Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Chuck Todd Goes Nuts When Sen. Ron Johnson Criticizes Media Ukraine Bias

Chuck Todd Goes Nuts When Sen. Ron Johnson Criticizes Media Ukraine Bias

“Can we please answer the question I asked you instead of trying to make Donald Trump feel better here that you’re not criticizing him?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thl5ibYVoLI#action=share

Fireworks exploded on Meet the Press on Sunday between host Chuck Todd and Sen. Rob Johnson (R-WI).

Johnson appeared on the show to discuss comments he made on Friday regarding President Donald Trump and Ukraine. Johnson took the interview in a different direction, which led Todd to blow his lid.

“Senator Johnson, please!” whined Todd. “Can we please answer the question I asked you instead of trying to make Donald Trump feel better here that you’re not criticizing him?”

Todd asked Johnson about a report from The Wall Street Journal. From The Daily Mail:

The Wisconsin Republican said in a report published Friday that he winced when the ambassador to the E.U. implied that Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine and seeking that Ukraine look into matters related to U.S. elections.

‘At that suggestion, I winced,’ Johnson told the Wall Street Journal last week. ‘My reaction was: Oh, God. I don’t want to see those two things combined.’

‘Why did you wince and what did you mean by ‘those two things combined’?’ Todd asked in regards to the senator’s previous comment, which set Johnson off on a seemingly-unrelated rant.

Johnson defended Trump and tried to persuade Todd the media and Democrats should question former CIA Director John Brennan about former lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Johnson read some of the text messages between the former lovers, insisting an investigation has to happen about due to the possibility “the CIA planted a false story that Russia was supporting the Trump campaign.”

Todd wanted to know what that had to do with Ukraine. Johnson said it had everything to do with Ukraine.

Todd then retorted that he had “no idea why Fox News propaganda stuff is popping up here” and “no idea why we’re going here.”

It’s not a Fox News propaganda thing. Johnson and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have repeatedly asked the intelligence community inspector general to investigate possible CIA leaks.

After the back-and-forth, Johnson told Todd he did not want the story about Trump and Ukraine to be true. He also explained that Trump “vehemently, angrily denied it.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Up Chuck Todd always blows a gasket when you deviate from the official prog lie.

All pretenses of the likes of Chuck ‘Toddler’ being “news” are gone, and overall desperation, dishonesty and ruthlessness of the left is apparent: they’ll say anything, corrupt anything and do anything. The trail of destruction in their wake is staggering: EVERY American institution is now suspect; every department in our government is now suspect.

While the bushes may not have been thieves and fascists, they have enabled them, advertently or not. Thus, after 24 years of bush/clinton/bush/obama-clinton, the corruption is complete.

We have a long road back, if we ever get there.

Mary Chastain: Johnson appeared on the show to discuss comments he made on Friday regarding President Donald Trump and Ukraine. Johnson took the interview in a different direction, which led Todd to blow his lid.

So, per your own words, Johnson attempted to divert from answering the question about Trump “withholding military aid to Ukraine and seeking that Ukraine look into matters related to U.S. elections” linking foreign policy and Trump’s reelection.

Meanwhile, Trump openly called for the authoritarian communist government of China to investigate a private U.S. citizen who is Trump’s political opponent.

    Tom Servo in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 11:19 am

    Funny how it was just fine with you for Obama, Biden, and Hillary to call on Foreign Governments to “investigate” Trump when he was running against them – remember the name Christopher Steele, MI5 agent? That’s why you and your fellow demofascists can’t and won’t make any impact arguing this – you’re trying to convince people that Trump is wrong for publicly and mildly saying what you and yours have been aggressively and covertly doing for years.

    And just wait til the Mifsud info blows – that’s all gonna become public. That’s why they’ve all been in Italy interviewing him.

    American Human in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 11:21 am

    I’m curious sir. Are we to expect that because someone is a “political opponent” of the president, they are immune from criminal investigation or prosecution?
    If that is the case, I should steal a billion or so dollars and then run for president and all is ignored?
    The former goddess Hillary Clinton got this treatment. The perfectly pure James Comey detailed a dozen or so felonies she committed and the said she wouldn’t be prosecuted for them because she really didn’t mean it and besides she was running for president.

