This should end the impeachment farce
Rep. @EliseStefanik: "No Quid Pro Quo?"
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) November 20, 2019
"No witness has used the term 'bribery' to describe President Trump's conduct. None of them."
FACT: The only time the term "bribery" appears in the 3,500 pages of testimony is in a description of Sleep Joe's conduct towards Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/5MJX3pSY5t
— Brad Parscale (@parscale) November 20, 2019
No quid pro quo. No bribery. Zelensky said that he never felt pressured to do anything. Trump had said that he didn't like the amount of money being given to Ukraine by us when other countries weren't giving the amount they were supposed.
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is being held up as some type of hero because of her testimony to congress and because she was fired. But she had been fired long before the phone call was made because she had been bad mouthing Trump and interfering with Ukraine's government. She did have a no investigation list and one company on it was George Soros" company that had a hand in the Ukraine coup.
The diplomat, as I recall, suggested that Yovanovitch had just caused a commotion in Ukraine a few weeks before that country’s presidential election by calling for the firing of one of the prosecutors aligned with the incumbent president.
Yovanovitch did give a speech on March 5, 2019 calling for Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed.
And the Ukraine media was abuzz that she had done so. And yes, Under Secretary of State Hale, got peppered with questions upon arriving in Kiev, specifically about whether Yovanovitch’s comments violated the international rule that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs and elections of their host country.
Hale dutifully defended Yovanovitch with these careful words. “Well, Ambassador Yovanovitch represents the President of the United States here in Ukraine, and America stands behind her statements. And I don’t see any value in my own elaboration on what they may or may not have meant. They meant what she said.” You can read his comments here.
Up to that point, I had focused months of reporting on Ukraine on the U.S. government’s relationship with a Ukraine nonprofit called the AntiCorruption Action Centre, which was jointly funded by liberal megadonor George Soros’ charity and the State Department. I even sent a list of questions to that nonprofit all the way back in October 2018. It never answered.
Given that Soros spent millions trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in 2016, I thought it was a legitimate public policy question to ask whether a State Department that is supposed to be politically neutral should be in joint business with a partisan figure’s nonprofit entity.
State officials confirmed that Soros’ foundation and the U.S. embassy jointly funded the AntiCorruption Action Centre, and that Soros’ vocal role in Ukraine as an anticorruption voice afforded him unique access to the State Department, including in 2016 to the top official on Ukraine policy, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. (That access was confirmed in documents later released under FOIA to Citizens United.)
After being tipped to the current Yovanovitch furor in Ukraine, I was alerted to an earlier controversy involving the same U.S. ambassador. It turns out a senior member of Congress had in spring 2018 wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo alleging the ambassador had made anti-Trump comments and suggesting she be recalled. I confirmed the incident with House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions and got a copy of his letter, which you can read here. Yovanovitch denies any such disloyalty to Trump.
Nonetheless, I had a career diplomat and a Republican lawmaker raising similar concerns. So I turned back to the sources I had developed starting in 2018 on Ukraine and began to dig further.
I learned that Ukrainian officials, particularly the country’s prosecutors, viewed Yovanovitch as the embodiment of an activist U.S. embassy in Kiev that ruffled feathers by meddling in internal law enforcement cases inside the country.
(Many links in the article not included)
BTW.. this was more of our tax money being given to Ukraine so we could get them to fight a proxy war with Russia. Obama withheld the weapons because he did not want to antagonize Russia. Holding up the money did not threaten our national security interests in any way. We do not have a treaty with Ukraine. If Russia decides to pound the crap out of Ukraine we do not have a responsibility to protect them. There are plenty of articles about how the democrats are up to their necks in the Ukraine corruption and I'm betting that when it's the republicans turn they are going to bring the information forward.