Tornado Alley (PROG)

[ForReal]

“Trump himself admitted” to pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens so Parnas allegations don’t matter

We all know that, after reading the transcript of the call with Zelensky, which was released prior to the impeachment inquiry. The question is, what was Trump's motivation. Was he seeking to uncover corruption and election interference or just wanting to smear Biden, as a political opponent, in the 2020 presidential campaign?

This article from an unbiased source (Canadian Press).

Did President Donald Trump withhold our donations of military assistance to Ukraine as leverage in a July 25, 2019, phone call to get Ukraine to investigate criminal activity by Team Obama in 2013-2015 and interference in the 2015-2016 United States presidential election?

Throughout Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Theater, one Obama hold-over and life-long diplomat after another testified that it is wrong to call for an investigation of potential crimes possibly committed by U.S. citizens which spread across both countries. We are ordered that we must feel “troubled” by that.

None of these “experts” are aware that the U.S.A. and Ukraine signed a treaty requiring exactly that. In previous articles at Canada Free Press: “Trump Urging Ukrainian Probe of Biden Breaks No Laws” and “QUID PRO FAUX: Treaty Invalidates Impeachment”, we saw how Trump’s congratulatory phone call to newly-elected President of the Ukraine Vlodymyr Zelensky could not be a quid-pro-quo because of the “Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,” that President William Clinton negotiated. The U.S. Senate ratified it in 2000, before Clinton left office.

How could diplomats covering Ukraine or even stationed in Ukraine have no idea that there is a treaty on this very topic? They were outraged that Trump asked another nation to investigate a U.S. citizen. That’s what the treaty says.

But mainly they accuse that Trump was required to disburse funds for military assistance to the Ukraine appropriated by Congress. But the brief 58-day review by Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney violated no law or regulation. The accusation assumes that there was some specific day of the year on which the money was supposed to be processed.

The President can take a second look at Ukraine’s eligibility to receive aid under U.S. anti-corruption laws

We are instructed to accept that Ukraine had already been certified as making progress on its corruption problems. U.S. law would have stopped the money if not. But the President of the United States is not subordinate to bureaucrats. The President can take a second look at Ukraine’s eligibility to receive aid under U.S. anti-corruption laws. https://canadafreepress.com/article/no-deadline-existed-in-trumps-brief-delay-of-ukraine-funds

You are straying from the subject of veracity of factual evidence versus the opinions and speculations of those who testified. Why didn't the whistle blower come forward and testify? He/she says his/her life was in danger? Then he/she must already be known, otherwise, how could that be possible? So, what is really the problem with he/she coming forward? Many things could be revealed by that testimony. If he/she was so committed to doing the right thing, he/she should come forward.

This is all a farce, perpetuated after the Mueller investigation became a big fail.