Nadler can’t even get an oath for witnesses right.
How many point of order requests are going to be ignored today? I counted 4 so far but missed the start of this meeting.
Dems hanging hat on no trace of Ukraine meddling in election is going to be there undoing. They say it was exclusively the Russians. It defies logic, that a corrupt country with the highest level of Clinton Foundation donations would sit in the sidelines......
Just because you’re dealing with someone who can speak a developed language and stand erect on 2 feet doesn’t mean you’re dealing with a human intelligence. These dedicated to emotions, lawless progressives are ruled by demons.
goldman totally playing to the camera only, not looking around at the committee
Difference between Schiff and Nadler? Schiff knew exactly what he was doing, Nadler is just brain dead.
Having the dem lawyer drone on about crumbs of circumstance adding up to a pile of crumbs is not going to sway the low info crowd.
Security Assistance. . .there are rules and the president is bound by law to make sure all Security Assistance (Foreign Military Sales) programs are conducted efficiently, cleanly (no corruption) and support US national security.
The dem council made a stupid statement saying there was no US national Security at risk so the president’s call was impeach-worthy. That is silly. . .US national security is the SOLE reason we engage in Security Assistance/FMS.
That council is ignorant (at best) and a liar (at worst).
Trump had/has a legal responsibility to ensure SA/FMS programs are in support of US national security and to certify corruption was under control or being rooted out.
THAT was why Trump legally and in accordance with his responsibility, called the Ukraines new president. . .to make sure the new president’s statements to be the anti-corruption president was true and not just words.
Here is an extract from a draft paper on why we do SA/FMS:
US international arms sales (FMS) are severely restricted by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), section 505, and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), section 3 (22 U.S.C. 2753) and section 4 (22 U.S.C. 2754). Additional controls are defined in countless other policy manuals and service-specific instructions, as well as mandated in the sales contract—LOA.
Why we do FMS:
1. “Access.” The sale of FMS kit and/or capability requires political access to a country’s leadership. Before a FMS sale may proceed, political considerations affecting the current and forecast geo-political environment takes place. If a country decides to establish ties and/or expand relations with the US, then FMS is an excellent way forward to accomplish this goal. Purchasing US military gear is a highly visible political-military step that is noticed world-wide. An FMS sale therefore needs to initially be explored at the highest-level of government—US and the customer country. During initial FMS discussions through delivery and follow-on support, political and military relationships are developed and trust established. Additionally, a “total package approach” (TPA) to FMS is agreed and this ensures long-term political, military and physical access to the country as the program is introduced, activated, maintained and upgraded.
2. “Influence.” FMS expands ties and strengthens ties between the US and the customer country (“Small nations when treated as equals become the firmest of allies” ). These closer ties and stronger relations allows the US to exercise greater influence though political, military and physical means.
Additionally, International Military Education and Training (IMET), is one such avenue of influence. Through IMET, foreign political and military customers attend service school and learn about human rights, civilian control over the military, among other Western attributes, consequently, foreign servicemen are influenced and shaped by US values and traditions.
Influence may also be exercised by suspending deliveries, withholding technical and training support and retaining payments made by the customer (no refunds) if the customer country behaves in a manner that violates the terms and conditions of the FMS contract or act counter to US national security interests.
In addition to the suspension of deliveries, termination of technical and training support will result in US-supplied products grinding to a halt, as military kit requires a high level of maintenance and support, as well as constant training to remain proficient.
3. “Infrastructure,” a vastly important aspect of the US international arms business. Today, the US engages in FMS as a way to keep the defense industry alive. Most NDAA expenditures are for maintenance, modifications, upgrades and personnel. Consequently, new product manufacturing and research and development are limited in scope. This threatens the defense industrial manufacturing base. With FMS, research and development continues and the defense industry remains viable and productive.
The US defense industry and the US government work to ensure they operate within the law, as oversight and reporting requirements are many and in plain view (except for classified programs, they come under different laws and reporting requirements).
Basically, access, influence and infrastructure are the benefits of SA/FMS programs.
Trumps call to the Ukraine was appropriate because he has a DUTY to review ALL FMS countries, too include the Ukraine, to ensure the kit and training are in accordance with the law. Trump would have been in violation if he DID NOT check on the Ukraine because of the well-known corruption that was underfoot.
Point of order!
7
Look at this, this is awesome. This guy accusing Nadler of treason...
https://banned.video/watch?id=5dee5958e11f1d0016d2921e
Is Nadler is trying out for the drum corps?
7
Uh, ...Er...we’ll..on the other hand (pause to grimace) ... (pause to wag head), uh ... mutters, uh,...(let me think about a possible rabbit trail)....what I mean is ....”
The Republican counsel takes 30 minutes to say what any ordinary person could say in 10. Lawyers SHOULD have SOME verbal skill, but not this stammering, confusing, hesitating guy.
So disappointed in him.
