On Sunday The New York Times published a HUGE update in the Trump-Ukraine foreign aid impeachment “scandal.”
The New York Times reported on new emails released by the Pentagon show that Trump White House officials discussed suspending military aid to Ukraine 91 minutes after President Trump spoke with President Zelensky.
For the record, it’s still not a crime to deny aid to Ukraine.
The email was leaked to The New York Times by the Center for Public Integrity, a George Soros funded organization.
Of course, Senator Chuck Schumer jumped on the report as a reason to call in Democrat witnesses to the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the US Senate.
But, what didn’t get any play by the liberal mainstream media is that the order to withhold funding to Ukraine was actually made 7 days before the call — NOT 91 minutes after the call.
Breitbart.com reported:
The OMB immediately pushed back explaining the aid hold was actually announced seven days prior to Trump’s July 25 phone call and that the Center for Public Integrity was harping on one line within 146 pages of documents that the organization obtained to paint an inaccurate and misleading picture of the timing of the aid hold.
The OMB strongly denied that the email, one of many, had anything to do with Trump’s phone call, explaining the communication was part of an ongoing process put into place one week early.
The email being hyped by the media shows an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, contacted Pentagon officials 91 minutes after Trump’s call with Zelensky to discuss withholding aid.
Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for OMB, told reporters it was “reckless to tie the hold of funds to the phone call.”
“As has been established and publicly reported, the hold was announced in an interagency meeting on July 18,” she said. “To pull a line out of one email and fail to address the context is misleading and inaccurate.”
A senior administration official further said the email was part of a discussion already going on for one week between OMB and the Pentagon about withholding aid.
Just like previous reports — this latest hit piece on President Trump in The New York Times is just another junk report by a completely biased news organization.
How will they add this to the list of Trump lies?
Soro’s is a leftist a total globalsists just like the UN and DNC all they want is a One World Government all under the thumb of the UN
@Spurwing Plover:
soro will never live to see that day. so why do we continue to aid these dirty governments?? the pax American began with the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, and called for the globalization of American economic and political policies. so where is this alleged whistleblower?? in all of the hearing of the house-there is no mention of the alleged whistleblower. if a trial is held in the Senate, the alleged whistleblower should be questioned in open hearings.
Does it never dawn on the left that without lies they would have no reason to hate Trump or accuse him of crimes? Why do they prefer to make themselves miserable?
Since the New York Times is 99% fake news why should anybody be surprised at its leftists lies
Curt, with the realization that folks like Brietbart and Gatewaypundit have gone full blown dis-informational in their efforts to assist the Trump/Fox News “alternative facts” efforts, I get it that real facts or actual laws are not argumentative issues but to clarify the nonsense of:
Well, yeah, it kinda is, particularly under the alleged circumstances.
The Impoundment Control Act says that once Congress appropriates funds (as in the Ukraine funding) and signed by the Executive Branch, “the executive branch must spend those funds. In order for the funds to be withheld, Congress must be informed and must approve”.
There are no “but Soros’ attached to the law.
It’s been known and understood that Trump withheld funding prior to the Ukraine phone call. But it’s still unclear of the exact communication efforts or at what point Trump was willing to release the funds. Were the funds being withheld contingent on Zelensky “doing Trump a favor though” and that Trump simply wasn’t satisfied after the phone call.
So it appears that Trump ordered withholding congressional approved funding to a foreign adversary a week prior to talking to them and then it was reconfirmed 91 minutes after talking to them.
Trump has basically been indicted but hasn’t been tried. He isn’t being tried because the “jury” has refused to call incriminating witnesses or to allow investigative evidence (such as clarifying the above “7 day v 91 minute” argument) all while stating their refusal to convict under any circumstances. In reality (I know, “reality” is a non sequitur in Trump world), the GOP senate simply doesn’t want the embarrassment of having to vote guilty in light of incriminating evidence, that it would look bad to their constituents.
Perhaps you can provide examples where they have spread bold-face lies like the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and the rest of the liberal propaganda arm known as the MSM has. Or, perhaps you can show where Fox, Breitbart, Gateway or Fox have suppressed stories to serve a political favor? Hmmm?
No, it kinda absolutely isn’t illegal. He PROVIDED the aid, but he can withhold it for as long as he wants to… HE creates HIS foreign policy and part of that is making sure US foreign aid does not find its way back into corrupt Americans’ (like the Biden, Pelosi, Kerry tykes) pockets… which happens to be exactly what has been happening and IS illegal.
Not that real factual details matter to a lying liberal zealot in the employ of Soros, but Trump’s words were a favor for “us” and “we” need a favor; i.e., the NATION.
No, it appears one of the sources you dote on was, once again, L Y I N G.
Trump has been accused based on NO evidence. Unless, of course, you want to be that first person to actually provide that evidence; no one else can. But, we all know YOU, least of all people, is capable of that.
