Jump to content
skews13

How Often Has Trump Changed His Story On Ukraine? Lets Count The Ways

Recommended Posts

The tangled saga of President Trump’s effort to muscle Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and others in return for U.S. aid or a state visit to Washington hasn’t been easy to follow.

 

Fragments initially dribbled out of closed-door hearings as White House and State Department officials described how the president and his henchmen — is there any other word for Rudy Giuliani? — sought to twist U.S. foreign policy, apparently to boost Trump’s reelection bid.

 

Making sense of the complicated story will be the challenge when the House Intelligence Committee holds the first public hearings, starting Wednesday.

 

But Republican arguments in Trump’s defense are hard to follow too — because the president and his allies in Congress keep changing their stories.

 

Trump’s first response, after a whistleblower in the National Security Council raised the alarm that the president had held up military aid to Ukraine while demanding Kyiv investigate his political rivals, was simple:

 

It never happened.

 

“I didn’t delay anything,” Trump told reporters.

Even he could see that whopper wouldn’t hold. Too many bureaucrats knew the White House had stopped the aid that a bipartisan majority in Congress had approved for a struggling democracy facing Russian aggression.

 

So Trump modified his excuse. “Why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?” Besides, other governments weren’t giving enough. “I’d withhold again, and I’ll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute,” he said.

 

That wasn’t convincing either. So the president tried again:

 

He blocked the aid but never demanded anything in return for releasing it.

 

“No quid pro quo!” Trump insisted.

A parade of current and former officials told Congress that wasn’t true, either.

 

William B. Taylor Jr., the chief U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified that the White House was holding up the aid until Ukraine’s president would publicly promise to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

 

Gordon Sondland, the Trump donor-turned-ambassador who initially denied any quid pro quo, then amended his testimony. Aid “would likely not” resume until Ukraine launched the investigations Trump wanted, he admitted.

 

That meant the president’s defenders needed a new explanation:

 

Yes, there was a quid pro quo, but it was part of a legitimate effort to get Ukraine to act against corruption in general.

 

“We do that all the time,” Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters.

 

Except they don’t. The Trump administration hasn’t blocked aid to any other country over corruption. And Trump never mentioned corruption when he asked Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, for a “favor” in their now-famous July 25 phone call.

 

Out came a new defense:

 

The Ukrainians didn’t know why their aid was blocked, so it couldn’t have been a quid quo pro.

 

But Taylor and other diplomats testified, under oath, that Sondland clearly spelled out Trump’s demands for investigations to the Ukrainians: first in July, when they sought a Zelensky invitation to the White House, and then in September, when they asked how to get U.S. aid flowing again. Taylor and other witnesses described the quid pro quo as explicit.

 

Next argument: the fall-guy defense.

 

Nobody’s proven that Trump was directly involved; all these meetings were conducted by Giuliani, Mulvaney and Sondland.

 

Sure. Trump’s lawyer, his chief of staff and his bumbling ambassador to the European Union cooked up this plot by themselves and never mentioned it to their boss.

 

Giuliani had spoken publicly for months about pushing Ukraine to investigate the Bidens — to get “information [that] will be very, very helpful to my client” — and said he kept Trump informed.

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) offered another defense — No. 6, by my count —

 

saying Trump and his aides are too inept to pull off a scheme like this. (This novel argument was also used, with some success, to explain why the 2016 Trump campaign couldn’t have been guilty of collusion with Russia.)

 

“What can I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine? It was incoherent,” Graham said. “They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.”

 

Incompetence, alas, is not a valid defense in criminal trials. It’s unlikely to stave off impeachment either.

 

Down to the last-ditch defenses.

 

None of this matters, Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway argued, because Ukraine got its military aid in the end. Even if Trump was seeking a quid pro quo, he didn’t succeed — so what’s the problem?

“It’s not impeachable,” she declared.

 

And that brings us to the most important question: does Trump’s conduct — misusing American foreign policy for personal gain — merit impeachment and removal from office?

 

His defenders say no. “Show me something that is a crime,” Graham said.

 

That’s a different standard than the one Graham proposed in 1999, when he was one of the prosecutors in the impeachment of President Clinton. Then-Rep. Graham said the question was broader: whether Congress “determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds.”

