The Democratic Case for Impeaching Trump

Why was the U.S. giving money to Ukraine in the first place?

10 thoughts on “The Democratic Case for Impeaching Trump

  1. Not that there’s anything wrong with a little corruption in high – or low – places – greases the wheels, you know – but in any event, it’s all Gospodin Putin’s fault…. 😉

    Henri

  2. Re: “Why was the U.S. giving money to Ukraine in the first place?”

    Answer: To pay for the completion of ethnic cleansing of Russians who live in eastern Ukraine … to pave the way for the additional “gift” of US missile installations that would allow 5-minute flight time to the Kremlin … essentially insuring WWIII.

    But remember, it is RTP© (Rootin’ Tootin’ Putin), who is the aggressor here!!!

    The Dems are impeaching His Hairness (aka “Trump”) because he seemed to have slowed down this process by threatening to withhold the first round of “gifts.”

    • Just more evidence for how dastardly those Russians – and Gospodin Putin in particular – are, falco. If only the latter could be replaced by a convenient puppet like Gospodin Yeltsin of sainted memory, then the US could use the Russians as cannon fodder in its on-going war with China. Alas, as long as the current Russian leadership continues in office – where are you when we need you Gospodin Navalny ? – that project will remain stillborn….

      Henri

      • In the 3rd Debate, Secretary Clinton promised regime change in Syria and Russia on Day 1, and the establishment said Putin would have no choice but to say, ‘Yes, Ma’am,’ and step down with the entire Russian government so the US could appoint a Russian-Americans government, since the US had completely disarmed Russia when Yeltsin was president, and all Putin’s weapons that he displays every National Day are just Photoshop.
        These are the same people who told us how easy Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan would be, so we know they must have been right yet again.

  3. Then there was the little matter of the 5 billion dollars spent by the US to do the coup in Ukraine, in the words of a victorious Victoria Nuland.

    And the only coverage Nuland received in the broadcast media was an out of context “F*** the EU”.

    “American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland’s Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to “Subvert Ukraine”

    “After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via “Europe”).

    Victoria Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, leader of the younger generation of “neo-cons”. After serving as Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson, she is now undersecretary of state for Europe and Eurasia.” Diana Johnstone

    Hear Victoria Nuland’s very concise, almost victorious speech.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

    • There is no chance that Biden’s son would have a job in Ukraine, for which he had no qualifications, that pays tens of thousands of dollars per month, had the Ukraine coup never happened.

      Emollients for all the coup masters, R’s and D’s.

      An “investigation” into Biden’s son would be as easy as a news report (if colonial USA allowed a freer media in Ukraine than in the “Homeland”) of those who lost jobs to Americans after the Nuland engineered coup in Ukraine.

  4. We need to sell military hardware and services. Much our aid is an indirect subsidy to the military suppliers.

    Of the $400M being threatened to be withholding, over 60% was mandated for purchases to DOD. For example, we just sold them $39M worth of Javelin missiles at $260k each. According to the DOD budget, we paid $175k for each missile. The year before we sold them 210 missiles at these inflated prices. We know that us military overpays for everything.. Several hundred missiles are probably worth at least $25M in profit to the defense contractor.

    This approach is repeated for everything

    • @Rakle2
      The deal is that the money NEVER LEAVES THE UNITED STATES – the government doles it out, it immediately goes to the weapons contractor, THEY ship the equipment to the country that paid for it, plus a crew to train the foreign country’s military how to use the things unless they are rifles or food.

      It’s another extension of the military contractor welfare that gave us no-bid contracts in the Bush years and NATO expansion east under the Clinton admin, where the big prize was getting everybody to build F-16 copies in their old MiG-building aviation factories (PZL in Poland was a big catch.)

Leave a Reply