Давит падла на Украину хоть ты тресни!

[Silentio]

США як взяли на себе відповідальність, так і можуть зняти..... Останнім часом підтримка балансу стала занадто дорогою та неефективною.

 

Підтримка балансу в світі це не благодійність Америки, це її засіб виживання... Без військово-політичного домінування в світі через 10-15 років вона перетвориться в регіональну державу на кшталт інших країн американського континенту, а через 40 просто зникне в процессі появи нових лідерів і переділу світу через непоборні внутрішні протиріччя і нездатність їх вирішити без залучення зовнішніх матеріальних і людьських ресурсів.

[Silentio]

Пока все что он делает- однозначно на пользу Америке. У тому же если кому и давать Нобелевскую премию Мира, так не Клинтону или Обаме с их более чем сомнительным войнами а Трампу, который всеми силами из этих войн выходит.

Всеми силами   это оголяя услужливо собственный зад перед врагами Америки? 

[Uki]

Підтримка балансу в світі це не благодійність Америки, це її засіб виживання... Без військово-політичного домінування в світі через 10-15 років вона перетвориться в регіональну державу на кшталт інших країн американського континенту, а через 40 просто зникне в процессі появи нових лідерів і переділу світу через непоборні внутрішні протиріччя і нездатність їх вирішити без залучення зовнішніх матеріальних і людьських ресурсів.

 

Ну тоді доведеться змінити підхід..... Часу є море поки що

[Silentio]

Ну тоді доведеться змінити підхід..... Часу є море поки що

Справа навіть не в партійності..По партіям як раз завжди ділилася внутрішня політика. Зовнішня політика, як на чолі країни ставали люди із розумінням того, що ізоляціонізм з часів закінчення другої світової не гарантує більше відносно мирного розвитку США, була практично тотожньою. Клінтон-Олбрайт мало чим  відрізнялися в цьому плані від Рейган-Шульц. Так само як Буш (старший) був в цьому плані таким же ідіотом як і Обама.

 

Але те, що тепер, то явище унікальне. Воно позапартійне. Тому виглядає так дико і так небезпечно для країни. Тому і починається бунт структур які десятиріччями працювали на збераження американського зовнішньополітичного курсу, незалежно від того, яка партія мала за собою Білий Дім.

Змінено 20 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Silentio

[Uki]

Результат пройобів буша та обами в зовнішній політиці

[Euro]

Неділя, 20 жовтня 2019, 21:36 • Денис Масліков • 19140

В адміністрації Трампа розповіли, чому була затримка з допомогою Україні

 

КИЇВ. 20 жовтня. УНН. В.о. голови апарату президента США Мік Малвейні заперечив, що військова допомога Україні була призупинена через питання співпраці Києва у поточному розслідуванні Міністерства юстиції США щодо втручання в американські вибори 2016 року. Про це Малвейні заявив в інтерв’ю Крісу Волласу на каналі Fox News, повідомляє УНН з посиланням на Голос Америки.

"Ми призупинили допомогу з двох причин. Ми про це багато говорили. Перша причина – це шалена корупція в Україні. Корупція в Україні настільки розповсюджена, що у 2014 році Конгрес прийняв закон, який вимагає від нас запевнитись, що питання викорінення корупції рухається у правильному напрямку… Президент також був занепокоєний, чи інші країни, а саме європейські країни, також допомагають (Україні – ред.)", - заявив в інтерв’ю Малвейні.

Малвейні визнав, що президент у минулому в розмовах з ним, у публічних розмовах з іншими, а також під час телефонної розмови із Зеленським говорив про розслідування атаки на сервер Національного комітету демократичної партії. Втім, це питання, запевнив Малвейні, не мало ніякого відношення до утримання Білим домом військової допомоги.

"Щойно ми переконались, що Україна вирішує питання корупції, про це ми дізнались від наших розмов з президентом Зеленським. Щойно наш Офіс управління бюджетом дослідив питання надання допомоги Україні іншими країнами. Виявляється, що вони не надають майже ніякої летальної допомоги, але вони надають їм значну фінансову нелетальну допомогу. Щойно ці два питання з’ясувалися, гроші були розморожені. Ніколи не було ніякого зв’язку між наданням допомоги та сервером!" - запевнив Малвейні.

[Silentio]

 

"Щойно ми переконались, що Україна вирішує питання корупції, про це ми дізнались від наших розмов з президентом Зеленським

 

 

 

Змінено 20 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Silentio

[Silentio]

Erdogan’s Ambitions Go Beyond Syria. He Says He Wants Nuclear Weapons. 

 

 

David E. Sanger and William J. Broad

 

 

 

New York Times

                                                                                              7 mins ago

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/erdogans-ambitions-go-beyond-syria-he-says-he-wants-nuclear-weapons/ar-AAJ4PPg?ocid=spartanntp

 

Ердогану мало 30 кілометрової зони беезпеки в Сирії. Він хоче тепер ядерну зброю

 

Ну шо, ХуйлоДодік, надавив на Турцію? :weep:

 

Змінено 21 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Silentio

[Uki]

 

 

 

 

Малвені справді це сказав у Кріса Воллеса.... 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZh-0EfkJhU&t=2210s

 

38:50

[Silentio]

Та я вірю 

[Agh]

Свідчення Вільяма Тейлора у Конгресі: 

https://ukrainian.voanews.com/a/teilor-kongres-impichment-trampa/5134755.html

 

Reload Page to see tweet..Link..

Змінено 22 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Zzzz...

[Uki]

Тут діючий посол описує як давили на Україну

 

Opening Statement of Ambassador William B .Taylor

 

October 22 , 2019

Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity to appear today to providemy

perspective on the events thatare the subjectofthe Committees' inquiry. Mysole

purpose isto provide the Committees withmy views about the strategic

importance ofUkraineto theUnited States aswell as additional information about

the incidents in question.

I havededicatedmy life to serving U. S . interests at homeand abroad in both

military and civilian roles. Mybackground and experience arenonpartisan and I

havebeen honored to serve under every administration, Republican and

Democratic, since 1985.

For 50 years, I have served the country , starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an

infantry officer for six years, including with the Division in

Vietnam ; then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff;

then atNATO ; then with the State Departmenthere and abroad in Afghanistan ,

Iraq, Jerusalem , and Ukraine; andmore recently, as Executive Vice President of

the nonpartisan United States Institute ofPeace.