@Ronald J. Ward: You have nothing new to add repeating defeated arguments over and over. Jurys dont call witness in any trial ever.
We got nuttin’ Nancy has not filed her rock solid case with the court/Senate.
@kitt:
I agree. But name any fair or balance trial where the jurors are allowed to restrict witnesses or forbid the presenting of evidence- all while promising to declare the defendant innocent prior to being tried.
Aside from damning evidence presented that has over 700 constitutional scholars, 100s of prominent historians, major editorials across the country, and somewhere in the 50% area of American citizens convinced the indictment was correct, and aside from the refusal of the Trump admin and DOJ to allow testimony and demonstrate unprecedented obstruction of the impeachment inquiry, and aside that it isn’t even Nancy’s job to deliver a “rock solid case”, the reasons she hasn’t filed her case has already been established.
Your point seems to be that of your cohort, some desperate need to say something regardless of its accuracy or relevance.
@Ronald J. Ward: You are a fool do you know any of these 700 pseudo scholars? Consensus isnt truth flat earther especially when bias is involved.
Slow down your single brain cell, what does this even mean, not her job?
Who is suppose to present enough evidence for the house to vote on, do you think one Democrat in the house could look at the pile of crap and say we need more for an indictment? Oh yeah, he became a Republican.
Your inane blathering responses prove you know very very little and like the Democrats that had everything before them before they voted are not using logic and reason but driven by fear.
Back to the article:
Office of Management and Budget immediately corrected the record, but you choose to accept the lie told by NYT, rock solid logic on your part. How much intergity does the NGO have, just because they have integrity in their name does that make it true?
@kitt:
You know Kitt, the main driver that keeps me coming back to sites as this is simply to validate my own prognosis of the phenomenon of the Trump cult- that the more he hangs himself or the more atrocous his actions become, the more unhinged folk like you will become. And you are simply a byproduct, the indoctrinated from the top on them. Thing is, you and the GOP senate and the right wing web sites have followed the orders of the con man and Fox News so far down the rabbit hole of deception, mendacity, and alternate fact world that you can do none other than continue to follow the madness and gaslighting. The party of Trump and his followers have truly gone all in.
No, I don’t know a single one. Is that your case? Does that somehow invalidate the penned letter from over 700 scholars who wrote that Trump was “a clear and present danger to the Constitution.” Does my knowing them make it false that they unanimously signed a letter saying:
You see, your arguments are inept and disingenuous yet you must spew something to protect the nonsense of the defense of an obviously flawed and dishonest president.
You guys have really stepped up your game with dishonesty as I never once said or indicted accepting anything from anyone. The bigger question has been-why not allow an investigation? What is it that the GOP Senate, Trump, and the rest of his defenders have to hide?
@Ronald J. Ward: Moron
A court does not investigate, EVER.
A court takes evidence and fact presented to it and makes judgement based on that.
How can Trump be lawless when it is he that goes to the law to make decisions on the constitutionality of the demands of the investigators?(another leap of nonlogic)
A fair trial is only afforded to the accused not the unprepared empty handed prosecutor.
When will you face the fact that Congress voted for an investigation, did that investigation and then voted on the results of that investigation.
You come here to prove to yourself something you already know? Do you also keep looking for your car keys after you have found them?
For your information I dont pay to get lied to, I do not subscribe to cable TV. So I dont see FAUX, MSLSD or Commie news network.
You seem compelled to comment on articles that point out your lying boobtube and propaganda media has been busted in another lie. Lashing out using the most inane debunked retarded and comical ways.
@kitt:
Along with your previous admitted confusion (or intentional obfuscation) on an indictment coming from an inquiry and a criminal trail, you leave out some important variables in whatever point you’re trying to make.
The court gathers this “evidence and fact” precisely where? Generally speaking the prosecution presents their evidence and facts from witnesses and indicators acquired through the investigation. In this case, the “jury” is actually forbidding the prosecution from even presenting evidence or witnesses while declaring they will find the defendant innocent regardless of the trial outcome.
See, this is where reasonable people would have to decide if that’s proper protocol for a Senate trail and would produce a fair and balanced conclusion. If it really isn’t a fair process, that it doesn’t matter if Trump is innocent or not, the rule of law doesn’t apply to him.
Both are disastrous answers which is the reason for the gaslighting, the nonsensical gibberish, the spin and lies from the right, as if they can just bloviate their way out of it by yelling Obama or Hillary or other ridiculous things.
Well, gee, when you put it that way. The only response to that which comes to mind is, I rest my case.
@kitt:How stupid are liberals? Well, they believe impeachment is a popularity contest. They also believe that the majority only gets to determine the rules in the House and only when the Democrats happen to be the majority. This particular liberal is stupid enough to keep referencing “damning evidence” yet can’t produce a single bit of it, but that does not single him out; NO ONE can provide anything based on proof that does so. In the whiny, lying, crybaby world, hurting their feelings makes someone a “threat to the Constitution”, even as they trample the Constitution to get at him.