 

More recently, another member of Congress said the standard should be “whether the person serving as president of the United States put their own interests, their personal interests, ahead of public service.” That was Mike Pence, now Trump’s vice president.

 

If the Democratic-led House impeaches Trump and he goes on trial in the Republican-led Senate, much of the debate will focus on that question:

 

Did the president’s misconduct reach a level that requires his removal from office?

 

As any parent of any 6-year-old can tell you, a much simpler test is available: If Trump did nothing wrong, why can’t he get his story straight?

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-10/trumps-lies-are-starting-to-add-up-for-impeachment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Skews-boy,

What are you going to about Biden's corruption, extortion, and abuse of power?

Are you going to let him go?

That kind of makes you look like a hypocrite, don't it?

It looks to me like it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Taipan said:

Hey Skews-boy,

What are you going to about Biden's corruption, extortion, and abuse of power?

Are you going to let him go?

That kind of makes you look like a hypocrite, don't it?

It looks to me like it does.

But you are seriously mentally challenged.

Biden did nothing illegal, neither did his son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Taipan said:

What are you going to about Biden's corruption, extortion, and abuse of power?

  Fish tale.

Fake news.

Trump talk.

 None worth a dime.

 Trump is toast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XavierOnassis said:

But you are seriously mentally challenged.

Biden did nothing illegal, neither did his son.

  But trump said they did dammit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Squatchman said:

  But trump said they did dammit!

As you said, Trump is toast. No one wants to go down with the Trumptanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XavierOnassis said:

As you said, Trump is toast. No one wants to go down with the Trumptanic.

Keep dreaming you Cuban POS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

But you are seriously mentally challenged.

Biden did nothing illegal, neither did his son.

 

"I am leaving here in 6hrs.  If that prosecutor, who is trying to shut down my son's multi-million job, is not

fired by the time I leave.....then you are not getting the billion aid package. 

And Sumbitch....that guy was immediately fired"!!!

                                                                                          Joe Biden,

                                                                                          Kiev, 2014.

It is all on video tape.  Joe was bragging about his Tony Soprano, power-play move.

There is an old saying in Texas---"Loose lips--sink ships".  Joe Biden has sunk his own ship.               🤠

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, skews13 said:

How Often Has Trump Changed His Story On Ukraine? Lets Count The Ways

Now do Schiff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phoenix68 said:

 

 

 

 

What I've noticed the last few days, is most people don't know what the transcripts are. And that is because they don't know how phone calls between the President and foreign leaders are handled. When the President has an official phone call to a foreign leader, the call is set up in advance, and there are multiple people on both ends of the call, that listen to the call, including advisors, and interpreters. Just simple sentences, and statements can take as much as 15 minutes to be correctly interpreted, and conveyed on both sides. The witnesses that will be testifying this week, are the advisors, and interpreters that were on that call. Most Americans that aren't political junkies, are going to hear that testimony on live television for the first time, and those ambassadors and advisors are very credible, patriotic people who have served under multiple Presidents, and their testimony is going to be very damaging to Trump. Things are going to be very different by the end of next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, skews13 said:

Things are going to be very different by the end of next week.

 

The Watergate Hearings were broadcast for one year before Nixon resigned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

As you said, Trump is toast. No one wants to go down with the Trumptanic.

 

There is a ton of perjury taking place it would seem ...... Trump talks too much!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, skews13 said:

The tangled saga of President Trump’s effort to muscle Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and others in return for U.S. aid or a state visit to Washington hasn’t been easy to follow.

 

Fragments initially dribbled out of closed-door hearings as White House and State Department officials described how the president and his henchmen — is there any other word for Rudy Giuliani? — sought to twist U.S. foreign policy, apparently to boost Trump’s reelection bid.

 

Making sense of the complicated story will be the challenge when the House Intelligence Committee holds the first public hearings, starting Wednesday.

 

But Republican arguments in Trump’s defense are hard to follow too — because the president and his allies in Congress keep changing their stories.

 

Trump’s first response, after a whistleblower in the National Security Council raised the alarm that the president had held up military aid to Ukraine while demanding Kyiv investigate his political rivals, was simple:

 

It never happened.

 

“I didn’t delay anything,” Trump told reporters.

Even he could see that whopper wouldn’t hold. Too many bureaucrats knew the White House had stopped the aid that a bipartisan majority in Congress had approved for a struggling democracy facing Russian aggression.

