They have Trump now, transcript of witness shows why Trump withheld aid, damning evidence...

[Nostra]

Why would you punish the Ukraine by not giving them our congressionally passed military aid, because other countries are not helping them more?

The Ukraine has no say in what foreign countries give them.

That is one of the most absurd excuses...

And why would obama not give them lethal aid...oh yeah, as we learned on that video.....he told putin he would be able to be more flexible after he was re-elected....

was the election and tape of that, prior to Putin's invasion in to the Ukraine?

Yep. Prior to the 2012 election.

Obama became so "flexible" that he was able to bend over and grab his ankles for a full 4 years while Putin had his way with him.

 

[Care4all]

THEY ALL SAID THERE WAS A TIT FOR TAT,

WRONG

They all said they FELT it was a tit for tat.

right! except Trump on video, and Mulveny on video....

but are you honestly trying to claim the entire state department understood this to be the case... and ran their policy as it being the case, without direction from the President that this is what he wanted? Do you really believe Rudy ran our state department policy all by his lonesome?

 

[Care4all]

Who told you that and was it in context?

Here you go...

Under Obama, Democrat Witness Fiona Hill Argued Against Lethal Aid For Ukraine

During the Democrats’ partisan impeachment hearings on Thursday, their witness Fiona Hill, a former White House official, testified she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in 2015, Hill penned an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that providing lethal weapons to Ukraine would be a mistake.

In both her closed-door testimony last month and her public hearing on Thursday, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s safety and stability as it defends itself against Russia should President Trump continue to withhold aid.

But while she was the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution a few years prior, Hill wrote an op-ed titled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war,” in which she strongly disagreed with the idea that “increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity … would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers.”

“It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right,” Hill wrote.

Other witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee admitted that Trump’s policy of denying lethal defensive assistance to the Ukrainians has been more effective than President Barack Obama’s policies in Ukraine and Russia.

Hill also previously testified that she has absolutely no direct knowledge of both the phone call with Ukraine and why the aid was withheld.

so the conditions 5 years ago, are the same as now or even 2 or 3 years from then?

we can't evolve?? progress? learn from mistakes?

Her op-ed was after Putin invaded, so not much has changed other the Putin getting entrenched because Barry Hussein was such a ***** Putin puppet.

besides Trump's personal gain by the shakedown, who do you think benefits THE MOST by what Trump did in holding back military funds and refusing a DC meeting with Velensky? Putin's Russia... NOT the USA

Who benefited most by Obama doing nothing while Putin invaded Ukraine? Obama's puppetmaster Putin, that's who. But Obama sent blankets.....

As I said, we learn from our mistakes and make changes to adjust from actual reality and history....

Trump's actions of his quid pro quo, were simply for his own personal benefit, self dealing....imo.

 

[Care4all]

while Putin had his way with him.

and now we have Trump, doubling down on that....

so much for learning from our mistakes, eh?

 

[Votto]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

And all those witnesses saying the same thing.....no quid pro quo.....come on, keep saying they didn't say that....whatever makes you sleep at night...

You Ukrainian/Russian spy you!

Stop with the fake news and put on the 24/7 CNN coverage to behead Trump!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

You guys should stop digging. You're so fucked you cannot let this go to the Senate

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Yeah.....why did Trump withhold the aid, temporarily? In this shocking revelation from actual testimony it is now known that Trump withheld aid......because he wanted the lazy, greedy, assholes in Europe to pay more....

Impeachment Witness Deposition Reveals Why They Were Told To Hold Ukraine Aid

Newly released transcripts from the deposition of Mark Sandy, an official at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), reveal that OMB was allegedly instructed to withhold aid to Ukraine because President Donald Trump was concerned “about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.”

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) responded to the release of the transcripts from the deposition, which happened on Chairman Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee, by writing on Twitter, “The transcript for OMB’s Mark Sandy was just released. The ONLY reason he was ever given why there was a hold on $ to Ukraine was “the President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.” NOT bribery. NOT quid pro quo or any other WACKY Schiff conspiracy!”
----------

Here is the interaction where the revelation was made [emphasis added]:

Question: Between July 19th and July 22nd, including July 22nd, did Mr. Duffey provide you any explanation as to why the President wanted to place a hold on Ukraine security assistance?

Sandy: No.

Question: Did you ask?

Sandy: Yes.

Question: And what was the response?

Sandy: He was not aware of the reason.

Question: To the best of your recollection, what precisely did he say to you when you asked for the reason for the President’s decision to place a hold on security assistance?

Sandy: That he was not aware.

…

Question: Did Mr. Duffey say that he was going to try to get additional information as to the reason for the hold?

Sandy: Yes. He certainly said that if he got additional information he would share it with us.

Question: At any point in time, from the moment that you walked into the [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] to anytime in history, has Mr. Duffey ever provided to you a reason why the President wanted to place a hold on security assistance?

Sandy: I recall in early September an email [from Mike Duffey] that attributed the hold to the President’s concern about other counties not contributing money to Ukraine.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft, that clown can do nothing but lie.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

You guys should stop digging. You're so fucked you cannot let this go to the Senate

If only there weren't so many lies to dig into.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here you go...

