Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nonpartisan GAO concludes Trump administration broke the law in Ukraine's aid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Why are the substantive issues never discussed. Obama allowed Russia to take the Crimea. Obama refused the Ukraine lethal aid. Obama's attempts to curb corruption in the Ukraine were ineffectual. The Obama administration approved a deal turning over uranium resources to a Russian company. The Obama administration did nothing to stop our Allies from becoming dependent on Russian natural gas. Obama by way of the Clinton campaign allowed Russian misinformation to influence the 2016 election. Obama was aware that his Secretary of State was using an unsecured server for official business allowing the Russians easy access. The Obama administration did nothing to stop the Hacking of the DNC and then refused to do a thorough investigation when it was hacked, supposedly by the Russians. The Obama administration did nothing to stop the Russians from expanding their influence in the Middle East by way of Iran. Obama claimed on national TV that our elections were secure and that Russian interference was a minor issue.

    All Trump did is ask the Ukrainians to investigate the former administration's obvious failure to help curb corruption in the Ukraine. It was important to see if the U.S. played any part in that corruption. It's a reasonable question since the Obama administration seems to have had little interest in curbing Russian influence.

    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      The Obama administration approved a deal turning over uranium resources to a Russian company.
      Do you realize that Uranium One was a CANADIAN company? Do you realize that Uranium One had minimal investments in the USA (one mine in Wyoming, now closed and some processing plants)? Do you realize that Uranium One had significant joint ventures with Russian companies? Do you realize that there was very little the US Government could do about the deal, regardless of which party held the presidency?

      This talking point should be recognized as utter bullshit and those who repeat it as ill informed.

      Comment


      • #33
        It should be, but I sincerely doubt that the radical right wing will figure that one out.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by AdrianE View Post

          Do you realize that Uranium One was a CANADIAN company? Do you realize that Uranium One had minimal investments in the USA (one mine in Wyoming, now closed and some processing plants)? Do you realize that Uranium One had significant joint ventures with Russian companies? Do you realize that there was very little the US Government could do about the deal, regardless of which party held the presidency?

          This talking point should be recognized as utter bullshit and those who repeat it as ill informed.
          Yes everyone is aware of your points but you are ill informed on how often the Obama administration engaged in executive overreach when it felt so inclined.

          The point is not that every single item I mentioned is significant but that they represent a pattern at the very least of muted concern over Russian influence.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nichols View Post

            No....of course not.....democrats are allowed to do it.....

            Watch as the posters with TDS defend Biden but go after Trump....

            ...but it's TRUMP!!!!!!
            No as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Trump was fine more or less right up to going after Biden. Secondly no one outside the white house was claiming corruption. As a matter of fact DOD had certified there compliance. Further more you got to work with congress when doing these things.

            So Obama admin holds money back because of corruption. The whole world agreed with it and were doing similar things. It was all done out in the open because let congress know what they were doing and why. Actualy some dems were siding with the give them money side (hopefully you see the difference.) You can do a lot of grey area things if you actually tell people why and what

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

              Yes everyone is aware of your points but you are ill informed on how often the Obama administration engaged in executive overreach when it felt so inclined.

              The point is not that every single item I mentioned is significant but that they represent a pattern at the very least of muted concern over Russian influence.
              I would say Obama played in the gray areas more than usual but Trump just goes over to the other guys power and takes it.

              How can you have an emergency that goes through two budget cycle and claim it ok to take money not appropriated for what you want to use it for. As I have said before why even have congress pass a budget if the President can spend money how ever he wants. (then we have articles about why base house is bad where did some of the wall money come from housing)

              Another example Excecutive priv According to people testifying before congress the president does not even have to assert the privelage. Even things that president was not involved in is covered now days it appears.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                Root out corruption by telling them to fire the guy investigating the company that his son worked for......and if they didn't fire him, they wouldn't get the aid.......?
                But the Ukrainian attorney general at the time was not investigating anyone and the US and its European allies wanted corruption to be curtailed. To start that process, getting rid of a corrupt attorney general is a step in the right direction.

                Why do you keep posting bogus information that has already been 'debunked'?
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Boy! You guys are such nit-pickers. Some of you should go back and check your punctuation. I think that one of you made a salient point to the opposite of what they might have thought they were saying.
                  ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
                  IN MARE IN COELO

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
                    Boy! You guys are such nit-pickers. Some of you should go back and check your punctuation. I think that one of you made a salient point to the opposite of what they might have thought they were saying.
                    oh that was probally me bah

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                      Yes everyone is aware of your points but you are ill informed on how often the Obama administration engaged in executive overreach when it felt so inclined.

                      The point is not that every single item I mentioned is significant but that they represent a pattern at the very least of muted concern over Russian influence.
                      The point is irrelevant.
                      The attitude about how to deal other countries is (and SHOULD be) flexible. Ih the other countries behave okay, we should do have less concerns over them. If the other countries provoke a crisis, we should be more concerned The US concern over Russia influence before the Crimea annexation and the intervention in the US elections should be different from the US concern after those events. And the lack of concern about Russia which Trump has shown after those events did not bother you. So, let's stop deflecting he conversation with "items" that are not only insignificant, but are also wrong (uranium issue) and with starting a broad conversation about the concerns' we should have today or we should have had in the past. The GAO mentions the breaking of the law, and the law is not based on the concerns a president should or should not have over Russia.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X