    ScottTheEngineer in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 11:25 am

    Aren’t you at all Interested in finding out if a person running for the most powerful office in the world is corrupt or possibly under the influence of a foreign government?

    buck61 in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 11:46 am

    People on these types of shows have deflected or not answered the questions since day one with very little outrage from the hosts. Doesn’t matter what political parties are involved or who the hosts are.
    Watch a Presidential debate and it will occur there as well.
    Just another case of fake outrage.

    Our Soros-paid troll is back, to share the questionable wit and wisdom of progressives.

    Makes me want to triple-down on my support for President Trump.

    Which whisleblower number will you be Zach? #3, #4 or #100?

    Tom Servo: remember the name Christopher Steele, MI5 agent?

    Squirrel!

    Christopher Steele didn’t work for a foreign government, but for a U.S. firm. It’s not illegal to investigate a political opponent. But if Steele or Clinton broke U.S. law, then they should be held to account under U.S. law.

    American Human: Are we to expect that because someone is a “political opponent” of the president, they are immune from criminal investigation or prosecution?

    Not at all, but Trump called for outsourcing the investigation to an authoritarian, communist government.

    ScottTheEngineer: Aren’t you at all Interested in finding out if a person running for the most powerful office in the world is corrupt or possibly under the influence of a foreign government?

    Outsourcing such an investigation to a foreign adversary is hardly the way to uncover corruption by a U.S. citizen.

      Tom Servo in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 12:16 pm

      Christopher Steele was hired because of his long association with British Intelligence. That’s why he was hired – also, another reason he was hired is that, like any foreign citizen on foreign soil, he is not subject to US law, only UK law. So he could never be “held to account under US law”, and you are a fool for saying that. As to Clinton, she maintained plausible deniability by laundering every thing through Fusion GPS and her dedicated allies in the CIA, FBI, and State Department.

      As to “outsourcing” – Trump did not call for that at all, but most of this info is going to be found in internal government records that only China or the Ukraine has access to. How would the US have access to that info, other than a massive espionage campaign that would be clearly illegal? It is NO CRIME to opine that some other country should enforce their own laws on their own territory. In fact, that is the only honest way it can be done.

      Of course you know that, and your only true interest is killing any investigation, because your allies will go down hard when it happens.

        Barry in reply to Tom Servo. | October 7, 2019 at 12:42 pm

        “and your only true interest is killing any investigation”

        Yep, they’re in deep trouble and they know it. The storm is coming.

        Tom Servo: Christopher Steele was hired because of his long association with British Intelligence.

        So?

        Tom Servo: So he could never be “held to account under US law”

        The U.S. has an extradition treaty with U.K., and Steele was recently in the U.S., so he could have been arrested and charged if he broke U.S. election law. However, he didn’t break any election law. Nor was it illegal for the Clinton campaign to pay for an investigation of their political opponent.

        Tom Servo: It is NO CRIME to opine that some other country should enforce their own laws on their own territory.

        Trump did more than opine. He said China “should” investigate the Bidens, and did so just before trade talks between the U.S. and China were to begin.

        There is no evidence that the Bidens broke Chinese or U.S. law. If there were, then convene a grand jury.

          venril in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 2:20 pm

          Tom Servo: Christopher Steele was hired because of his long association with British Intelligence.

          Zack: So?

          More to the point – Steele, for years, held the Russia Desk. He had numerous contacts in the old KGB and in the FSB and who knows where. He pinged his old contacts, in the FSB who happily provided him with a load of Disinformation re the Pres.

          venril in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 2:24 pm

          Tom Servo: So he could never be “held to account under US law”

          Zac: The U.S. has an extradition treaty with U.K., and Steele was recently in the U.S., so he could have been arrested and charged if he broke U.S. election law. However, he didn’t break any election law. Nor was it illegal for the Clinton campaign to pay for an investigation of their political opponent.

