Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 07, 2019

But for two news articles, President Trump's strong-arming of Ukraine probably would have worked.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In the first article, an official from the Defense Department stated on the record that no further review was necessary, the aid having gone through necessary reviews. But still, no assistance was coming.

The next day, Yermak, the aide to Zelensky, texted Volker and William B. Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, with concerns about the article. While there are some indications that Ukraine knew about the aid stoppage before that point, it's clear that it was the Politico article that forced the issue to the forefront. Taylor testified that he was flummoxed, not being able to give Yermak a reason the aid had been stopped.

Sondland made it clear to Yermak on Sept. 1: The aid had been stopped because the Trump administration wanted those investigations. In short order, that explicit link between aid and the investigations trickled out to the rest of the United States' Ukraine team. Taylor said that after confronting Sondland that same day, he was told that "everything" depended on an announcement of new investigations, "including security assistance," and that Trump wanted Zelensky "in a public box" on the issue.

Zelensky and his team struggled with a choice articulated by Andrew Kramer of the New York Times: "whether to capitulate to President Trump's demands to publicly announce investigations against his political enemies or to refuse, and lose desperately needed military aid."

Zelensky " who won election as an anti-corruption reformer " decided to capitulate. He'd announce the investigations in an interview with CNN on Sept. 13, Kramer said. The Ukrainians told Sondland on Sept. 8 and he shared it with Taylor. Then, though, the second article had come out. After Zelensky had agreed to the CNN interview but before it was set to occur, the administration released the aid. Zelensky's team canceled the interview, leaving Ukrainians to wonder what he might have said.

Thank goodness for the Fourth Estate.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-07 03:25 PM | Reply

Zelensky and his team struggled with a choice articulated by Andrew Kramer of the New York Times: "whether to capitulate to President Trump's demands to publicly announce investigations against his political enemies or to refuse, and lose desperately needed military aid."

I'm a confused Gen X Snowflake.

What's a quid pro quo again?

Asking for my confused Gen X Snowflake brother JeffJ.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 03:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm tired of seeing it reported that the Ukraine scam didn't work.

It did work.

www.justsecurity.org

#3 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 03:55 PM | Reply

Did it work like o'bidens did while he was vp?

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-08 11:19 AM | Reply

Did anyone get as much money as the 3 dem kids got?

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-08 11:21 AM | Reply

#5 | Posted by Sniper

DEFLECT FOR YOU CULT LEADER! WOOF WOOF!

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-08 11:30 AM | Reply

Did it work like o'bidens did while he was vp?

Did anyone get as much money as the 3 dem kids got?

Years on Retort with an unbroken record of never rebutting anything.

What do you think about forcing a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival in exchange for military funds?

#7 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-11-08 12:15 PM | Reply

I don't see any deflection. I see actual questions that need to be answered just like the questions about Trump. Just because you are filled with so much hate doesn't mean there aren't valid questions that exist that aren't only about Trump. In fact, Trump could be considered a whistleblower to Biden, technically.

Deflection is trying to stop you from moving forward with a thought, action, etc. by presenting another to distract you. The questions above don't do that. They just ask questions. I'm as intent on Trump's and Biden's actions being scrutinized. Why can't we do both? In fact, Libs have gone on for 3 years about how bad Trump is because he has benefited from political office. Why is Biden allowed to get away with it then? The word impeachment has been around for a couple years already and part of it coming from Libs is because they claim he profited from political office. Why ignore it when the target is Biden?

This is a large country with a very large judicial system. Why do Libs all of a sudden want it to be used for one thing instead of fighting many injustices?

The answer is obviously partisan hatred. Trump very well could have not had any quid pro quo. Biden's son could have easily gotten the money and international positions based solely on merit alone. Investigating both at the same time is not only possible, it should be encouraged, don't you think?

Honestly, I don't expect an actual answer that doesn't spread hate. After the fiasco with Ellen and hearing Dems disagree with her saying be nice to people even if they don't agree with you, hope that Libs will develop objectivity and not spread hate is almost an absurd notion. Not yet but it's getting there. I miss my Dem party of the 90s, even during Bushy's term. They had so much more hope and balance, and soooooooooooooooooooo much less hate in their hearts. :-(

#8 | Posted by humtake at 2019-11-08 12:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"In fact, Trump could be considered a whistleblower to Biden, technically."

Have you asked yourself why the only two times Trump has EVER been concerned with corruption is when he could falsely blame it on his chief political rival?

And if that doesn't ring a bell, how about the fact during the conversation with Zelensky, Trump never once uttered the word "corruption", but said "Biden" three times?

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-08 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't see any deflection. I see actual questions that need to be answered just like the questions about Trump. Just because you are filled with so much hate doesn't mean there aren't valid questions that exist that aren't only about Trump. In fact, Trump could be considered a whistleblower to Biden, technically.

#8 | Posted by humtake

Hang on, are you dumb enough to think trump actually gives a damn about corruption?

You know he's best buddies with the most corrupt regimes in the world, right?

The only time he cares about corruption is when he can tie to to clinton or biden. In fact, otherwise he works to PROTECT corruption.

www.newyorker.com
The Trump Administration Rolls Back Anti-Corruption Efforts in the Oil Industry

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-08 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The plan will work, because Ukraine hates Biden, too.

Legit.

Corrupt old ----.

Quid pro Joe.

Father of a Ukranian gas industry expert.

LOL

#11 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-11-09 02:32 AM | Reply

What do you think about forcing a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival in exchange for military funds?
#7 | Posted by zarnon

Sounds like the Steele Dossier.

Standard.

#12 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-11-09 02:34 AM | Reply

One person's "extortion to dig dirt on a political rival" is another person's "investigation of corruption of the actions of corrupt politicians". Where the heck are the Durham and Horowitz reports?

#13 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-11-09 09:00 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort