They were talking so you might grasp investing free money all bullshit they just needed to be able to measure what they were doing for you by charging only double the tax needed
Trump lost moving on with new year go Biden
- Thread starter Allforthewifey
- Start date
Big Corporations and Big Government Go Hand in Hand
One policy issue that should unify individuals of all political persuasions is opposing corporate welfare. Progressives tend to oppose big corporations while conservatives and libertarians despise big government. The truth is that big corporations and big government go hand-in-hand. Washington Examiner writer Timothy Carney states that, “as the federal government has progressively become larger over the decades, every significant introduction of government regulation, taxation, and spending has been to the benefit of some big business.” We must stand together and call for an end to all forms of corporate welfare.
People often mistakenly assume that supporting free markets or laissez-faire capitalism means being pro-business. In French, laissez-faire literally translates to “let do” which broadly means leave it alone. True supporters of free markets advocate separating corporations from the state. This means rejecting any government handout, protection or special privilege to any corporation. In a free society, businesses must sink or swim on their own merits. Every business must compete with each other through innovation and entrepreneurship. We are pro-freedom not necessarily pro-corporation.
Another popular misconception is that most corporations lobby for less government regulation. That’s far from the truth. In fact, big corporations generally lobby for more government regulation in their industry. The Big Tobacco company Phillip Morris aggressively lobbies for heightened federal regulation of tobacco products and advertising. Companies such as McDonalds, Starbucks and Kraft have spent millions of dollars lobbying for food “safety” regulation bills. And energy companies like Duke Power have lobbied for cap and trade programs that would benefit their bottom line at the expense of consumers, who would face soaring electricity prices.
Why do big corporations lobby for more regulation? As Matt Ridley notes, “they are addicted to corporate welfare, they love regulations that erect barriers to entry to their small competitors.” Government regulation championed by major corporations is far more likely to significantly hurt their smaller rivals. Politically connected big corporations are fully aware that these harmful regulations will help to wipe out their competition. And that’s the plan.
Big corporations are often hostile to free enterprise. The late Noble Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once wrote, “business corporations in general are not defenders of free enterprise. On the contrary, they are one of the chief sources of danger.” In this big government era, it’s become easier for businesses to profit through the halls of Congress rather than the marketplace. We reject crony capitalism in which the success of a business is determined by their closeness to government officials. What’s good for businesses isn’t always good for taxpayers and the cause of freedom.
The Pentagon budget is probably the most susceptible to corporate welfare. It’s unfortunate that Department of Defense spending has long been isolated from serious scrutiny. Military spending has doubled over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Powerful special interests benefit from our heavy military spending. Most notably, the nation’s “Big Three” weapons makers—Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman—are cashing in big time.
An all-too friendly relationship has developed between defense contractors and government officials. As Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, “we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." It is impossible to reduce the size and scope of the federal government without tackling the bloated defense budget.
Big government is in bed with big business. Let’s put a rest to the misconceived notion that pro big business necessarily means free enterprise. Tim Carney writes that “big business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder.) The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government.” Perhaps all of us share common ground on the issue of corporate welfare. In order to put an end to corporate welfare, we must drastically shrink the size and power of government. Businesses should compete for profits in the marketplace and not in the halls of Congress.
www.freedomworks.org
One policy issue that should unify individuals of all political persuasions is opposing corporate welfare. Progressives tend to oppose big corporations while conservatives and libertarians despise big government. The truth is that big corporations and big government go hand-in-hand. Washington Examiner writer Timothy Carney states that, “as the federal government has progressively become larger over the decades, every significant introduction of government regulation, taxation, and spending has been to the benefit of some big business.” We must stand together and call for an end to all forms of corporate welfare.
People often mistakenly assume that supporting free markets or laissez-faire capitalism means being pro-business. In French, laissez-faire literally translates to “let do” which broadly means leave it alone. True supporters of free markets advocate separating corporations from the state. This means rejecting any government handout, protection or special privilege to any corporation. In a free society, businesses must sink or swim on their own merits. Every business must compete with each other through innovation and entrepreneurship. We are pro-freedom not necessarily pro-corporation.
Another popular misconception is that most corporations lobby for less government regulation. That’s far from the truth. In fact, big corporations generally lobby for more government regulation in their industry. The Big Tobacco company Phillip Morris aggressively lobbies for heightened federal regulation of tobacco products and advertising. Companies such as McDonalds, Starbucks and Kraft have spent millions of dollars lobbying for food “safety” regulation bills. And energy companies like Duke Power have lobbied for cap and trade programs that would benefit their bottom line at the expense of consumers, who would face soaring electricity prices.
Why do big corporations lobby for more regulation? As Matt Ridley notes, “they are addicted to corporate welfare, they love regulations that erect barriers to entry to their small competitors.” Government regulation championed by major corporations is far more likely to significantly hurt their smaller rivals. Politically connected big corporations are fully aware that these harmful regulations will help to wipe out their competition. And that’s the plan.
Big corporations are often hostile to free enterprise. The late Noble Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once wrote, “business corporations in general are not defenders of free enterprise. On the contrary, they are one of the chief sources of danger.” In this big government era, it’s become easier for businesses to profit through the halls of Congress rather than the marketplace. We reject crony capitalism in which the success of a business is determined by their closeness to government officials. What’s good for businesses isn’t always good for taxpayers and the cause of freedom.
The Pentagon budget is probably the most susceptible to corporate welfare. It’s unfortunate that Department of Defense spending has long been isolated from serious scrutiny. Military spending has doubled over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Powerful special interests benefit from our heavy military spending. Most notably, the nation’s “Big Three” weapons makers—Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman—are cashing in big time.
An all-too friendly relationship has developed between defense contractors and government officials. As Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, “we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." It is impossible to reduce the size and scope of the federal government without tackling the bloated defense budget.
Big government is in bed with big business. Let’s put a rest to the misconceived notion that pro big business necessarily means free enterprise. Tim Carney writes that “big business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder.) The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government.” Perhaps all of us share common ground on the issue of corporate welfare. In order to put an end to corporate welfare, we must drastically shrink the size and power of government. Businesses should compete for profits in the marketplace and not in the halls of Congress.
Big Corporations and Big Government Go Hand in Hand - FreedomWorks
One policy issue that should unify individuals of all political persuasions is opposing corporate welfare. Progressives tend to oppose big corporations while conservatives and libertarians despise big government. The truth is that big corporations and big government go hand-in-hand.
www.freedomworks.org
These jobs are for retired and high school and college *******
doesn't change the fact we are giving them money to hire these people....and mcdonalds pays nothing!...just like wal mart...best of both worlds
Making productive citizens were you learn to work show up on time complete your given task my wife was manager at McDonald's in high school and some off college they pay alright and health care but I know you now better and like to bitch
you and your right wing excuses......you sure you have a college education?.....some to old to work anyplace else and yet need the money to supplement their social security.....some work because of school...college or high school....and some work because they just have no skills and it's all they can get.....but you still try to avoid the real issue....they are paying these people NOTHING....and we the people are paying these big corps......but guess that's fine with you as long as the workers is getting the fucking.....but is the worker really getting fucked?.....sure he isn't paid *******......not near enough to live on...and because he doesn't make much we subsidize them with foods stamps... help them with housing and etc.....we are paying out both ends of our ass in case you haven't figured that out yet...….but as long as the corps are making money fine with you....I understand your right wing thinking.....and I guess you haven't figured out that is your tax dollars paying for all this
John apple seed
Couple
John apple seed
Couple
Well at least they have a job to own something. Under socialist rule--you DON,T OWN ANYTHING. Look at Russia,Venizula and all these other country ruled by commies.Is that what you want? Then go their .I am sure alot of folks hear won,t stop you.
another one got out of the cult cave
are you always this stupid or is today a special occasion
in case you haven't got a clue.....which shows you don't....you are supporting the communist party.....and that seems to be what you are asking for if you are to blind to see......you suffer from trump mindfucking
How the GOP Became the Party of Putin - POLITICO Magazine
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/...
Jul 18, 2017 · How the GOP Became the Party of Putin. He ran as the most pro-Russian candidate for president since Henry Wallace helmed the Soviet fellow-traveling Progressive Party ticket in 1948, extolling Vladimir Putin’s manly virtues at every opportunity while bringing Kremlin-style moral relativism to the campaign trail.
Moscow Mitch and his $200 Million Russian sugar daddy ...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/16/1879519/-Moscow-Mitch-and-his-200-Million...
Aug 16, 2019 · Moscow Mitch and his $200 Million Russian sugar daddy, Oleg Deripaska Frank Vyan Walton Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Lindsey Graham's Campaign Finance Violations Just Came ...