          Indeed? Then why the last three years of Russia, Russia Russia? The DNC and Team Hillary solicited aid, through an intended firewall, so create dirt on Trump, as a way of killing his campaign, or getting him impeached, or hamstringing his ability to govern AND impede and distract from the actors and conspirators for the real crime.

          venril in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 2:30 pm

          Tom Servo: It is NO CRIME to opine that some other country should enforce their own laws on their own territory.

          Trump did more than opine. He said China “should” investigate the Bidens, and did so just before trade talks between the U.S. and China were to begin.

          There is no evidence that the Bidens broke Chinese or U.S. law. If there were, then convene a grand jury.

          You don’t understand how Trump works, do you? By suggesting that China investigate he signals that Barr is already investigating the sweet deal Hunter bagged while traveling there with daddy, an improbably large deal for nothing. And he forces the media to look at what they’ve studiously ignored for years. No evidence? heh. Keep telling yourself that. WRT a GJ, Barr is working on that now. Next lets talk about Nancy’s brat. And Mitt’s hiring a board member of Burisma for his campaign. And I suspect we’ll find plenty of smoke in the congressional woods.

          venril: Steele, for years, held the Russia Desk. He had numerous contacts in the old KGB and in the FSB and who knows where. He pinged his old contacts, in the FSB who happily provided him with a load of Disinformation re the Pres.

          It could have been disinformation, but Steele’s sources had been reliable in the past. Indeed, many of the claims in the dossier were corroborated, including that Russia was interfering in the campaign to the benefit of Trump, and that they were attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

          venril: The DNC and Team Hillary solicited aid, through an intended firewall, so create dirt on Trump

          The Clinton campaign never used the dossier.

          venril: By suggesting that China investigate …

          Trump is inviting China to interfere in the U.S. election to his benefit, just as he did before with Russia. There is no evidence that the Bidens broke the law.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 4:06 pm

          “Trump is inviting China to interfere in the U.S. election to his benefit, just as he did before with Russia. There is no evidence that the Bidens broke the law.”

          You’re a liar comrade commie Zach. You make things up. Trump can suggest to the Chinese that they investigate anyone he believes may have violated the law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the chief executive doing that.

          There is substantial evidence Biden broke the law. Can it be proven, I don’t know.

          Of course, the entire democrat party is breaking the law. Clinton cash from the Ukraine, her #1 contributor. Pelosi, Biden, Schiff, they’re all in it up to their eyeballs. Crooks, all you commies are crooks.

      Crawford in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 12:23 pm

      Michael Bloomberg says China is NOT a dictatorship, and the NBA supports the Chinese government in its struggle against saboteurs in Hong Kong, so who are YOU to decide they shouldn’t investigate corruption?!

      ScottTheEngineer in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 3:03 pm

      According to the transcript I read Trump asked Zalensky to co-operate with the AG investigation.
      If any foreign government wants to investigate an American politician I say more power to them.

      I also find it a little offensive that the asshats on the left think so little of the American people that their vote would be able to be influenced by a foreign government.

      As the Democrats say “Super-delegats. Because some decisions are too important to be left to the people.”

        ScottTheEngineer: If any foreign government wants to investigate an American politician I say more power to them.

        Sure. Just throw open the door to foreign interference in U.S. elections. Let them fight over the scrapes of what’s left of America. Meanwhile, it is still against U.S. law to solicit foreign help to attack a political opponent. That the country involved is run by an authoritarian communist government is just icing on the decaying husk.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 10:04 pm

          “That the country involved is run by an authoritarian communist government is just icing on the decaying husk.”

          That’s rich coming from an avowed murdering authoritarian communist named Zach.

          “Sure. Just throw open the door to foreign interference in U.S. elections.”

          LOL, you commies threw that door open a long time ago.

          “Let them fight over the scrapes of what’s left of America.”

          As you do everything possible to destroy freedom and liberty.

          bhwms in reply to Zachriel. | October 8, 2019 at 10:29 am

          Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events, but foreign governments have been trying to interfere with our elections since at least before World War 2. We do the same to theirs. This is nothing new.

          bhwms: Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events, but foreign governments have been trying to interfere with our elections since at least before World War 2.

          Friendly governments try not to directly interfere in other country’s elections. Though they may occasionally express an opinion, this is considered bad form. However, the violation of campaign law by adversarial countries is an attack on sovereignty, and should not be tolerated.