While I have served in many places and in different capacities, I have a particular

interest in and respectforthe importanceofour country' s relationship with

Ukraine. Our nationalsecurity demands that this relationship remain strong

However, in August andSeptemberof this year, I becameincreasingly concerned

that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an

irregular, informalchannel of U . S. making and by the withholding of vital

security assistance for domestic politicalreasons. I hopemyremarkstoday will

help the Committees understandwhy I believed that to be the case

At the outset, I would liketo convey severalkey points. First, Ukraine is a

strategic partner oftheUnited States, important for the security of our country as

well as Europe. Second , Ukraine is, rightat this moment- while we sit in this

room for the last five years, under armed attack from Russia. Third , the

security assistancewe provide is crucialto Ukraine' s defense against Russian

aggression, and, more importantly, sendsa signal to Ukrainians Russians

that we are Ukraine' s reliable strategic partner. And finally, as the Committees are

now aware, I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland

that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political

campaign in the United States would be crazy I believed that then, and I still

believe that

 

Letmenow provide the Committees a chronology of the events that led to my

concern

OnMay 28 ofthis year, Imet with Secretary MikePompeo who askedmeto

return to Kyiv to lead our embassy in Ukraine. Itwas— and is criticaltimein

U . S. -Ukrainerelations: VolodymyrZelenskyy hadjust been elected presidentand

Ukraineremainedatwar with Russia. As the summerapproached, a new

Ukrainian governmentwould be seated, parliamentaryelectionswere imminent,

and the Ukrainian politicaltrajectorywould be set for thenext severalyears.

I had served as Ambassador to Ukrainefrom 2006 to 2009, havingbeen nominated

byGeorge W . Bush, and, in the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with

Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a boardmemberof a smallUkrainian

non-governmentalorganization supporting good governance and reform . Across

the responsibilitiesI have had in public service, Ukraine is specialfor me, and

SecretaryPompeo' s offerto return as ChiefofMission was compelling. I am

convinced ofthe profound importance ofUkraineto the security of the United

States and Europe for two related reasons:

First, ifUkrainesucceeds in breakingfree ofRussian influence, it is possible for

Europeto bewhole, free, democratic, and at peace. In contrast, ifRussia

dominatesUkraine, Russia will again becomean empire, oppressingitspeople,

and threatening itsneighborsand the restofthe world .

Second , with the annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and the continued aggression in

Donbas, Russia violated countless treaties, ignored all commitments , and

dismissed all the principles that have kept the peace and contributed to prosperity

in Europe sinceWorld War II. To restore Ukraine s independence , Russia must

leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be a bipartisan U . S . foreign

policy goal

When I was serving outside of government during the Obama ad

 

ninistration and

after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 , I joined two other former

ambassadors to Ukraine in urging Obama administration officials at the State

Department , Defense Department , and other agencies to provide lethal defensive

weapons to Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression . I also supported

much stronger sanctions against Russia .

 

2

 

All to say, I cared aboutUkraine's future and the important U .S . interests there.

So, when Secretary Pompeo askedme to go back to Kyiv , I wanted to say “ yes.

Butitwasnotan easy decision. The formerAmbassador, Masha Yovanovitch,

had been treated poorly, caughtin a web ofpoliticalmachinations both in Kyiv and

in Washington. I feared that those problemswere stillpresent. When I talked to

her about accepting the offer, however, she urged meto go, both for policy reasons

and for themorale ofthe embassy.

BeforeansweringtheSecretary, I consulted both mywife and a respected former

senior Republicanofficialwhohasbeen amentorto me. I willtell you thatmy

wife, in no uncertain terms, strongly opposed the idea. Thementorcounseled: if

your country asks you to do something you do it you can be effective.

I could be effectiveonly ifthe U . S. policy ofstrong support for Ukraine strong

diplomatic support along with robust security, economic, and technical

assistance — were to continue and if I had the backingofthe Secretary ofState to

implement thatpolicy. I worried aboutwhat I had heard concerning the role of

RudolphGiuliani, who hadmadeseveralhigh-profile statements aboutUkraine

and U . S . policy toward the country. So duringmymeetingwith Secretary Pompeo

on May 28, I made clear to him and the otherspresentthat if U . S . policy toward

Ukraine changed, hewould notwant me posted there and I could notstay He

assuredmethatthe policy of strong support for Ukrainewould continueand that

hewould supportme in defending thatpolicy.

With that understanding, I agreed to go back to Kyiv. Because I was appointed by

the Secretary butnotreconfirmed by the Senate, myofficialposition was Chargé

d 'Affaires ad interim .

 

I returned to Kyiv on June 17, carrying the originalcopy of a letter President

Trump signed the day afterI metwith the Secretary. In that letter, President

Trump congratulated PresidentZelenskyy on his election victory and invited him

to ameetingin the OvalOffice. I also broughtwith me a framed copy ofthe

Secretary ' s declaration thatthe United Stateswould neverrecognize the illegal

Russian annexation of Crimea.

Butonce arrived in Kyiv, I discovered a weird combination ofencouraging,

confusing, andultimately alarming circumstances.

 

First, the encouraging: PresidentZelenskyy was taking overUkrainein a hurry.

Hehad appointed reformistministers and supported long- stalled anti-corruption

legislation. Hetook quick executiveaction, including openingUkraine' s High

Anti-Corruption Court, which wasestablished under the previouspresidential

administration butneverallowed to operate. Hecalled snap parliamentary

elections his partywas so new ithad no representation in the Rada — and later

won an overwhelmingmandate, controlling 60 percent of the seats. With his new

parliamentarymajority, PresidentZelenskyy changed the Ukrainian constitution to

remove absolute immunity from Radadeputies, which had been the sourceofraw

corruption for twodecades. Therewasmuch excitementin Kyiv that this time

thingscould bedifferent- a new Ukrainemightfinally be breaking from its

corrupt, post- Sovietpast.

And yet, I found a confusingand unusualarrangementformaking U .S . policy

towardsUkraine. There appeared to be two channelsof U .S . policy-makingand

implementation, one regularand one highlyirregular. Asthe Chief ofMission, 1

had authority over the regular, formaldiplomatic processes, including the bulk of

the U . S . effort to supportUkraineagainst the Russian invasion and to help it defeat

corruption. This regular channelofU .S . policy-makinghas consistently had

strong, bipartisan supportboth in Congressand in alladministrations since

Ukraine' s independence from Russia in 1991.

Atthe same time, however, therewas an irregular, informalchannel of U . S .

policy-making with respect to Ukraine, onewhich included then - Special Envoy

Volker, Ambassador Sondland , Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I

subsequently learned,Mr. Giuliani. I was clearly in the regular channel, but I was

also in the irregular one to the extent that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland

includedmein certain conversations. Although this irregular channelwas well

connected in Washington , itoperated mostly outside of officialState Department

channels . This irregular channel began when Ambassador Volker, Ambassador

Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Ron Johnson briefed President Trump on

May 23 upon their return from President Zelenskyy s inauguration. The delegation

returned to Washington enthusiastic aboutthe new Ukrainian president and urged

President Trump tomeet with him early on to the U . S . Ukraine

relationship. Butfrom what I understood , President Trump did not share their

enthusias

 

n for a meeting with Mr.Zelenskyy.