Lindsey Graham's Campaign Finance Violations Just Came Back To Bite Him
In the lead-up to the corrupt 2016 election, Senator Lindsey Graham railed against Donald Trump. He even tried to warn us about how dirty he is, but now it appears that Graham might have been following in Trump’s footsteps with dirty Russian money and campaign finance violations. The co-founder...
bipartisanreport.com
Oct 24, 2018 · In the lead-up to the corrupt 2016 election, Senator Lindsey Graham railed against Donald Trump. He even tried to warn us about how dirty he is, but now it appears that Graham might have been following in Trump’s footsteps with dirty Russian money and campaign finance violations. The co-founder and lead investigator of TheDemCoalition, Scott […]
A closer look at Ted Cruz's interest in Russian 'appeasement'
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/closer-look-ted-cruzs-interest-russian-appeasement
A closer look at Ted Cruz’s interest in Russian ‘appeasement’ ... between reporters and congressional Republicans on the Trump-Russia scandal, but for my money, ... CRUZ: Russia is a ...
Here's a list of Republicans in office who are confirmed ...
Here’s a list of Republicans in office who are confirmed to have taken Russian money in 2016
Here's a handy reminder, in light of the new Trump-Russia "RNC donations" scandal
www.palmerreport.com
Sep 01, 2017 · Money also went to Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich – but these were much smaller amounts and could be interpreted as covering bases rather than trying to buy any real influence. The broader concern is McConnell’s Super PAC and what he did with that money …
Mitch McConnell Implicated In Widespread Putin/Ukraine ...
May 27, 2017 - Bipartisan Report
bipartisanreport.com
May 27, 2017 · Over the last few months, Dworkin has revealed that several Republican senators — including John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — have accepted money from Russian donors. He produced evidence of even more connections earlier this week that have been shared by Palmer Report.
Here's a list of Republicans in office who are confirmed ...
Politics Archives - Palmer Report
www.palmerreport.com
Sep 01, 2017 · So which Republicans top the list of having taken Russian money? During the 2016 election cycle, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used his Super PAC to accept $2.5 million dollars from the pro-Kremlin oligarch in question, putting him front and center of the influence the oligarch was trying to buy.
Republicans In Congress Are Taking Money From Russia And ...
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/02/05/republicans-congress-taking-money-russia.html
Republicans In Congress Are Taking Money From Russia And Richard Painter Wants An Investigation. The Russian infiltration of US politics doesn’t end with Donald Trump. Putin has gotten himself into the Republican Party, and before Americans can get the Russians out of their elections, the Republicans will have to get the Russians out of the GOP.
Republicans Busted Using Russian Oligarch's Money To Fund ...
November 15, 2017 - Bipartisan Report
bipartisanreport.com
Nov 15, 2017 · The list of GOP members who have accepted money from Blavatnik includes prominent members of the Republican party, including Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, John McCain, and the current president, Donald Trump. In total, these GOP members accepted 7.35 million dollars worth of contributions from Blavatnik.
All of Donald Trump’s Ties to Russia and Putin, in 7 ...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties...
A visual guide to the many links between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. ... All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts. ... What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia?
NRA, Russia and Trump: Money laundering poisoning US ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-russia-and-trump-money-laundering-poisoning-us...
Feb 15, 2018 · But when it comes to funding, the NRA may have finally gone too far: the FBI recently launched an investigation to determine whether a Russian central banker, and Putin ally, illegally funneled...
did your parents have any children that lived ...or were they all born brain dead?
so now that we have figured out you are a fucking commie lover and supporter....anything else you would like to shoot off about
Last edited:
Completely delusional the VA has shrinksin case you haven't got a clue.....which shows you don't....you are supporting the communist party.....and that seems to be what you are asking for if you are to blind to see......you suffer from trump mindfucking
How the GOP Became the Party of Poroshenko - POLITICO Magazine
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/...
Jul 18, 2017 · How the GOP Became the Party of Poroshenko. He ran as the most pro-Russian candidate for president since Henry Wallace helmed the Soviet fellow-traveling Progressive Party ticket in 1948, extolling Vladimir Poroshenko’s manly virtues at every opportunity while bringing Kremlin-style moral relativism to the campaign trail.
Moscow Mitch and his $200 Million Russian sugar daddy ...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/16/1879519/-Moscow-Mitch-and-his-200-Million...
Aug 16, 2019 · Moscow Mitch and his $200 Million Russian sugar daddy, Oleg Deripaska Frank Vyan Walton Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Lindsey Graham's Campaign Finance Violations Just Came ...
grahams-campaign-finance-violations...Lindsey Graham's Campaign Finance Violations Just Came Back To Bite Him
In the lead-up to the corrupt 2016 election, Senator Lindsey Graham railed against Donald Trump. He even tried to warn us about how dirty he is, but now it appears that Graham might have been following in Trump’s footsteps with dirty Russian money and campaign finance violations. The co-founder...
