Even the WSJ is now reporting the trade of aid for Biden and Crowdstrike investigation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/diplomat-to-face-questions-about-ukraine-aid-concerns-11571750496?mod=hp_lead_pos2

No quid pro quo if the president says so. I guess.

”A top U.S. diplomat in Kyiv said President Trump made nearly $400 million in aid contingent on the Ukrainian president investigating Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, according to his prepared testimony in the House impeachment inquiry.”

“Tell us what we want Mr Zelensky. It would be a real shame if something happened, by accident of course, to guys at the Eastern Front.“

Did Congress authorize the $400 million in military aid to be contingent on getting dirt on Biden and the Democrats?

Must have or Trump would be doing a very, very bad thing.

IMHO

21 thoughts on “Even the WSJ is now reporting the trade of aid for Biden and Crowdstrike investigation.

  1. The WSJ makes no such claim as the title of your post suggests. It reports only the testimony of Bill Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who apparently imagined some sort of quid pro quo was evident.

    Your post misrepresents the facts.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I misunderstood nothing. WSJ reported “the trade of aid for Biden and Crowdstrike investigation” as an allegation, not a fact. Had Mr. Rothman used WSJ’s own headline instead of substituting his own editorialized version, this would have been clear.

        Like

  2. There is no argument about whether the subject of Biden and certainly Crowdstrike was linked to military aid that it was held back by Trump.

    Mulvaney sealed the deal on that.

    My claim was that the WSJ was “reporting”, which it did.

    And what did it report? The trade deal that has been in the news for weeks. Taylor’s testimony was the latest iteration.

    Your interpretation of what happened, what I said and WSJ reported is flawed, in my opinion.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “There is no argument about whether the subject of Biden and certainly Crowdstrike was linked to military aid that it was held back by Trump.”

      That’s a Big Lie people like Adam Schiff and various news outlets are promoting as ground truth. In the real world there is very much dispute about the linkage you claim. It is not an established fact.

      RE: “Mulvaney sealed the deal on that.”

      Hardly. Mulvaney noted that quid pro quos are common in diplomacy, which is demonstrably true. Joe Biden bragged about the quid pro quo he used to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, for example.

      RE: “My claim was that the WSJ was ‘reporting’, which it did.”

      False. WSJ didn’t report “the trade of aid for Biden and Crowdstrike investigation” as an assertion of its own, as your wording implies, but as an opinion apparently held by Bill Taylor. Go back and look at the headline WSJ gave its own piece. It begins, “Diplomat says…” Your headline passes off hearsay as fact.

      Like

      1. “Mulvaney noted that quid pro quos are common in diplomacy,”… While factually accurate, in this instance it was not about diplomacy. It was about opening an investigation into a political rival. That is NOT what foreign policy should be about. And the use of Giuliani just makes the entire operation outside the normal channels of the State Department appear to be an abuse of power.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “It was about opening an investigation into a political rival.”

          If that were factually true, it should be easy to prove. It is, however, merely an inference with no substantiating facts to support it, and with contrary facts to refute it.

          Like

          1. RE: “I have come to the conclusion that your version of facts is the same as Trump’s.”

            So what? If your “version of facts” is superior, it should be easy to show how. Merely claiming superiority is insufficient.

            Like

          2. It is not MY version of the facts. It IS the facts. You are in complete denial over what Trump has done. Period. End of story.

            You seem to take such great offense of being told you are wrong, and it is you , not I, who thinks that he is superior to all others. You attempt to spread conspiracy theories and deflect form the truth using BS semantics. The truth is, Mr. Roberts, is that you refuse to see what is directly in front of you, you find excuses (or make them up) to defend the indefensible.

            Have at it, sir. I will defend myself as needed.

            Like

          3. RE: “That old pissing contest with a skunk rejoinder from my father is returning.”

            It’s always personal with you in the end, isn’t it?

            Here you can’t support your own position, so you call me a skunk. Is that it?

            Like

      2. “a Big Lie” ?

        I’m guessing that there is no amount of non-partisan professional State Department employees corroborating the clear fact that it is not a “lie” that could convince you otherwise.

        Sad, extremely Sad…

        Liked by 2 people

      3. OK.

        I never thought you’d agree.

        Your first premises are your opinion.

        The last is your misinterpretation of what I wrote. . The article was about the latest news on the arms for investigation issue. WSJ was reporting on that and I said they were reporting on that.

        Seems simple enough.

        Your using Bill Clinton defense. “It depends what you mean by reporting”.

        Besides, unless I was at the hearing, I depend upon hearsay, also known as media.

        So do you.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. RE: “The article was about the latest news on the arms for investigation issue.”

        There is no “arms for investigation issue.” The latest news is only that an allegation to that effect was made by Bill Taylor, but your own source reports that the allegation is disputed.

        Like

        1. There most certainly is an “arms for investigation” issue.

          Whether or not laws were broken is the crux of the investigation.

          Maybe Taylor is lying. Maybe everybody is lying. Maybe the American citizen of Russian birth who invented and still owns Crowdstrike is actually a Ukrainian mole. Maybe Hunter Biden is mafioso.

          Or maybe Trump just thought he could actually use “his” arms to get Zelensky to do his bidding.

          That is what the inquiries are trying to sort out.

          So call it what you want, the issue is arms for investigations into both the Democrats in general and The Biden’s in particular.

          Call it Ukrainegate if you’d like.

          IMHO

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Call it Ukrainegate if you’d like.”

          No thanks. You can repeat the Big Lie all you want. I’ll keep repeating what is factually true: There is no evidence in the public record to support the view that President Trump attempted a quid pro quo with Ukraine.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s