 

When I first arrived in Kyiv, in June and July , the actions ofboth the regular and

the irregular channels of foreign policy served the same goal- a strong U . S .

 

Ukrainepartnership butitbecameclear tomeby August that the channelshad

diverged in their objectives. Asthis occurred, I becameincreasingly concerned.

In late June, onethe goals ofboth channelswas to facilitate a visit by President

Zelenskyy to the White House for a meetingwith President Trump, which

PresidentTrump had promised in his congratulatory letter ofMay 29. The

Ukrainianswere clearly eager for the meetingto happen. Duringa conference call

with Ambassador Volker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and

Eurasian Affairs PhilReeker, Secretary Perry, AmbassadorSondland, and

Counselor of the U . S. Departmentof StateUlrich Brechbuhlon June 18, itwas

clear that a meetingbetween the two presidents was an agreed-upon goal.

Butduringmysubsequentcommunicationswith Ambassadors Volker and

Sondland, they relayed to methat the President wanted to hear from Zelenskyy"

before scheduling themeeting in the OvalOffice. Itwas notclear tomewhat this

meant.

On June 27, Ambassador Sondland told meduring a phone conversation that

PresidentZelenskyy needed tomake clear to PresidentTrump thathe, President

Zelenskyy, wasnotstanding in theway of“ investigations. "

I sensed somethingodd when Ambassador Sondland told meon June 28 that he

did notwish to includemostoftheregular interagency participants in a call

planned with PresidentZelenskyy later that day. Ambassador Sondland,

Ambassador Volker, Secretary Perry, and I were on this call, dialing in from

different locations. However, Ambassador Sondland said that hewanted to make

sure noone was transcribing ormonitoringas they added PresidentZelenskyy to

the call. Also , before PresidentZelenskyy joined the call, Ambassador Volker

separately told the U . S. participants that he, Ambassador Volker, planned to be

explicit with PresidentZelenskyy in a one-on- one meeting in Toronto on July 2

aboutwhat PresidentZelenskyy should do to get the White Housemeeting. Again ,

itwasnot clear to meon that call what thismeant, butAmbassador Volker noted

thathewould relay that President Trumpwanted to see rule oflaw , transparency,

but also, specifically, cooperation on investigations to to the bottom of

things.” Once PresidentZelenskyy joined the call, the conversation was focused

on energy policy and the Stanytsia-Luhanska bridge. PresidentZelenskyy also

said he looked forward to the White House visitPresident Trump had offered in his

May 29 letter.

 

I reported on this call to Deputy AssistantSecretaryofState GeorgeKent, who had

responsibility for Ukraine, and I wrote amemofor the record dated June30 that

summarized our conversationwith PresidentZelenskyy.

Bymid-July itwasbecomingclearto methatthemeetingPresidentZelenskyy

wantedwas conditionedon the investigationsofBurismaand allegedUkrainian

interference in the 2016 U . . elections. Itwas also clearthat this condition was

driven by the irregularpolicy channelI had cometo understand was guided byMr.

Giuliani.

On July 10, Ukrainianofficials AlexanderDanyliuk, the Ukrainiannational

security advisor, andAndriy Yermak, an assistantto PresidentZelenskyy, and

Secretary Perry, then-NationalSecurity Advisor John Bolton, Ambassador Volker,

and Ambassador SondlandmetattheWhite House. I did notparticipate in the

meetingand did notreceive a readoutof ituntilspeakingwith theNational

Security Council' s (NSC' ) then-Senior Directorfor European and Russian

Affairs, Fiona Hill, and theNSC' s Director of EuropeanAffairs, Alex Vindman,

on July 19.

On July 10 in Kyiv, metwith PresidentZelenskyy' s chiefof staff, Andrei

Bohdan, and then-foreign policy advisorto the presidentand now Foreign Minister

Vadym Prystaiko, who told methat they had heardfrom Mr. Giulianithat the

phonecall between the two presidentswasunlikelyto happen and that they were

alarned and disappointed. I relayedtheir concernsto Counselor Brechbuhl.

Ina regularNSC secure video -conference callon July 18, heard a staff person

from the Office ofManagementand Budget (OMB) say that there was a hold on

security assistance to Ukrainebut could not say why. Toward the end of an

otherwise normalmeeting, a voice on the call the person wasoff-screen - said

that she was from OMB and thather bosshad instructed her notto approve any

additionalspending ofsecurity assistance for Ukraineuntil further notice. and

others sat in astonishment Ukrainianswere fighting the Russiansand counted

on not only the training andweapons, butalso the assuranceof U .S . support. All

thattheOMBstaffperson said was that thedirectivehad come from the President

to the Chief of Staff to OMB. In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of

our strong support for Ukrainewas threatened. Theirregular policy channel was

runningcontrary to goals of longstandingU .S . policy.

There followed a series of led interagencymeetings, starting at the staff level

and quickly reaching the levelof Cabinet secretaries. At every meeting, the

 

unanimous conclusion was that thesecurity assistance should be resumed, the hold

lifted. Atone point, the Defense Department was asked to perform an analysis of

the effectiveness of the assistance. Within a day , the Defense Departmentcame

back with thedetermination that the assistance waseffective and should be

resumed . Myunderstandingwas that the Secretaries ofDefense and State, theCIA

Director, and the National Security Advisor sought a jointmeeting with the

President to convince him to release the hold, but such a meeting washard to

schedule and the hold lastedwell into September.

The next day on the phone, Dr. Hilland Mr. Vindman tried to reassuremethat

they werenot aware ofany officialchange in U . . policy toward Ukraine, OMB' s

announcement notwithstanding. They did confirm thatthehold on security

assistance forUkraine camefrom Chief of StaffMick Mulvaney and thatthe Chief

of Staffmaintained a skeptical view ofUkraine.

In the sameJuly 19 phone call, they gavemean accountofthe July 10meeting

with the Ukrainian officials at the White House. Specifically, they toldmethat

Ambassador Sondland had connected “ investigations with an OvalOfficemeeting

for PresidentZelenskyy, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly

ended themeeting, tellingDr. HillandMr. Vindman thatthey should havenothing

to do with domestic politics. Healso directed Dr. Hill to the lawyers. Dr.