    Chuck Todd practices ambush “journalism”. The interviewee has no obligation to answer insulting and idiotic questions designed to lead him into an ambush. Does that help?

    No one should expect an intelligent discussion with any of these enemy propagandists. Be ready to lecture their audiences with something far more important and leave the host sputtering with outrage. If more Republicans would do that, the media would have to back off and either do some journalism instead or drop the pretense that any non-Soros-approved guest will get a fair shake.

    “Matters related to U.S. elections” is BS. Not a single primary or caucus has been held. The party hasn’t identified their nominee. No debates between nominees held. No ballots printed.

    Let’s be honest what the lib-speak “matters related to U.S. elections” really means; no candidate who has declared for any office, hell, no Dem running for reelection, can be investigated for anything, ever.

    Sure would love to hear your definition of an “election” and why you think the presumptive nominee of one party is prohibited from investigating the fading and flailing nominee of the other 13 months out from the actual election – 10 months out from the convention, etc…

      MrE: why you think the presumptive nominee of one party is prohibited from investigating the {} nominee of the other

      Of course, that wasn’t the issue, but that Trump called for an authoritarian communist government to investigate his political opponent. If Biden broke the law, then convene a grand jury.

        tom_swift in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 2:23 pm

        If Biden broke the law, then convene a grand jury.

        The actual procedure is entirely up to China. No U.S. entity has authority to investigate illegal activities in China, and no US President has the right to demand that the Chinese do anything to enforce their own laws. But it’s just wacky to insist that he can’t make suggestions to foreign governments.

    Barry in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 12:36 pm

    LOL, Zach the commie crap dispenser is back to dispense more crap. What a way to make a living.

    Hey crappy! Sorry, no sale. “Dumb as a brick” is the caption under your elementary school picture.

    Stop wasting our perferctly good oxygen, proglodyte. The only way you clowns are ever going to win is to leave.

    Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 2:33 pm

    No, he did not “attempt to divert from answering the question”. He moved the interview away from focusing on his own comments, and towards focusing on the actual matter at hand, which is Democrat corruption.

    Merlin in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 2:41 pm

    Dab a bit more cologne on that democrat public corruption. We can smell it all the way over here.

    bw222 in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 3:52 pm

    Did you have a problem when Obama asked the Ukrainians to investigate Paul Monafort? Didn’t think so.

    ConradCA in reply to Zachriel. | October 8, 2019 at 6:10 pm

    Part of Trump’s job is law enforcement and as the Obama administration did not investigate criminal insiders like Biden it’s doubly important that he do this. Furthermore, he’s doing the Dems a favor by investigating one of their possible candidates. They shouldn’t want to repeat the same mistake they made with Lying Crooked Hillary by nominating a criminal. The Dems should be very interested in the results obtained by Ukraine and China investigating Biden. After all Biden admitted to using US aid to protect the Ukrainian company that was paying his son millions for a job that he had no useful skills.

      ConradCA: Part of Trump’s job is law enforcement and as the Obama administration did not investigate criminal insiders like Biden

      There is no evidence that the Bidens broke the law. Nor does the President typically address individual criminal cases so as to not prejudice the case, and to allow the criminal justice system to work unimpeded. In this case, it involves his political opponent, so that just compounds the problem.

      ConradCA: They shouldn’t want to repeat the same mistake they made with Lying Crooked Hillary by nominating a criminal.

      The U.S. Justice Department determined there was insufficient evidence to charge Clinton with a crime.

      ConradCA: After all Biden admitted to using US aid to protect the Ukrainian company that was paying his son millions for a job that he had no useful skills.

      No. Joe Biden said he used U.S. leverage to remove a prosecutor general widely seen as corrupt, and consistent with U.S. and E.U. policy. Biden Hunter had previous experience on corporate boards.

Chuck Todd is John Podesta’s biitch. Enough said.

The day Chuck Todd wants to go against someone off script will be the first day that ever happens.

Ukraine (i.e. natural resources), China (i.e. labor and environmental arbitrage), etc.

