinhauer reported from Washington, and David M. Herszenhorn from Kiev, Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/w...m-ukraine.html
**********
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
And, it was OBAMA who wanted to appease Putin by not sending lethal aid to fight Russia........not Trump.
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
Bookmarks