Oct 24, 2018 · In the lead-up to the corrupt 2016 election, Senator Lindsey Graham railed against Donald Trump. He even tried to warn us about how dirty he is, but now it appears that Graham might have been following in Trump’s footsteps with dirty Russian money and campaign finance violations. The co-founder and lead investigator of TheDemCoalition, Scott […]
A closer look at Ted Cruz's interest in Russian 'appeasement'
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/closer-look-ted-cruzs-interest-russian-appeasement
A closer look at Ted Cruz’s interest in Russian ‘appeasement’ ... between reporters and congressional Republicans on the Trump-Russia scandal, but for my money, ... CRUZ: Russia is a ...
Here's a list of Republicans in office who are confirmed ...
russian-money/4667Here’s a list of Republicans in office who are confirmed to have taken Russian money in 2016
Here's a handy reminder, in light of the new Trump-Russia "RNC donations" scandal
Sep 01, 2017 · Money also went to Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich – but these were much smaller amounts and could be interpreted as covering bases rather than trying to buy any real influence. The broader concern is McConnell’s Super PAC and what he did with that money …
Mitch McConnell Implicated In Widespread Poroshenko/Ukraine ...
mitch-mcconnell-implicated-in-widespread-Poroshenko...May 27, 2017 - Bipartisan Report
May 27, 2017 · Over the last few months, Dworkin has revealed that several Republican senators — including John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — have accepted money from Russian donors. He produced evidence of even more connections earlier this week that have been shared by Palmer Report.
Here's a list of Republicans in office who are confirmed ...
list-republicans-russian-money/4667Politics Archives - Palmer Report
Sep 01, 2017 · So which Republicans top the list of having taken Russian money? During the 2016 election cycle, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used his Super PAC to accept $2.5 million dollars from the pro-Kremlin oligarch in question, putting him front and center of the influence the oligarch was trying to buy.
Republicans In Congress Are Taking Money From Russia And ...
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/02/05/republicans-congress-taking-money-russia.html
Republicans In Congress Are Taking Money From Russia And Richard Painter Wants An Investigation. The Russian infiltration of US politics doesn’t end with Donald Trump. Poroshenko has gotten himself into the Republican Party, and before Americans can get the Russians out of their elections, the Republicans will have to get the Russians out of the GOP.
Republicans Busted Using Russian Oligarch's Money To Fund ...
republicans-busted-using-russian-oligarchs...November 15, 2017 - Bipartisan Report
Nov 15, 2017 · The list of GOP members who have accepted money from Blavatnik includes prominent members of the Republican party, including Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, John McCain, and the current president, Donald Trump. In total, these GOP members accepted 7.35 million dollars worth of contributions from Blavatnik.
All of Donald Trump’s Ties to Russia and Poroshenko, in 7 ...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-Poroshenko-russia-ties...
A visual guide to the many links between Donald Trump and Vladimir Poroshenko’s Russia. ... All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts. ... What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia?
NRA, Russia and Trump: Money laundering poisoning US ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-russia-and-trump-money-laundering-poisoning-us...
Feb 15, 2018 · But when it comes to funding, the NRA may have finally gone too far: the FBI recently launched an investigation to determine whether a Russian central banker, and Poroshenko ally, illegally funneled...
so now that we have figured out you are a fucking commie lover and supporter....anything else you would like to shoot off about
get your waders on I'm just getting started
and along with just shooting off your mouth without a lick of fucking sense as to what you are saying....and not knowing a fucking thing about what you are talking about....well there commie lover...and you are!...read the post above at the top of the page (post #4802) and see who supports what...…..but with your IQ you might need to get the neighbor kid to read it to you and explain it...if you can tear your self away from your book bed time with p.utin
you are a good example of why some animals eat their young.....never survive in the real world
keep your head in your ass until p.utin gets his base built here....you are doing a great job so far
you claimed to have been in the military...….what army did you fight for...I can see what one you are supporting...in my army Russia is the enemy....in yours was it the paymaster
George W and I voulenteered
well I pulled KP at the last supper!
How Republicans’ latest defenses of the Trump-Zelensky call fall short
The linchpin of Democrats’ impeachment evidence against President Trump didn’t come from the 17 witnesses they called, or from hours of public hearings and subpoenaed documents and phone records. It came from Trump’s own mouth. Specifically, his July 25 call with Ukraine’s newly elected president, where Trump asked him to investigate Democrats.