With Clinton, #MeToo was taboo. With Obama, diversity, fleecing, and wars were taboo. With Trump, everything is progressive (i.e. monotonic, status quo) again. That said, over 12 trimesters, the hunters and judges have managed to self-incriminate and self-abort at catastrophic rates, which is a positive development. Our baby took her first steps and is now walking.

    bw222 in reply to n.n. | October 7, 2019 at 3:57 pm

    Fast and Furious was far worse than anything Trump has been accused of. There were two cover-ups: 1) by the government and 2) by the media.

Lets see how Chuck reacts if he ever got Biden on his show and asked questions about Ukraine or China, then again Chuck is too cowardly to ask Biden that type of question or react when he dodges it.

Yet he sucked face with John Brennan not 5 minutes later when Brennan dodged his questions with usual blather. Disgraceful.

Chuck Todd has a problem with FNC, yet he’s a regular on MSNBC, where the real crazies tune in.

And the media wonders why only 41% of Americans, 37% of independent voters, trust it (Gallup 2019 Media Trust Survey).

Sammy Finkelman | October 7, 2019 at 5:44 pm

Chuck Todd didn;’t need to ask a question, or at least not that question . The Wall Street Journal artivle gives complete details:

Senator Ron Johnson brought this up with Trump:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-used-potential-meeting-to-pressure-ukraine-on-biden-texts-indicate-11570205661

In the call, Mr. Trump flatly rejected the notion that he directed aides to make military aid to Ukraine contingent on a new probe by Kyiv, Mr. Johnson said.

“He said, ‘Expletive deleted—No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?” the Wisconsin senator recalled in an interview Friday. Mr. Johnson said he told the president he had learned of the arrangement from Mr. Sondland.

So the question is, what happened after that?

In my opinion, it looks like the person who tied the two things together (military aid and an Ukrainian investigation about what happened in 2016 and also Burisma) was Gordon D. Sundland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union who was also a major Republican fundraiser.

Donald Trump had without giving anybody any kind of explanation placed a hold on the delivery of the U.S. Military to Ukraine and Gordon Sundland thought he might shake it loose if Ukraine did what Giuliani wanted.

Kurt D. Volker, the State Department’s Special Envoy to Ukraine, who resigned on Friday September 27, 2019, the day after the whistleblower complaint naming him was made public, thought that, because there was almost unanimous support in Washington for the aid, the aid would be released anyway shortly, and it was not necessary to mention the hold to the Ukrainians.

He was also very interested in disabusing Rudolph Giuliani of some of the ideas that he had and wanted there to be a meeting between Giuliani and a top advisor to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, Andrey Yermak. Volker resigned, he said, because he was no longer useful, but possibly also so that he would be free to testify to Congress without restrictions.

William B. Taylor Jr, the United States chargé d’affaires ad interim for Ukraine since June 2019 – he had been brought in to take over after Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch left Ukraine and had also been Ambassador to Ukraine mostly during the Bush II Administration (June 2006 till May 2009)- didn’t like this idea of tying anything together and said on September 8 he would quit if there was some interview – it was maybe an interview at that stage – and the aid was not released.

Gordon Sundland was telling everyone that he was not at all certain the aid would be released if Ukraine did what wanted. He was trying to get the idea across of linking aid and the Ukrainians , let’s say, making Giuliani happy.

The background is:

158.On Wednesday August 28, 2019 Politico published a story…

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dA4MoXkg2v8J:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-1689531+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

saying that the military aid to Ukraine was being held up because Trump had asked his national security team to review it to ensure the money is being used in the best interest of the United States.

That’s when Ukraine became aware there was a hitch.

On Friday August 30 Gordon Sundland then told Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of a committee subcommittee with jurisdiction over the aid, that it was being held up because of a quid pro quo.

The next day, Saturday August 31, 2019 called up President Trump (from Poland where he was schedled to meet Ukrainian President Zelensky the next day) andd asked him if it was true that the miitary aid was being made contingent on a new probe by the Ukrainian government. President Trump flatly denied it.

    Sammy Finkelman: , it looks like the person who tied the two things together (military aid and an Ukrainian investigation about what happened in 2016 and also Burisma) was Gordon D. Sundland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union who was also a major Republican fundraiser.