 

So Trump modified his excuse. “Why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?” Besides, other governments weren’t giving enough. “I’d withhold again, and I’ll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute,” he said.

 

That wasn’t convincing either. So the president tried again:

 

He blocked the aid but never demanded anything in return for releasing it.

 

“No quid pro quo!” Trump insisted.

A parade of current and former officials told Congress that wasn’t true, either.

 

William B. Taylor Jr., the chief U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified that the White House was holding up the aid until Ukraine’s president would publicly promise to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

 

Gordon Sondland, the Trump donor-turned-ambassador who initially denied any quid pro quo, then amended his testimony. Aid “would likely not” resume until Ukraine launched the investigations Trump wanted, he admitted.

 

That meant the president’s defenders needed a new explanation:

 

Yes, there was a quid pro quo, but it was part of a legitimate effort to get Ukraine to act against corruption in general.

 

“We do that all the time,” Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters.

 

Except they don’t. The Trump administration hasn’t blocked aid to any other country over corruption. And Trump never mentioned corruption when he asked Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, for a “favor” in their now-famous July 25 phone call.

 

Out came a new defense:

 

The Ukrainians didn’t know why their aid was blocked, so it couldn’t have been a quid quo pro.

 

But Taylor and other diplomats testified, under oath, that Sondland clearly spelled out Trump’s demands for investigations to the Ukrainians: first in July, when they sought a Zelensky invitation to the White House, and then in September, when they asked how to get U.S. aid flowing again. Taylor and other witnesses described the quid pro quo as explicit.

 

Next argument: the fall-guy defense.

 

Nobody’s proven that Trump was directly involved; all these meetings were conducted by Giuliani, Mulvaney and Sondland.

 

Sure. Trump’s lawyer, his chief of staff and his bumbling ambassador to the European Union cooked up this plot by themselves and never mentioned it to their boss.

 

Giuliani had spoken publicly for months about pushing Ukraine to investigate the Bidens — to get “information [that] will be very, very helpful to my client” — and said he kept Trump informed.

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) offered another defense — No. 6, by my count —

 

saying Trump and his aides are too inept to pull off a scheme like this. (This novel argument was also used, with some success, to explain why the 2016 Trump campaign couldn’t have been guilty of collusion with Russia.)

 

“What can I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine? It was incoherent,” Graham said. “They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.”

 

Incompetence, alas, is not a valid defense in criminal trials. It’s unlikely to stave off impeachment either.

 

Down to the last-ditch defenses.

 

None of this matters, Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway argued, because Ukraine got its military aid in the end. Even if Trump was seeking a quid pro quo, he didn’t succeed — so what’s the problem?

“It’s not impeachable,” she declared.

 

And that brings us to the most important question: does Trump’s conduct — misusing American foreign policy for personal gain — merit impeachment and removal from office?

 

His defenders say no. “Show me something that is a crime,” Graham said.

 

That’s a different standard than the one Graham proposed in 1999, when he was one of the prosecutors in the impeachment of President Clinton. Then-Rep. Graham said the question was broader: whether Congress “determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds.”

 

More recently, another member of Congress said the standard should be “whether the person serving as president of the United States put their own interests, their personal interests, ahead of public service.” That was Mike Pence, now Trump’s vice president.

 

If the Democratic-led House impeaches Trump and he goes on trial in the Republican-led Senate, much of the debate will focus on that question:

 

Did the president’s misconduct reach a level that requires his removal from office?

 

As any parent of any 6-year-old can tell you, a much simpler test is available: If Trump did nothing wrong, why can’t he get his story straight?

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-10/trumps-lies-are-starting-to-add-up-for-impeachment

Lol lmao. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one cares about Ukraine.  

 

People care about their family, keeping their family safe.  They care about having a job, getting a pay raise, maybe a pat on the back and someone to buy them a beer. 

 

Ukraine is a debating point over in D.C.  … no one cares about it.  

 

Markets are booming, unemployment at a all time low across the board, people are making more money, no wars, ??? life is good right now … if you are not happy now …  I have to ask what would make you happy???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden is a proven criminal,this is the Democrat criminals trying to cover for their Criminals and trying to blame it on innocent people,like they always do.Trump knows he is a criminal and is doing a fantastic job of being potus,Demonrats are evil .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...