Hillsaid that Bolton referred to this as a " drug deal” after the July 10

meeting. Ambassador Bolton opposed a call between PresidentZelenskyy and

President Trump outofconcern thatit“ would be a disaster.

Needless to say, the Ukrainians in themeetings were confused . Ambassador

Bolton, in theregular Ukraine policy decision -making channel, wanted to talk

about security , energy , and reform ; Ambassador Sondland, a participant in the

irregular channel, wanted to talk about the connection between a White House

meeting and Ukrainian investigations.

Also during our July 19 call, Dr. Hill informed methat Ambassador Volker had

met with Mr. Giuliani to discuss Ukraine . This caught meby surprise. The next

day I asked Ambassador Volker about that meeting , but received no response . I

began to sense that the two decision making channels the regular and irregular

were separate and at odds.

Later on July 19 and in the earlymorningofJuly 20 (Kyiv time), I receivedtext

messageson a three-way WhatsApptextconversationwith Ambassadors Volker

and Sondland, a record ofwhich I understandhas already been provided to the

 

Committeesby Ambassador Volker. AmbassadorSondland said that a call

between PresidentTrump and PresidentZelenskyy would take place soon.

Ambassador Volkersaid thatwhatwas ostimptis for Zelensky to say thathe

willhelp investigation- and addressany specific personnel issues there are

any "

Later on July 20, I had a phone conversation with Ambassador Sondland while he

was on a train from Paris to London Ambassador Sondland told methathehad

recommended to President Zelenskyy that heuse the phrase , “ I will leave no stone

unturned with regard to investigations when President Zelenskyy spoke with

President Trump .

Also on July 20, I liad a phone conversation withMr. Danyliuk, duringwhich he

conveyed to methatPresidentZelenskyy did notwant to be used as a pawn in a

U . . re- election campaign. The nextday I textedboth Ambassadors Volker and

Sondland aboutPresidentZelenskyy s concern.

On July 25, PresidentTrump and PresidentZelenskyy had the long-awaited phone

conversation. Strangely, even though I wasChiefofMission and was scheduled to

meetwith PresidentZelenskyy alongwith Ambassador Volker the followingday, I

receivedno readoutofthe call from the White House. The Ukrainian government

issued a short, cryptic summary.

During a previously planned July 26 meeting, President Zelenskyy told

Ambassador Volker and methat hewas happy with the call but did not elaborate.

President Zelenskyy then asked about the face-to - face meeting in the Oval Office

as promised in the May 29 letter from President Trump.

Afterour meetingwith PresidentZelenskyy, Ambassador Volker and I traveled to

the front linein northern Donbasto receive a briefingfrom the commander ofthe

forces on the lineof contact. Arrivingfor the briefingin themilitaryheadquarters,

the commanderthanked us forsecurityassistance, butI was aware that this

assistancewas on hold, which made uncomfortable.

Ambassador Volkerand I could see the andhostile Russian-led forces on

the other sideofthedamaged bridgeacross the lineof contact. Over 13,000

Ukrainianshadbeen killed in thewar, one or two a week . More Ukrainianswould

undoubtedlydie withoutthe U .S. assistance.

 

Although I spent themorningof July 26 with President Zelenskyy and other

Ukrainian officials, the first summary of the Trump- Zelenskyy callthat I heard

from anybody insidethe U . S . government was during a phonecall had with Tim

Morrison, Dr. Hill' s recentreplacement attheNSC, on July 28. Mr. Morrison told

methatthe call" could have been better and that President Trumphad suggested

thatPresident Zelenskyy or his staff meet with Mr. Giulianiand Attorney General

William Barr. I did not see any official readout of the call untilitwas publicly

released on September 25.

OnAugust 16 , exchanged textmessageswith Ambassador Volker in which I

learned thatMr. had asked that the United States submit an officialrequest

foran investigation into Burisma' s alleged violations of Ukrainian law , ifthat is

what the United States desired A formal U .S . request to the Ukrainiansto conduct

an investigation based on violations of their own law struckmeas improper, and I

recommended to Ambassador Volker thatwe stay clear. find out the legal

aspects of the question, however, I gave him thenameof a Deputy Assistant

AttorneyGeneral whom I thought would be the proper pointofcontact for seeking

a U .S . referralfor a foreign investigation .

Bymid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for

no reason that I could discern , I was beginningto fear thatthe longstanding U . S .

policy ofstrong support for Ukrainewasshifting. I called Counselor Brechbuhlto

discuss this on August 21. He said that he was not aware of a change of U . S

policy butwould check on the status of the security assistance. Myconcerns

deepened the nextday, on August 22, duringa phone conversation with Mr.

Morrison. I asked him if there had been a change in policy of strong support for

Ukraine, to which he responded, “ itremains to beseen . Healso told meduring

this call that the President doesn ' t wantto provideany assistance atall.” That

was extremely troubling to me. As I had told Secretary Pompeo in May, ifthe

policy of strong support for Ukrainewere to change, I would have to resign. Based

on my callwith Mr.Morrison, I waspreparing to do so .

Just days later, on August 27, Ambassador Bolton arrived in Kyiv andmet with

PresidentZelenskyy. During theirmeeting, security assistance was not

discussed - amazingly, newsofthehold did notleak outuntilAugust29. on the

otherhand, was alltoo aware of and still troubled by the hold. Near the end of

Ambassador Bolton ' s visit, I asked to meet him privately , during which I

expressed to him myserious concern about thewithholding ofmilitary assistance

to Ukraine while theUkrainianswere defending their country from Russian

aggression. Ambassador Bolton recommended that I send a first-person cable to

 

Secretary Pompeo directly, relayingmyconcerns. I wrote and transmitted such a

cable on August 29 describingthe “ folly in withholdingmilitary aid to

Ukraine at a timewhen hostilitieswere stillactive in the east and when Russiawas

watchingclosely to gauge the levelofAmerican support for the Ukrainian

government. I told theSecretary thatI could not and would notdefend such a

policy. Although I received no specific response, I heard thatsoon thereafter, the

Secretary carried the cable with him to a meetingat the White House focused on

security assistance forUkraine.

The same day that I sentmycable to the Secretary, August 29, Mr. Yermak

contactedmeand was very concerned, askingaboutthe withheld security

assistance. The hold that the WhiteHouse had placed on the assistance had just

been madepublic that day in a Politico story. Atthatpoint, I was embarrassed that

I could give him no explanation forwhy itwaswithheld

Ithad stillnotoccurred to methat the hold on security assistance could be related

to the investigations.” That, however, would soon change.