At the time of the call, multiple witnesses were perplexed why Trump was holding up military aid to Ukraine. Others couldn’t understand why Trump was reluctant to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. They testified that when they heard the call or read its transcript months later it all clicked for them. Trump was holding these things back to get Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
Democrats have taken that a step further: The call itself is evidence Trump was leveraging the power of his office and official diplomatic tools to help his reelection.
So how are Republicans defending Trump’s call now that it’s a central piece of evidence against him? And where does their defense fall short? Let’s review some of the main things they said in Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Defense No. 1: Trump asked Zelensky for a favor for the country, not for him
This defense centers on Trump’s first ask to Zelensky in the call, which comes right after Zelensky mentions getting more weapons from the United States. “I would like you to us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows about it,” Trump replied.
A couple of Republican lawmakers said that Trump was talking about how the Mueller investigation had put the country through “ a lot,” and therefore he wanted Ukraine to help. (The call took place the day after special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testified to Congress about his findings in the Russia investigation.)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): “Here, there president’s talking about the country. That’s what he’s talking about.”
Where this falls short: Even if you agree with the unsubstantiated premise that the Mueller report was driven by politics rather than facts, it makes no sense why Trump would want a foreign country to help him out here. What was Ukraine going to do to try to heal partisan divisions in America wrought by Russian meddling and the ensuing investigation?
More likely is that Trump was trying to place his request to investigate Democrats in the context of the Mueller investigation, which he saw as unfair to him. We know the Ukraine allegations were derived from trying to undermine Mueller.
Defense No. 2 and 3: Zelensky said the call was okay, and he eventually got his military aid
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) made these dual defenses in one sentence: “Zelensky has said there was no pressure on me, and the aid came through within six weeks after the phone call in question was made.”
Where that falls short: It ignores timing and context. Zelensky has a strong motivation to say he didn’t feel pressured on the call with Trump. There’s evidence the Ukrainians may have at least suspected their military aid was held up when Trump talked to their president. And Zelensky still hasn’t received an Oval Office meeting with Trump, which would go a long way to helping him fight Russian-backed separatists. His country is at war. Zelensky can’t afford to upset Trump by accusing him of wrongdoing.
As for the second point, it’s true Trump released the aid. But Trump did it only after a whistleblower complaint was circulating. The New York Times reports that Trump was told about the complaint against him before the aid got released.
Defense No. 4: Trump doesn’t say “investigate Democrats to get your money” on the call
Here’s Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.): “So if military aid, or security assistance is part of that quid pro quo, where in the July 25 transcript does President Trump ever suggest that he intends to withhold military aid for any reason?”
Where that falls short: Trump didn’t have to be that explicit for Ukraine to know what was going on. Even if Ukrainians didn’t know for sure that Trump had held up their military aid, they knew an Oval Office meeting hung in the balance of what was said on this phone call. Trump also asks for some of the investigations as Zelensky brings up military aid.
National security experts have testified that when the president of the United States asks “for a favor, though” from a smaller country reliant on the United States to help fight its battles, it’s not a “favor.” It’s a demand.
“In this case, the power disparity between the two leaders, my impression is that in order to get the White House meeting, President Zelensky would have to deliver the investigations,” testified Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the White House’s top Ukraine expert who listened in on the call.
Defense No. 5: In subsequent meetings with Zelensky, no one demanded a quid pro quo
Here’s Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio): “But you know what did happen in those 55 days that the aid was paused? There were five key meetings between President Zelensky and senior officials in our government. … None of those five meetings was aid ever discussed in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into anybody, not one of them.”
Where this falls short: It’s just not true, especially when you zoom out to conversations Trump officials say they had with Zelensky’s aides.European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified Zelensky asked about aid when meeting with Vice President Pence in September.
The linchpin of Democrats’ impeachment evidence against President Trump didn’t come from the 17 witnesses they called, or from hours of public hearings and subpoenaed documents and phone records. It came from Trump’s own mouth. Specifically, his July 25 call with Ukraine’s newly elected president, where Trump asked him to investigate Democrats.
At the time of the call, multiple witnesses were perplexed why Trump was holding up military aid to Ukraine. Others couldn’t understand why Trump was reluctant to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. They testified that when they heard the call or read its transcript months later it all clicked for them. Trump was holding these things back to get Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
Democrats have taken that a step further: The call itself is evidence Trump was leveraging the power of his office and official diplomatic tools to help his reelection.
So how are Republicans defending Trump’s call now that it’s a central piece of evidence against him? And where does their defense fall short? Let’s review some of the main things they said in Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Defense No. 1: Trump asked Zelensky for a favor for the country, not for him
This defense centers on Trump’s first ask to Zelensky in the call, which comes right after Zelensky mentions getting more weapons from the United States. “I would like you to us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows about it,” Trump replied.
A couple of Republican lawmakers said that Trump was talking about how the Mueller investigation had put the country through “ a lot,” and therefore he wanted Ukraine to help. (The call took place the day after special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testified to Congress about his findings in the Russia investigation.)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): “Here, there president’s talking about the country. That’s what he’s talking about.”
Where this falls short: Even if you agree with the unsubstantiated premise that the Mueller report was driven by politics rather than facts, it makes no sense why Trump would want a foreign country to help him out here. What was Ukraine going to do to try to heal partisan divisions in America wrought by Russian meddling and the ensuing investigation?
More likely is that Trump was trying to place his request to investigate Democrats in the context of the Mueller investigation, which he saw as unfair to him. We know the Ukraine allegations were derived from trying to undermine Mueller.
Defense No. 2 and 3: Zelensky said the call was okay, and he eventually got his military aid
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) made these dual defenses in one sentence: “Zelensky has said there was no pressure on me, and the aid came through within six weeks after the phone call in question was made.”
Where that falls short: It ignores timing and context. Zelensky has a strong motivation to say he didn’t feel pressured on the call with Trump. There’s evidence the Ukrainians may have at least suspected their military aid was held up when Trump talked to their president. And Zelensky still hasn’t received an Oval Office meeting with Trump, which would go a long way to helping him fight Russian-backed separatists. His country is at war. Zelensky can’t afford to upset Trump by accusing him of wrongdoing.
As for the second point, it’s true Trump released the aid. But Trump did it only after a whistleblower complaint was circulating. The New York Times reports that Trump was told about the complaint against him before the aid got released.
Defense No. 4: Trump doesn’t say “investigate Democrats to get your money” on the call
Here’s Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.): “So if military aid, or security assistance is part of that quid pro quo, where in the July 25 transcript does President Trump ever suggest that he intends to withhold military aid for any reason?”
Where that falls short: Trump didn’t have to be that explicit for Ukraine to know what was going on. Even if Ukrainians didn’t know for sure that Trump had held up their military aid, they knew an Oval Office meeting hung in the balance of what was said on this phone call. Trump also asks for some of the investigations as Zelensky brings up military aid.
National security experts have testified that when the president of the United States asks “for a favor, though” from a smaller country reliant on the United States to help fight its battles, it’s not a “favor.” It’s a demand.
“In this case, the power disparity between the two leaders, my impression is that in order to get the White House meeting, President Zelensky would have to deliver the investigations,” testified Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the White House’s top Ukraine expert who listened in on the call.
Defense No. 5: In subsequent meetings with Zelensky, no one demanded a quid pro quo
Here’s Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio): “But you know what did happen in those 55 days that the aid was paused? There were five key meetings between President Zelensky and senior officials in our government. … None of those five meetings was aid ever discussed in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into anybody, not one of them.”
Where this falls short: It’s just not true, especially when you zoom out to conversations Trump officials say they had with Zelensky’s aides.European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified Zelensky asked about aid when meeting with Vice President Pence in September.
- After that meeting, Sondland told a Zelensky aide that they needed to announce political investigations to get their military aid.
- Other testimony suggests that diplomats in Trump’s orbit told Zelensky in early July there was a quid pro quo to get his White House meeting.
- At one of those meetings Jordan outlines, a September meeting between two U.S. senators and Zelensky, Zelensky asks about the aid again, the New York Times reports. He was told only Trump could release it.
Its not coming from the 'left' ... all the undocumented & unsupported BS you 'right' are shooting. You say you're tired of all the whining, well we're tired of all the BS you post. Why can't you folks just admit Trump is a bad apple, toss him out of office, regroup and try to return to the rather respectable party of thirty or so years ago? People are dropping out of the Republican party every day now ... fed up. Republican congressman, Denny Heck, is leaving the party saying the Republicans are simply in denial and afraid of Trump. When are YOU gonna get a clue?
Are ye daft man - you are the party of raving bozos trying to subvert an election cause you’re a bunch o cry baby sore LOSERS!!!!