Under Obama, Democrat Witness Fiona Hill Argued Against Lethal Aid For Ukraine

During the Democrats’ partisan impeachment hearings on Thursday, their witness Fiona Hill, a former White House official, testified she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in 2015, Hill penned an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that providing lethal weapons to Ukraine would be a mistake.

In both her closed-door testimony last month and her public hearing on Thursday, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s safety and stability as it defends itself against Russia should President Trump continue to withhold aid.

But while she was the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution a few years prior, Hill wrote an op-ed titled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war,” in which she strongly disagreed with the idea that “increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity … would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers.”

“It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right,” Hill wrote.

Other witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee admitted that Trump’s policy of denying lethal defensive assistance to the Ukrainians has been more effective than President Barack Obama’s policies in Ukraine and Russia.

Hill also previously testified that she has absolutely no direct knowledge of both the phone call with Ukraine and why the aid was withheld.

so the conditions 5 years ago, are the same as now or even 2 or 3 years from then?

we can't evolve?? progress? learn from mistakes?

Her op-ed was after Putin invaded, so not much has changed other the Putin getting entrenched because Barry Hussein was such a ***** Putin puppet.

besides Trump's personal gain by the shakedown, who do you think benefits THE MOST by what Trump did in holding back military funds and refusing a DC meeting with Velensky? Putin's Russia... NOT the USA

Who benefited most by Obama doing nothing while Putin invaded Ukraine? Obama's puppetmaster Putin, that's who. But Obama sent blankets.....

As I said, we learn from our mistakes and make changes to adjust from actual reality and history....

Trump's actions of his quid pro quo, were simply for his own personal benefit, self dealing....imo.

There's something very wrong with you.

 

[L.K.Eder]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

You guys should stop digging. You're so fucked you cannot let this go to the Senate

you are all fucked. i guess the founding fathers could not imagine that the system would allow a parasitic troll to nest in it.

 

[2aguy]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

You guys should stop digging. You're so fucked you cannot let this go to the Senate

If only there weren't so many lies to dig into.

Democrats lie as they breathe....they just can't help themselves.....truth, facts and reality do not support anything they believe in, so lying is what they have to do...

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

You guys should stop digging. You're so fucked you cannot let this go to the Senate

If only there weren't so many lies to dig into.

Democrats lie as they breathe....they just can't help themselves.....truth, facts and reality do not support anything they believe in, so lying is what they have to do...

We can all see Don lie daily.

 

[2aguy]

Here you go...

Under Obama, Democrat Witness Fiona Hill Argued Against Lethal Aid For Ukraine

During the Democrats’ partisan impeachment hearings on Thursday, their witness Fiona Hill, a former White House official, testified she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in 2015, Hill penned an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that providing lethal weapons to Ukraine would be a mistake.

In both her closed-door testimony last month and her public hearing on Thursday, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s safety and stability as it defends itself against Russia should President Trump continue to withhold aid.

But while she was the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution a few years prior, Hill wrote an op-ed titled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war,” in which she strongly disagreed with the idea that “increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity … would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers.”

“It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right,” Hill wrote.

Other witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee admitted that Trump’s policy of denying lethal defensive assistance to the Ukrainians has been more effective than President Barack Obama’s policies in Ukraine and Russia.

Hill also previously testified that she has absolutely no direct knowledge of both the phone call with Ukraine and why the aid was withheld.

so the conditions 5 years ago, are the same as now or even 2 or 3 years from then?

we can't evolve?? progress? learn from mistakes?

Her op-ed was after Putin invaded, so not much has changed other the Putin getting entrenched because Barry Hussein was such a ***** Putin puppet.

besides Trump's personal gain by the shakedown, who do you think benefits THE MOST by what Trump did in holding back military funds and refusing a DC meeting with Velensky? Putin's Russia... NOT the USA

Who benefited most by Obama doing nothing while Putin invaded Ukraine? Obama's puppetmaster Putin, that's who. But Obama sent blankets.....

As I said, we learn from our mistakes and make changes to adjust from actual reality and history....

Trump's actions of his quid pro quo, were simply for his own personal benefit, self dealing....imo.

Yet no one says he asked for a quid pro quo...even star witness sondland who stated that Trump said he didn't want anything from Ukraine...

You guys just keep lying even with witnesses, under oath stating you are wrong...

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

so the conditions 5 years ago, are the same as now or even 2 or 3 years from then?

we can't evolve?? progress? learn from mistakes?

Her op-ed was after Putin invaded, so not much has changed other the Putin getting entrenched because Barry Hussein was such a ***** Putin puppet.

besides Trump's personal gain by the shakedown, who do you think benefits THE MOST by what Trump did in holding back military funds and refusing a DC meeting with Velensky? Putin's Russia... NOT the USA

Who benefited most by Obama doing nothing while Putin invaded Ukraine? Obama's puppetmaster Putin, that's who. But Obama sent blankets.....

As I said, we learn from our mistakes and make changes to adjust from actual reality and history....