On September 1, just three days aftermy cable to Secretary Pompeo, President

Zelenskyy metVice PresidentPence at a bilateralmeeting in Warsaw . President

Trump had planned to travel to Warsaw butatthe last had cancelled

because ofHurricane Dorian . Just hours before the Pence-Zelenskyy meeting, I

contacted Mr. Danyliuk to let him know thatthe delay of U . . security assistance

was an " allornothing” proposition, in the sense that if the White House did not lift

the hold prior to the end ofthe fiscal year (September 30), the funds would expire

and Ukrainewould receive nothing. I washopefulthatat the bilateralmeeting or

shortly thereafter, the White House would lift the hold, butthis was notto be

Indeed, I received a readout of thePence-Zelenskyy meeting over the phone from

Mr. Morrison, during which he toldmePresidentZelenskyy had opened the

meeting by asking the Vice President about security cooperation. The Vice

President did notrespond substantively, but said thathe would talk to President

Trump that night. The Vice Presidentdid say thatPresident Trump wanted the

Europeansto do more to support Ukraine and thathe wanted the Ukrainiansto do

more to fight corruption .

During this same phone call had with Mr Morrison, he went on to describe a

conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw .

Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would

not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation .

I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told meabout the Sondland -Yermak

 

10

 

conversation . This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance not

just the White Housemeeting — was conditioned on the investigations.

Very concerned, on thatsameday I sent Ambassador Sondland a textmessage

asking if now sayingthat security assistance and [a ] WH meeting are

conditioned on investigations? Ambassador Sondland responded askingmeto

callhim , which I did . During that phonecall, AmbassadorSondland toldmethat

President Trump had told him thathewants PresidentZelenskyy to state publicly

that Ukrainewill investigateBurismaand alleged Ukrainian interferencein the

2016 U . S . election.

AmbassadorSondland also told me that henow recognized thathehadmade a

mistakeby earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke thata White

Housemeetingwith PresidentZelenskyy wasdependenton a public announcement

ofinvestigations fact, AmbassadorSondland said , everything dependent

on such an announcement, including security assistance. Hesaid thatPresident

Trumpwanted PresidentZelenskyy " in a public box” by making a public statement

aboutordering such investigations.

In the sameSeptember 1 call, told Ambassador Sondland that President Trump

should havemore respect for another head of state and that whathe described was

notin the interestof either President Trump or President Zelenskyy. At that point

asked Ambassador Sondland to push back on PresidentTrump s demand.

Ambassador Sondlandpledged to try . Wealso discussed the possibility that the

Ukrainian ProsecutorGeneral, rather than PresidentZelenskyy, would make a

statement about investigations, potentially in coordination with Attorney General

Barr's probe into the investigation ofinterference in the 2016 elections.

Thenext day, September 2, Mr. Morrison called to inform methatMr. Danyliuk

had asked him to come to his hotel room in Warsaw , whereMr. Danyliuk

expressed concern about the possible lossof U .S . for Ukraine. In

particular,Mr. Morrisonrelayed to me that the inability ofany U . S . officials to

respond to theUkrainians explicit questions aboutsecurity assistance was

troubling them . I was experiencing the sametension in my dealingswith the

Ukrainians, including during ameeting I had hadwith Ukrainian DefenseMinister

Andriy Zagordnyuk that day.

Duringmy callwith Mr. Morrison on September 2 , I also briefed Mr. Morrison on

what Ambassador Sondland had told meduring our call the day prior.

 

On September5 , I hosted Senators Johnson andMurphy for a visit to Kyiv

Duringtheir visit, wemet with PresidentZelenskyy . His first question to the

senators was aboutthe withheld security assistance. Myrecollection of the

meeting is thatboth senators stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in

Washington was Ukraine' s mostimportant strategic asset and that President

Zelenskyy should notjeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U . S .

domestic politics.

I had been making (and continue to make this pointto all ofmy Ukrainian official

contacts . But the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to

investigations ofBurisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed

how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular

efforts led byMr. Giuliani.

Two days later, on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr.Morrison in which

hedescribed a phoneconversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland

and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that hehad a " sinkingfeeling after

learningaboutthis conversation from Ambassador Sondland. Accordingto Mr.

Morrison, PresidentTrump told AmbassadorSondland thathewas notasking for a

" pro quo. ButPresident Trump didinsistthatPresidentZelenskyy go to a

microphoneand say he is opening investigationsofBiden and 2016 election

interference, and that PresidentZelenskyy should wantto dothis himself. Mr.

Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone

callbetween President and Ambassador Sondland.

The following day, on September 8 , Ambassador Sondland and I spokeon the

phone. Hesaid hehadtalked to President Trump as I had suggested a week

earlier, butthat PresidentTrump was adamant that PresidentZelenskyy, himself,

had to “ clearthings up and do it in public .” President Trump said itwas not a

" quid pro quo." AmbassadorSondland said that hehad talked to President

Zelenskyy andMr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro

quo, if PresidentZelenskyy did not clear things up public, wewould be at a

stalemate. understood a stalemate mean that Ukrainewould notreceive

themuch-needed military assistance. AmbassadorSondland said that this

conversation concluded with PresidentZelenskyy agreeing to make a public

statementin an interview with CNN .

After the call with Ambassador Sondland on September , I expressed my strong

reservations in a textmessage to Ambassador Sondland, stating thatmy

 

nightmare is they the Ukrainians) give the interview and don ' t get the security

assistance. TheRussians love it. (And I quit.).” I wasserious.

Thenextday, I said to AmbassadorsSondland and Volkerthat" t ]he message to

the Ukrainians(andRussians) we send with the decision on security assistance is

key. With the hold , wehave already shaken their faith in . " I also said, " think

it s crazy to withhold security assistance forhelp with a politicalcampaign.

Ambassador Sondland responded aboutfivehourslaterthat I was " incorrectabout

PresidentTrump' s intentions. The Presidenthasbeen crystalclear no quid pro

quo s ofany kind."

Before textmessages, duringour call on September 8 , Ambassador Sondland

tried to explain to methatPresidentTrump is a businessman. When a businessman

isabout to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the

businessman asks thatperson to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador

Volker used the saineterms severaldays later whilewewere together atthe Yalta

European Strategy Conference. I argued to both thatthe explanation madeno

sense : the Ukrainiansdid not ” President Trumpanything, and holdingup

security assistance for domestic politicalgain was "crazy, " as I had said in mytext

messageto Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9 .

Finally, I learned on September11that the holdhadbeen lifted and thatthe

security assistancewould be provided.