    Well, Sundland and Trump, who when Zelensky asked for weapons needed for Ukraine’s defense, Trump immediately asked for a favor.

    Zelensky: we are almost ready to buy more Javelins (missiles) from the United States.

    Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though

    The favor was to investigate his political opponent.

      bhwms in reply to Zachriel. | October 8, 2019 at 10:36 am

      Source of this alleged quote?

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Zachriel. | October 8, 2019 at 2:14 pm

      Well, Sundland and Trump, who when Zelensky asked for weapons needed for Ukraine’s defense, Trump immediately asked for a favor.

      Zelensky: we are almost ready to buy more Javelins (missiles) from the United States.

      Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though

      Zelensky didn’t ask for weapons – he was saying that he would use the military aid to buy weapons from the United States (Trump is all keen about not having trade deficits.)

      Zelensky was very interested in having a good relationship with Donald Trump – that’s why he wanted to talk more to him
      and he even claimed that he’d followed Trump’s 2016 campaign as an example/

      Ukraine did not think the military aid was at risk. Ukraine did not learn there was a problem until the Politico article appeared on Aguast 28.

      Asking for a favor is the precise opposite of trying to make quid pro quo. Trump was saying that even though the United States did alot for Ukraine and didn’t demand things in return he woud like a favor. The main point was what he was hearing about Crowdstrike, which nobody seems to be too sure of what was the theory he was working on. It seems somebody had been feeding disinformation to Trump and maybe it didn’t even all come through Giuliani.

      Later on, Trump mentioned “the other thing” (Biden) Could Zelensky find out about that story that Biden stopped a prosecution? He wasn’t asking for dirt. He was asking for the truth.

      This would be of interest, if true, to more tha Donald Trump personally.

      The favor was to investigate his political opponent.

        Sammy Finkelman: Zelensky was very interested in having a good relationship with Donald Trump

        That’s rather the point. Ukraine is in desperate need of U.S. support.

        Sammy Finkelman: Ukraine did not think the military aid was at risk.

        It’s right there in the rough transcript. Zelensky says they want weapons, and Trump immediately asks for a favor “though”. Now, this wouldn’t be a problem if the favor was for the benefit of the United States, but it was for Trump’s personal benefit.

        Sammy Finkelman: Asking for a favor is the precise opposite of trying to make quid pro quo.

        Vito Corleone: When you asked for help, we helped you. We never asked you for payment, just respect. Now you ask us for help again. I would like you to do us a favor though.

        In any case, asking for help with his campaign is inherently corrupt, regardless of any quid pro quo.

        Sammy Finkelman: Ukraine did not learn there was a problem until {after the phone call}

        So? Trump stopped the transfer so that he could talk to Zelensky about the favor. There are text messages that make it clear that there was to be a connection between the transfer and the favor.

        Sammy Finkelman: He was asking for the truth.

        If Trump wanted the truth, then he already has access to the vast knowledge and power of the U.S. intelligence community, allied intelligence agencies, and the U.S. Department of Justice. They have determined that Russian government agents hacked the DNC, then released the stolen emails to damage Clinton and help Trump.

        But Trump doesn’t want to know the truth. He wants to create chaos, even if that is detrimental to the U.S. Even if it is detrimental to the nascent democracy in Ukraine. Even if it means allied Kurds in Syria disappear.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to Zachriel. | October 8, 2019 at 5:08 pm

          Zelensky says they want weapons,

          No, he says they are just about ready to buy them. hes thinking Trump would like him to use the military aid to “Buy American.”

          ”. Now, this wouldn’t be a problem if the favor was for the benefit of the United States, but it was for Trump’s personal benefit.

          If it would not be of interest to anybody except Donald Trump if Joe Biden had corruptly stopped an investigation in Ukraine, then it would not be of any personal benefit to Donald Trump either. A false charge would only be to his benefit. But not a true one. So it would be of benefit to the United States to know the truth about that.

          I don’t think Donald Trump was speaking in code when asking for a favor. Adam Schiff had to change his words to make it look like he was trying to extorting something from Ukraine.