Trump's actions of his quid pro quo, were simply for his own personal benefit, self dealing....imo.

Yet no one says he asked for a quid pro quo...even star witness sondland who stated that Trump said he didn't want anything from Ukraine...

You guys just keep lying even with witnesses, under oath stating you are wrong...

It's The Reality America Show.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

You guys should stop digging. You're so fucked you cannot let this go to the Senate

you are all fucked. i guess the founding fathers could not imagine that the system would allow a parasitic troll to nest in it.

The standard they set for impeachment presumed a serious, underlying crime, and not that the House was temporarily controlled by George Soros

 

[Papageorgio]

Let's face it.... You do not care that Trump was self dealing... You don't care if he CHEATS in the upcoming election.... if cheating helps him win, so be it, eh?

I‘m really not concerned about who our next President will be. It will be a corrupt Republican or a corrupt Democrat. The only issue will it be Republicans or Democrats who will support the corruption and lies. We have seen this now for quite a few election cycles.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are nuts!!!!!!!

THEY ALL SAID THERE WAS A TIT FOR TAT, a quid offer and what had to be done to receive it.

Quid pro quo

Where are you getting all the witnesses say there wasn't one?????? It was just the opposite....

You didn't watch the hearing or read the witnesses depositions, did ya?

Uhhh. No.

Fact:

Exactly ZERO people said they heard Trump ask for a quid pro quo.

The STAR WITNESS Vindman even said Trump specifically said NO quid pro quo.

But lots of witnesses FELT a quid pro quo. That's what confused you.

If you thought more and FELT less hate you'd know that.

Star Witness Sondland, NOT Vindman...

SAID the PRESIDENT TOLD HIM there was no quid pro quo.....

your right wing fake news, cut off Amb Sondland's testimony to only include the Statement of 'there is no quid pro quo', to make it falsely appear that it was Sondland that said that, but it was revealed by Sondland, that he was simply stating, what Pres Trump told him...

Sondland, in his public hearing cleared all of that up, amplified by ten...

He said there was most certainly a quid pro quo, and everyone knew it...


as posted above:


Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

Fifth, in July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson. And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians.



Read Gordon Sondland’s Opening Statement

He also admitted that it was merely his opinion and based on his own presumptions.

Not evidence.

 

[Nostra]

Here you go...

Under Obama, Democrat Witness Fiona Hill Argued Against Lethal Aid For Ukraine

During the Democrats’ partisan impeachment hearings on Thursday, their witness Fiona Hill, a former White House official, testified she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in 2015, Hill penned an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that providing lethal weapons to Ukraine would be a mistake.

In both her closed-door testimony last month and her public hearing on Thursday, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s safety and stability as it defends itself against Russia should President Trump continue to withhold aid.

But while she was the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution a few years prior, Hill wrote an op-ed titled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war,” in which she strongly disagreed with the idea that “increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity … would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers.”

“It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right,” Hill wrote.

Other witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee admitted that Trump’s policy of denying lethal defensive assistance to the Ukrainians has been more effective than President Barack Obama’s policies in Ukraine and Russia.

Hill also previously testified that she has absolutely no direct knowledge of both the phone call with Ukraine and why the aid was withheld.

so the conditions 5 years ago, are the same as now or even 2 or 3 years from then?

we can't evolve?? progress? learn from mistakes?

Her op-ed was after Putin invaded, so not much has changed other the Putin getting entrenched because Barry Hussein was such a ***** Putin puppet.

besides Trump's personal gain by the shakedown, who do you think benefits THE MOST by what Trump did in holding back military funds and refusing a DC meeting with Velensky? Putin's Russia... NOT the USA

Who benefited most by Obama doing nothing while Putin invaded Ukraine? Obama's puppetmaster Putin, that's who. But Obama sent blankets.....

As I said, we learn from our mistakes and make changes to adjust from actual reality and history....

Trump's actions of his quid pro quo, were simply for his own personal benefit, self dealing....imo.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

There is no evidence of a QPQ.

 

[Nostra]

while Putin had his way with him.

and now we have Trump, doubling down on that....

so much for learning from our mistakes, eh?

Bullshit. Trump is arming the Ukraine.

Get an education on the subject.

 

[lantern2814]

blub blub blub

when he realized he might have been caught, they found all kinds of assplanations:


it wasn't me.

it was perfect.

it's not a quid pro quo

i want nothing

lol.

that's the ticket.

And all those witnesses saying the same thing.....no quid pro quo.....come on, keep saying they didn't say that....whatever makes you sleep at night...

You are nuts!!!!!!!

THEY ALL SAID THERE WAS A TIT FOR TAT, a quid offer and what had to be done to receive it.

Quid pro quo

Where are you getting all the witnesses say there wasn't one?????? It was just the opposite....

You didn't watch the hearing or read the witnesses depositions, did ya?

It’s patently obvious you watched a total of 0 seconds of any of this. Just regurgitating your libtard talking points. Not ONE witness had ANY first hand knowledge of anything. Even your “star” Sondland was forced to admit all he had was his PRESUMPTION. Here’s some free education for you. Presumptions and “we think” or “we believe” are NOT proof.