After I learned thatthe security assistance wasreleased on September11, I

personally conveyed the newsto President Zelenskyy and ForeignMinister

Prystaiko. And I again reminded Mr. Yermak ofthehigh strategic valueof

bipartisan support for Ukraine andthe importance ofnotgettinginvolved in other

countries' elections. My fear at the timewas that since Ambassador Sondland had

toldmePresidentZelenskyy already agreed to do a CNN interview , President

Zelenskyywouldmake a statementregarding investigations” thatwould have

played into domestic U .S . politics. I sought to confirm through Mr. Danyliuk that

PresidentZelenskyy was notplanning to give such an interview to themedia.

While Mr. Danyliuk initially confirmedthat on September 12, I noticed during a

meetingon the morning of September 13 at President Zelenskyy' s office thatMr.

Yermak looked uncomfortable in response to the question. Again, I askedMr.

Danyliuk to confirm that there would beno CNN interview , which he did.

 

On September 25 at the UN GeneralAssembly session in New York City,

President Trumpmet PresidentZelenskyy face-to -face. Healso released the

transcriptofthe July 25 call. The United States gave the Ukrainians virtually no

noticeofthe release, and they were livid. Although this wasthe first time I had

seen the details ofPresidentTrump' s July 25 callwith PresidentZelenskyy , in

which hementioned Vice PresidentBiden, had come to understand wellbefore

then that “ investigations was a term that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland used

to mean matters related to the 2016 elections, and to investigations of Burismaand

the Bidens

 

I recognize that this is a rather lengthy recitation ofthe events of the past few

months told from my vantage point in Kyiv But I recognize the importance

of thematters your Committees are investigating , and I hope that this chronology

will provide some framework for your questions.

wish to conclude by returning to the points I madeat the . Ukraineis

importantto the security of the United States. Ithasbeen attacked by Russia ,

which continues its aggression againstUkraine. Ifwe believe in the principle of

sovereignty ofnationson which our security and the security ofour friends and

alliesdepends, we must supportUkraine in its fightagainst its bullyingneighbor.

Russian aggression cannot stand.

There are two Ukrainestories today. The firstis the onewearediscussingthis

morningand that you have been hearing for the pasttwoweeks. Itis a rancorous

story aboutwhistleblowers,Mr.Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption,

and interferencein elections. In this story Ukraineis an object.

Butthere is another Ukrainestory a positive, bipartisan one. In this second story,

Ukraineis the subject. This one is about youngpeoplein a youngnation,

strugglingto break free ofits past, hopefulthat their new governinentwill finally

in new Ukraine, proud ofits independence from Russia, eager to join

Western institutions and enjoy a moresecure and prosperouslife. This story

describes a nation developing an inclusive, democratic nationalism , notunlike

whatwe in America, in our bestmoments, feelabout our diverse country - less

concerned aboutwhat languagewe speak, whatreligion ifanywepractice, where

ourparents and grandparents came from ; moreconcerned aboutbuildinga new

country

 

Because ofthe strategic importance ofUkraine in our effort to create a whole, free

Europe, we, throughRepublican and Democratic administrationsoverthree

decades, have supported Ukraine. Congresshasbeen generousover the years with

assistance funding, both civilian andmilitary, and political support. With

overwhelming bipartisan majorities, Congresshassupported Ukraine with harsh

sanctionson Russia for invading and occupying Ukraine. Wecan be proudof that

support and thatwe have stoodup to a dictator' s aggression against a democratic

neighbor

Itis this second story that I would like to leave you with today .

And I am glad to answer your questions.

Змінено 23 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Uki

[Euro]

Please wait.. Loading

...Шифф непостредственно перед началом слушаний издал обязательную к исполнению повестку о даче свидетельских показаний, на которую Тэйлор сможет ссылаться в будущем как законопослушный гражданин.

- По мнению всех членов Конгресса от демократической партии, участвоваших в слушаниях, и комментаторов ведущих американских СМИ, показания Тэйлора неопровержимо свидетельствуют о наличии того самого "quid pro quo" - вымогательства в действиях Трампа по отношению к Украине, а также злоупотребления властью.
- Билл Тэйлор - уважаемый человек, ему 72 года, 50 из которых он служил стране - начиная от службы в армии (воевал во Вьетнаме) и продолжая многолетней дипломатической службой.

- Вступительное заявление Тэйлора на слушаниях (текст занимает 15 страниц) было по решению членов Конгресса опубликовано. Вот одни из самых значимых выдержек.

- 28 мая Тэйлора пригласил госсекретарь Помпео и опоросил стать временным поверенным в делах США в Украине, заверив его в поддержке Украины со стороны администрации США и в важности налаживания связей с новым руководством Украины. Тэйлор прибыл в Киев через 3 недели.
- "Несмотря на то, что я работал в разных местах и на разных должностях, у меня большой интерес к отношениям нашей страны с Украиной и понимание их важности. Наши национальные интересы требуют поддерживать прочность этих отношений. Однако, в августе и сентябре этого года я становился все больше и больше обеспокоенным тем, что наши отношения с Украиной подвергаются фундаментальному подрыву из-за наличия неофициального, неформального канала формирования американской политики и замораживания жизненно необходимой помощи Украине в области безопасности, для достижения внутриполитических целей".
- "Во-первых, Украина - стратегический партнер США, важный для безопасности нашей страны и Европы. Во-вторых, прямо сейчас, в этот момент, когда мы сидим в этой комнате, и в течение последних пяти лет, Украина находится под военным ударом из России. В-третьих, помощь в области безопасности, которую мы предоставляем, является важной для того, чтобы Украина могла противостоять российской агрессии и, что даже более важно, является сигналом для украинцев - и для русских - что мы являмся надежным стратегическим партнером Украины.
- "Но когда я прибыл в Киев, я обнаружил странную комбинацию подстрекающих, сбивающих с толку и в конечном итоге вызывающих тревогу обстоятельств. Я обнаружил запутанную и необычную схему формирования политики США в отношении Украины. Похоже, что существует два канала разработки и реализации политики США, один регулярный и один крайне нерегулярный".
- "В нерегулярном, неофициальном канале участвовали тогдашний специальный посланник Курт Волкер, посол Европейского союза Гордон Сондленд, министр энергетики Рик Перри и личный адвокат Трампа Руди Джулиани".
- "К середине июля мне стало ясно, что условием встречи (с Трампом в Белом Доме), к которой стремился президент Зеленский, было поставлено расследование дела Бурисмы и украинского вмешательства в выборы 2016 года. Было также ясно, что эти условия поставлены через неофициальный политический канал, который как я понял, возглавлялся мистером Джулиани».
- Далее Тэйлор показал, что узнал 18 июля во время видеосовещания с СНБ, что Бюджетный офис Белого Дома заморозил военную помощь Украине по указанию Трампа.
- "Посол Болтон рекомендовал мне, чтобы я отправил телеграмму напрямую госсекретарю Помпео, рассказав о своих опасениях. Я написал и отправил такую телеграмму 29 августа, описывая ту глупость, которую я увидел в замораживании военной помощи Украине ... Я сказал госсекретарю, что я не мог и не хотел защищать такую политику. Хотя я не получил никакого конкретного ответа, я узнал, что вскоре после этого госсекретарь взял мою телеграмму на совешание в Белом доме, посвященное помощи безопасности для Украины".
- "Посол Сондланд сказал господину Ермаку, что деньги на помощь в области безопасности не будут разморожены, пока президент Зеленский не возьмет на себя обязательство проводить расследование по делу Бурисмы."
- "Во время телефонного разговора посол Сондланд сказал мне, что президент Трамп сказал ему, что он хочет, чтобы президент Зеленский публично заявил, что Украина будет расследовать дело Бурисмы и предположительное вмешательство Украины в выборы в США 2016 года", - заявил Тэйлор.
- "Посол Сондланд пытался объяснить мне, что президент Трамп - бизнесмен. Когда бизнесмен собирается выписать чек кому-то, кто ему что-то должен, - сказал он, - бизнесмен просит этого человека заплатить, прежде чем подписывать чек. Той же аргументации придерживался посол Волкер.
Я же утверждал в ответ, что эти аргументы не имеют никакого смысла: украинцы ничего не "должны" президенту Трампу, а задержка помощи в сфере безопасности ради внутриполитической выгоды - это сумасшествие, как я сказал в своем текстовом сообщении послам Сондланду и Волкеру 9 сентября".
- "Как только я узнал о возобновлении помощи 11 сентября, я сразу же сообщил об этом президенту Зеленскому и министру иностранных дел Пристайко".
- "Ввиду стратегической важности Украины для наших цсилий создать свободную, целостную Европу, мы, при республиканских и демократических администрациях, в течение трех десятилетий, поддерживали Украину. Конгресс проявлял инициативу, выделяя деньги на помощь, гражданскую и военную, и оказывая политическую поддержку. Подавляющим, двухпартийным большинством Конгресс поддержал Украину, введя санкции против России за вторжение и оккупацию Укрины. Мы можем гордиться этой поддержкой и тем, что мы стоим вместе в противостоянии агрессии диктатора против демократического соседа".

* Во вторник Трамп назвал ведущийся против него процесс импичмента "линчеванием" (это слово в США имеет исключительно специфический оттенок в силу истории страны и его употребление вне соответствующего контекста воспринимается крайне болезненно). Трампа осудил за это выражение лидер республиканского меньшинства в Палате Представителей Маккарти. Зато его главный защитник в Сенате сенатор Грэм сказал, что согласен с Трампом, что то, что происходит в Палате Представителей и есть "политическое линчевание".

* Трамп заявлял 3 октября, что лидер республиканцев в Сенате Макконнелл сказал ему, что его разговор с Зеленским был очень нормальным и хорошим. Сегодня Макконнела спросили о том, говорил ли он Трампу нечто подобное. Макконнел ответил, что не припоминает, чтобы вообще обсуждал когда-либо с Трампом этот вопрос.

* Было объявлено, что через месяц выйдет из печати и поступит в продажу книга анонимного автора под названием "Предупреждение". Анонимный автор - тот самый сторудник Белого Дома, который год назад лпубликовал анонимную статью в Нью-Йорк Таймс о наличии сопротивления самым опасным действиям Трампа среди группы сотрудников Белого Дома. Издательство заявило, что книга рассчитана на колеблющихся избирателей, тех, кто голосовал за Трампа в 2016 году, но способен анализировать и изменить свое мнение.

 

[Dilbert]

щось забагато падл, сук хуйловських, давлять на Україну

 

Hungary’s Orban Gave Trump Harsh Analysis of Ukraine Before Key Meeting

The discussion at the White House between President Trump and Prime Minister Viktor Orban was held over objections from Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.

Just 10 days before a key meeting on Ukraine, President Trump met, over the objections of his national security adviser, with one of the former Soviet republic’s most virulent critics, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, and heard a sharp assessment that bolstered his hostility toward the country, according to several people informed about the situation.

Mr. Trump’s conversation with Mr. Orban on May 13 exposed him to a harsh indictment of Ukraine at a time when his personal lawyer was pressing the new government in Kiev to provide damaging information about Democrats. Mr. Trump’s suspicious view of Ukraine set the stage for events that led to the impeachment inquiry against him.

 

The visit by Mr. Orban, who is seen as an autocrat who has rolled back democracy, provoked a sharp dispute within the White House. John R. Bolton, then the president’s national security adviser, and Fiona Hill, then the National Security Council’s senior director for Eurasian and Russian affairs, opposed a White House invitation for the Hungarian leader, according to the people briefed on the matter. But they were outmaneuvered by Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, who supported such a meeting.

As a result, Mr. Trump at a critical moment in the Ukraine saga sat down in the Oval Office with a European leader with a fiercely negative outlook on Ukraine that fortified opinions he had heard from his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia repeatedly over the months and years.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/trump-ukraine-orban.html

Echoing Mr. Putin’s view, Mr. Orban has publicly accused Ukraine of oppressing its Hungarian minority and has cast his eye on a section of Ukraine with a heavy Hungarian population. His government has accused Ukraine of being “semi-fascist” and sought to block important meetings for Ukraine with the European Union and NATO.

Ten days after his meeting with Mr. Orban, Mr. Trump met on May 23 with several of his top advisers returning from the inauguration of Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The advisers, including Rick Perry, the energy secretary; Kurt D. Volker, then the special envoy for Ukraine; and Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, reassured Mr. Trump that Mr. Zelensky was a reformer who deserved American support. But Mr. Trump expressed deep doubt, saying that Ukrainians were “terrible people” who “tried to take me down” during the 2016 presidential election.

Mr. Orban’s visit came up during testimony to House investigators last week by George P. Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state responsible for Ukraine policy. The meeting with Mr. Orban and a separate May 3 phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin are of intense interest to House investigators seeking to piece together the back story that led to the president’s pressure on Ukraine to investigate Democrats.

Mr. Kent testified behind closed doors that another government official had held the two episodes up to him as part of an explanation for Mr. Trump’s darkening views of Mr. Zelensky last spring, according to a person familiar with his testimony. A third factor cited to him was Mr. Giuliani’s influence.

[Euro]

Четверг, 24 октября 2019, 10:25 • Тарас Джмиль • 5955

Республиканцы сорвали слушания представительницы Пентагона по делу об импичменте

 

Источник: Reuters

 

КИЕВ. 24 октября. УНН. Группа американских законодателей от Республиканской партии ворвалась в зал в Палате представителей Конгресса США, где проходили слушания высокопоставленной чиновницы Пентагона, чем помешали ей дать показания, передает Reuters, информирует УНН.

Вчера, 23 октября, группа республиканцев сорвала слушания в Палате представителей сотрудницы Министерства обороны Лоры Купер, участвовавшей в разработке политики в отношении Украины и России.

Группа республиканцев ворвалась в зал, где проходили слушания, помешав Купер дать показания.

По словам одного из помощников из Конгресса, для восстановления порядка в зале пришлось вызывать полицию.

Как рассказал очевидец инцидента, люди, ворвавшиеся в зал заседаний, пронесли мобильные телефоны в помещение, где запрещено пользоваться электронными устройствами.

Республиканцы прорвались через полицию и стали выкрикивать возражения относительно решения проводить слушания в закрытом режиме и не публиковать расшифровки показаний свидетелей.

"Они в панике. Они пытаются остановить это расследование и не хотят слушать показания от Лоры Купер. Они знают, что появятся новые факты, изобличающие президента Соединенных Штатов", - заявил конгрессмен-демократ Тед Лиу.

Республиканцы называют установленные демократами правила проведения расследования несправедливыми. Конституция предоставляет Палате представителей большую свободу действий в плане процесса импичмента и определения правил расследования.

Республиканец Мэтт Гетц, ставший одним из лидеров акции, уже пытался ворваться на слушания на прошлой неделе, однако его не пустили в зал, поскольку он не находится в одном из трех комитетов, которые возглавляют расследования.

Как рассказал демократ Стивен Линч, который является членом Комитета по надзору и имеет право присутствовать на слушаниях, Купер так и не дала показаний. По словам сотрудника Палаты представителей, слушания пока приостановлены.

Законодателей интересует, что известно Купер о возможных угрозах отменить выделенную для Украины военную помощь, пока власти страны не проведут расследование в отношении экс-президента США Джо Байдена - одного из вероятных соперников Трампа на выборах 2020 года.

Купер, занимающая пост помощника министра обороны США по делам России, Украины и Евразии, согласилась дать показания на добровольной основе. Пентагон не препятствовал ее выступлению в Конгрессе.

[Silentio]

 

 

Группа республиканцев ворвалась в зал, где проходили слушания, помешав Купер дать показания.

По словам одного из помощников из Конгресса, для восстановления порядка в зале пришлось вызывать полицию.

OMG....

 

Таки Америка охуїла... Я був правий 2012 року, коли написав це 

[Dilbert]

а шо пише Tea Party про імпічмент?

[Uki]

Виявляється то не хуйло атакував сервер днц, а україна у змові з демократами шоб підставити хуйла та його підстилку 

Вже навіть і кримінальну справу з цього приводу відкрив Барр 

[Agh]

Білий дім відмовиться від підписок на The Washington Post та New York Times, які критикує Трамп  

https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-trump-fake-news-twp-nyt/30235481.html

[Silentio]

Білий дім відмовиться від підписок на The Washington Post та New York Times, які критикує Трамп  

https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-trump-fake-news-twp-nyt/30235481.html

 

Давно пора! Замість них підпишуть "Правду" і "Мацковський комсомолець" ...

[Agh]

Mueller report: Criminal probe into Russia inquiry begins

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50178197

[Citizen UA]

Mueller report: Criminal probe into Russia inquiry begins

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50178197

 

А незалежний суд США, у  відповідь, трохи  поводив Додіку куєм по пиці  

 

Министерство юстиции США до 30 октября должно представить Конгрессу полную версию доклада спецпрокурора Роберта Мюллера о вмешательстве России в президентские выборы 2016 года.

 

Соответствующее решение в пятницу, 25 октября, принял судья в Вашингтоне, сообщает DW.

Необходимость публикации материалов «больше, чем необходимость в поддержании дальнейшей секретности», — заявила судья.

 

Ранее представители Демократической партии, которые обладают большинством в Палате представителей, потребовали доступа к неотредактированному варианту доклада. В рядах демократов хотят использовать публикацию полного доклада Мюллера в рамках рассмотрения процедуры импичмента в отношении президента США Дональда Трампа.

 

Как сообщает Politico, данное решение стало «двойной победой для спикера Палаты представителей Нэнси Пелоси, которая означает, что начатое демократами расследование дела об импичменте действительно, несмотря на то, что палата официально не голосовала за его проведение».

 

Змінено 26 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Citizen UA

[Agh]

Білий дім завадив держдепартаменту США зробити заяву, що засуджує обстріл і захоплення Росією українських військових судів у Керченській протоці в листопаді 2018 року.  

Більше тут: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/10/30/7230544/

[Silentio]

Білий дім завадив держдепартаменту США зробити заяву, що засуджує обстріл і захоплення Росією українських військових судів у Керченській протоці в листопаді 2018 року.  

Більше тут: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/10/30/7230544/

"Трамп всьо дєлаєт правильно" (с)- 

[Вуйко_З_Онтарио]

Правильно для кого\чего? Трамп играет гранд политик смесью шахмат и игры в Чапаева. Потому Украина как и остальные страны для него - инструмент. не более. Чувак не моргнув глазом на следующий день рассказывает про военную помощь Украине для защиты от агрессивной России. Это конечно похоже на шизофрению, но до наступления эпохи политических соплей по шторам, именно так и делалась большая политика в прошлом. 

[Silentio]

Это типтчное поведение пациента психбольницы. Когда такой сидит в кресле пока еще главной страны мира - повод вызывать международных санитаров...

[Silentio]

В прошлом еще топорами друг в друга кидали... Еще один срок Додика и человечество к этому вернется, хотя скорее до топоров еще надо будет подождать пару миллинов лет...

Змінено 31 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Silentio

[Silentio]

И это... НА ВТОРОЙ ДЕНЬ ... Делает не он..

 Делают пока еще работающие американские институции... Госдеп, Пентагон, Конгресс...Бесконечно сие прлолжаться не будет. Однажды не успеют одеть смирительную рубашку или вколоть галоперидол и все...

Змінено 31 жовтня, 2019 користувачем Silentio

[Вуйко_З_Онтарио]

Ну тогда я все правильно делаю. Патронов и сухого корма хватит на первые пол года Зашквара

[Uki]

Ну тогда я все правильно делаю. Патронов и сухого корма хватит на первые пол года Зашквара

 

А Канада тут причому