          Sammy Finkelman: Ukraine did not learn there was a problem until {after the phone call}

          >> So? Trump stopped the transfer so that he could talk to Zelensky about the favor.

          We don’t know why Trump stopped it. He never told anyone. Maybe it was because Zelensky was new. Or he wanted more military aid to come from Europe

          >> There are text messages that make it clear that there was to be a connection between the transfer and the favor

          I think Gordon Sondland was the first one to make the connection, and he did it without consulting Trump.

          Sammy Finkelman: He was asking for the truth.

          >> If Trump wanted the truth, then he already has access to the vast knowledge and power of the U.S. intelligence community, allied intelligence agencies, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

          Trump wanted to know waht Ukraine kknew because some peole were telling Giulaini stuff. He did want to involved Attorney General Barr. I think Giuliani did not becase then it would look like pressre was being put on Barr to come up with conclusions.

          Sammy Finkelman: No, he says they are just about ready to buy them.

          Uh, he is ready to “buy” them, but doesn’t “want” them?

          Sammy Finkelman: A false charge would only be to his benefit.

          That’s right, and as there is no evidence the Bidens broke any laws, and Trump is making it an issue in a talk about military aid to Ukraine, the implication is clear.

          Sammy Finkelman: I don’t think Donald Trump was speaking in code when asking for a favor.

          No, he wasn’t. That’s why there is now an impeachment inquiry, even though Pelosi had resisted it until that moment. Then he went on TV and called for an authoritarian communist government to investigate the Bidens.

          Sammy Finkelman: I think Gordon Sondland was the first one to make the connection, and he did it without consulting Trump.

          That is almost certainly not the case, which is why the White House stopped all cooperation when Sondland was subpoenaed.

Remember, gang: whether it be here or on NBC: when you argue with an idiot, you then have two idiots arguing.

Democrats sure do hate fossil fuels………unless it is Ukrainian fossil fuels that they can get filthy rich off of (emphasis on “filthy”)

Does anyone else find it creepy that a troll has to rebuke every comment with “talking points”? Careful, folks……he has interweb access and he ain’t afraid to use it!

Up-Chuck Todd is a disgusting left-wing hack and a very sorry excuse for a reporter or correspondent.

It could be that Ukraine is a very touchy subject and the Dems have spies.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/how_the_hobbs_act_could_sink_joe_biden.html

Sammy Finkelman | October 8, 2019 at 4:50 pm

Trump has some theory about the DNC server that people are trying to figure out what it is, it is so unheard of.

The New York Times has published a few artidles about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/crowdstrike-ukraine.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/politics/tom-bossert-trump-ukraine.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-ukraine-conspiracy.html

Sammy Finkelman | October 8, 2019 at 4:57 pm

Thed real problem for Biden is that he probably made the whole story up about acancelled announcement iand.or cancelled press conference in Kiev.

There’s no other source other than the Biden’s speech before the Council on Foreogn Relations on January 23, 2018 for this tale:

https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden

The key words are:

….I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Biden has to avoid any questions that woud touch on that.

Because I think this what is either a cancelled press conference or a cancelled announcement at a press conference.

Never happened.

One thing that makes this story unlikely is that even after the prosecutor was fired the loan guarantees were not releaeed so that couldn’t have been the only thing holding it up.

My understanding of the chronology is:

1. November 2015: Obama makes further loan guarantees to Ukraine conditional on reforms that are supposed to eliminate corruption.

2. December 2015: Biden’s last trip to Kiev during this approximte time span.

3. March, 2016: Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin is replaced.

4) Beginning of June 2016: The Ukrainian Parliament passes a package of anti-corruption legislation and the next day the $1 billion loan guarantee is made available, with the United States Ambassador to Ukraine formally signing them in Kyiv.

The Washington Post had a partial correction of some of what has been assumed (and also the key quotes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/correcting-media-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

But doesn’t consider the possibility that Biden made the whole story up about a cancelled announcement.

The Washington Post does link to another earlier different version from 2016 of Biden’s story that doesn’t include the press conference. Bt even that may not be true, at least the way he tells it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/08/biden-doctrine/496841/

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend