(11-13-2019, 08:56 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-13-2019, 06:21 PM)jj82284 Wrote: There u go again...

 Moreover the aid was released without any of the alleged preconditions being met.  

The aid was released after the whistleblower report became public. Plausible explanation: they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Hands in what cookie Jar?  By Federal statute, the President of the United States is tasked with determining if the recipient of Foreign aid is a corrupt entity or will grossly misuse the funds.  The initial hold was placed on the funds because a.) the incoming Ukrainian administration was an unknown quantity and we wanted to make an assessment of their legitimate commitment to Reform b.) We didn't want to be unduly burdened in relation to our European Allies in subsidizing our mutual security interest of protecting Ukraine and opposing Russian Aggression.  

Ambassador Taylor TESTIFIED that the Aid was ALWAYS expected to be released, Mulvaney stated publicly that the hold was inherently temporary because by statute there was a time limit on any administrative hold before they would have to show cause before congress.  

Moreover, the Whistleblower complaint was filed on 8/12/2019.  That's a full 16 days before anyone even alleges that they Ukrainians were even aware of the hold on the aid.  Also, the allegation that the aid was discussed on the call was patently false.  The idea of 8 specific instances was patently false.  (Goes to show how great third hand evidence is.)  And we now know based on the identity of the whistleblower that he would have been a FACT WITNESS OR TARGET OF ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND THE ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIA PROBE.  

Oversimplifying....  Lol.  #ISHOULDBECHARGINGFORTHIS

---

(11-13-2019, 09:09 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-13-2019, 06:21 PM)jj82284 Wrote: There u go again...

 Bill Taylor, as the ambassador to the Ukraine, had DIRECT ACCESS to the Ukrainian president including three face to face meetings during the 55 day hold on the aid.  Not ONE TIME did the president mention any linkage or pressure in correlation to aid, investigations or anything of the sort.  

Mr Taylor had three meetings with the Ukrainian president but zero with the US president. 
the plausible story is that the US president had other people he was relying on to convey his corrupt message. Two separate channels of communication. within the story it makes sense that Mr Taylor would only be able to understand the President's true motive through secondhand information. This doesn't mean that the story is true, but it does mean that the lack of firsthand information is not a plot hole as you suggest it is.

Mr. Taylor's own testimony says that to the best of his knowledge the Ukrainians didn't even know about the hold on the Aid until it was revealed in Politico.  So there was a separate channel to deliver a corrupt message that the Ukrainians never received about investigations they never started to get aid that was released anyway?  #TDS

The funny thing is that in the admitted game of telephone that lead to the CLEAR UNDERSTANDING ambassador Taylor keeps referring to a September utterance by Sondland.  Sondland testified that the only direct conversation he had with the president on the matter included the president telling him "There is Quid pro Quo, I only want the Ukrainians to do the right thing" and Sondland contradicted Taylor's concern about pressure being applied to the Ukrainians.

---