Office of Management and Budget immediately corrected the record, but you choose to accept the lie told by NYT, rock solid logic on your part. How much intergity does the NGO have, just because they have integrity in their name does that make it true?That’s because only the lies are useful to them. The truth is an impediment. This is why AJ will NEVER cite the truth of facts but will always either lie or leave the truth out of the comments. Always.
@kitt: @#10
@Deplorable Me: @ #14
Did we have an oops moment? You sockpuppets should seriously make an attempt to remember which foot you’re on.
LOL
@Ronald J. Ward: Just stop my sides hurt
It must be hidden under the seats
Ohhh now that would be the sole power of the House, not the Senate, for it to be partial responsibility of the Senate you might need a constitutional amendment, but since idiots like you can be convinced its otherwise they will continue to make argument it is the Senates problem not the House.
Where in the constitution does it say the house shall determine how the senate shall conduct itself?
You lost on your point before you and the unconstitutional House started sky screaming about it the Dems in the house BLEW it in their haste and sloppy fast and furious evidence gathering.
They got nothing to place before the court no one is stopping them from presenting every piece of hearsay and mind reading before the senate not 1 damn thing. They F***ed everything up, it isnt the Senates job nor desire to make it better for them, better luck next time. Both you and I know that 4 times isnt enough. You media lies they keep lying to your confirmation bias. Keep looking for your keys as you are driving away.
So explain how I am confused point of law, process or constitutionally.
@kitt:
Apparently, AJ/Ward doesn’t understand how our system of government works. The House Judicial Committee issued subpoenas for testimony from White House officials, including former White House Legal Counsel, Don McGahn. The President exercised his Executive Privilege, as has every other president including the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., putting the President and the House Judicial Committee at odds. That leaves one solution to the dispute between two branches of our government to be settled by the third branch, the Judiciary. You would think that most, if not all, of the 700 “scholars” who signed the Democracy Project’s petition would know that. Clearly, these “scholars” who are teaching the next crop of lawyers are unaware of that little process.
Of course, Democracy Project is just a bunch of left wing lawyers and law professors who don’t seem to like the system of government, and its remedies, that are currently in place.
As to Nancy Piglosi hanging on to the Articles of Impeachment, she has a plan. The House Judicial Committee, on December 23rd, filed a brief with the DC Court of Appeals asking for the Court to rule that Don McGahn must testify to the House Judicial Committee as it is pertinent to the “ongoing” impeachment investigation.
Whoa, wait a minute……..”ongoing” investigation? But didn’t the House already vote on the Articles of Impeachment? Why, yes, they did. But now they are saying, via their attorney, that the investigation that brought about a vote was incomplete? How can that be? What prosecutor in his right mind would bring about a trial without a complete investigation? I can tell you; one that won’t hold office for long and will lose cases.
Piglosi is sitting on the Articles of Impeachment because the McGahn case is scheduled for a hearing on January 3, 2020 hoping she gets the court decision she is wanting. But even if the DC Court of Appeals rules FOR the House Judiciary Committee, it ain’t a done deal. Next step, USSC.
Piglosi has made one big mistake; she decided that she, through her mouth piece Chucky Schumer, could force the Senate to do what she wants. Oooops. She can’t. She has no authority over the Senate who create their own rules. She can stomp her foot and chomp her chompers, all to no avail. And it is not the responsibility of the Senate to cure the mistakes of the House, the mistake of rushing through an impeachment vote before the impeachment investigation was complete. As to Chucky (The Schmuck) Schumer, my, my how he changed his tune. In 1999, he argued that there was no need for the Senate to call witnesses in the Clinton impeachment. Oooops. Again.
@retire05: Chucky was right in 99 there was already DNA evidence to back up a perjury charge, 1st hand testimony that Clintons lawyers were witness tampering. a loooong investigation by an independent prosecutor. A broken clock is right 2 times per day. He knows the 3 stooges didn’t make a case for either charge. They screech about a fair trial wonder if several Senators havent already made up their mind to vote to remove? Warren, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders.
Had a lovely Christmas, hope yours was joyful as well.
@Ronald J. Ward: Did you happen to notice that you failed to address that fact… TWICE? Soros is NOT going to be happy with the ham-handed manner in which you try to help propagate his lies but flounder when faced with the challenge of supporting your inane points.
@retire05:
No… he doesn’t LIKE how our system of government works. Neither do the Democrats he defends; it gets in the way of the actions of a police state where false accusations and the suppression of justice impede removing political opponents.
They want to delegitimize the process. Like the 2016 and 2020 elections, they want to sow the seeds of distrust so when they lose, they can continue to try to undermine the legitimate actions of our government. When (or if) the Senate gets these garbage articles, and when the logical conclusion that this has been nothing but a temper tantrum of infants and there is NO reason to remove Trump from office, they can stamp their feet and pretend it wasn’t “fair”.