News: FYI:  We have three websites in our inventory: onnidan.com - news, recaps, blogs, black college sports page | onnidan1.com - this forum  | onnidan2.com - composite hbcu football schedule


Author Topic: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?  (Read 1526 times)

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline soflorattler

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,187
    • View Profile
    • The Snake Pit
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #122 on: October 21, 2019, 04:20:03 PM »
 :popcorn:

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline Sierra

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,124
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #125 on: October 22, 2019, 12:03:43 PM »
"Y" is like his co-conspirator, Vet.(Old$h!T). If the subjects aren't to their leaning, their butts locks up.     
Do all the right things for the all the right reasons.Damn the consequences.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #126 on: October 23, 2019, 08:40:31 AM »
I BELIEVE THAT I NOW PRECISELY UNDERSTAND WHY "Y" HAS NOT A WORD TO SAY ON THIS MATTER SINCE IT BECAME NEWS ON SEPT 28, 2019. :nod:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


New testimony undercuts Trump’s claim of no quid pro quo on Ukraine. How will Washington respond?
 
By: Dan Balz

October 22 at 6:53 PM 
The closed-door testimony by the United States’ senior diplomat in Ukraine significantly changes the discussion about whether President Trump withheld military assistance to compel a foreign government to investigate one of his political rivals.

It is no longer a question of whether this happened. It is now a question of how the president explains it and how lawmakers — especially Republicans — choose to respond to it.

The lengthy prepared testimony by William B. Taylor Jr. to the House Intelligence Committee is painstakingly clear in its rendition of events. His account directly contradicts the president and asserts that military assistance was withheld for months as Trump was demanding an explicit statement from Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that he would launch investigations the president wanted.

Taylor’s prepared testimony documents with precision and clarity what he heard, saw, wrote and was asked to respond to over a period of weeks. In his telling, the squeeze on Ukraine, and Trump’s role in it, goes well beyond a single phone call July 25 between the U.S. president and Zelensky.

Trump’s long-standing characterization that there was no quid pro quo runs smack into evidence to the contrary. Characterizations now count for less than explanations. How does he explain what Taylor outlines, which is that Trump was directly linking military assistance to demands that the Ukraine president announce publicly his intention to start investigations into the 2016 campaign and former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden?

Republican lawmakers face a new calculus as they digest the contents of the Taylor testimony. They will have great difficulty denying that the suspension of the aid was being linked to an investigation of a political rival of the president. Will they conclude that what the president did was legitimate? Will they attempt to point in other directions? Will they argue that what Trump did wasn’t right but isn’t impeachable? There’s less room for equivocation about what happened today than there was before.


























Swalwell describes acting Ukraine ambassador's opening statement


 













Following the deposition of William B. Taylor Jr., the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) commented on the opening statement. (The Washington Post)
     
Taylor, who was newly reassigned to the embassy in Kyiv, describes events that took place over several months during the summer as he struggled to make sense of a dual-track diplomatic effort — one run through regular channels and another led by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, whose efforts in Taylor’s view were detrimental to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.



[U.S. envoy says it was told Ukraine aid was contingent on investigations]

Trump has called the July 25 phone call “perfect.” In that conversation, he asked for “a favor” from Zelensky and specifically mentioned 2016 and the Bidens. He has pointed to the rough transcript of the phone call to suggest there was nothing explicit enough in the exchange to warrant an impeachment inquiry, which he has regularly denounced and which he likened Tuesday to “a lynching.”

Taylor’s prepared testimony, however, dramatically undercuts the argument that there was no linkage. Taylor acknowledges that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a central figure in the Ukraine matter, explicitly told Taylor that Trump said there was no quid pro quo. But Taylor’s version of events makes it clear that denying there was no quid pro quo doesn’t square with the facts.



At first, Taylor could not quite put the pieces together, but slowly they fell into place. Taylor, the senior diplomat in Ukraine and a former ambassador to that country, testified that until the president released the rough transcript of the July 25 telephone call with Zelensky, he had not been read into the contents of it.

How Trump's attempt to force a Biden-Ukraine investigation backfired to an impeachment inquiry

The Fact Checker unravels what happened when Trump tried to force an investigation into the false rumor about then-Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine. (Meg Kelly, Sarah Cahlan/The Washington Post)

What he eventually realized, but not until much later, was that the official policy of the United States — a policy of strong support for Ukraine in the face of Russian hostility and military threat — was “undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

Taylor says he was told by another official that Trump had told Sondland he wasn’t asking for a quid pro quo. “But President Trump did insist that President [Zelensky] go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference,” according to the prepared testimony.

[Tuesday’s opening statement of William B. Taylor]

If that is how things played out, that is about as explicit as it can be. And it was shortly after that when Taylor told Sondland and Kurt Volker, who was special envoy for Ukraine, “I think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Days later, the hold on the military aid was lifted.

If there is a contrary version of events, the president is now under pressure to present it. Taylor outlines phone calls, diplomatic cables, face-to-face meetings and text messages among a group of U.S. officials during the period when military aid had been suspended, though for no clear reason other than by order of the president.

The first response from the White House to Taylor’s testimony came in a statement by press secretary Stephanie Grisham. She characterized Tuesday’s developments as part of “a coordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution.”

Ever since Trump released the rough transcript of the telephone call with Zelensky, the president’s position has been continuously weakened.

There was the whistleblower’s complaint that offered background that buttressed the transcript of the telephone call. Other witnesses, including Marie Yovanovitch, who was summarily removed as ambassador to Ukraine, and Fiona Hill, who had been the National Security Council’s top expert on Russia, have presented damning testimony about the two-track diplomatic efforts, Giuliani’s role and what became an internal war inside the administration over who should control Ukraine policy. Taylor’s testimony adds significantly to the chronology of events, and with the kind of documentation that will be difficult to refute.

Taylor will not be the last word in the investigation. Other witnesses will appear before the Intelligence Committee. The White House will have an opportunity to offer additional explanations or a counter narrative. The president’s allies will, too. But what was put into the record Tuesday, unless there is a powerful rebuttal that goes beyond simple denials, makes the debate of the words “quid pro quo” less relevant than the question of how lawmakers react to what happened.
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #127 on: October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM »
I BELIEVE THAT I NOW PRECISELY UNDERSTAND WHY "Y" HAS NOT A WORD TO SAY ON THIS MATTER SINCE IT BECAME NEWS ON SEPT 28, 2019. :nod:

OVER 1,000 VIEWS NOW.  FOLKS NOW HAVE PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF PRECISELY WHAT "y04185" IS. :nod:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


New testimony undercuts Trump’s claim of no quid pro quo on Ukraine. How will Washington respond?
 
By: Dan Balz

October 22 at 6:53 PM 
The closed-door testimony by the United States’ senior diplomat in Ukraine significantly changes the discussion about whether President Trump withheld military assistance to compel a foreign government to investigate one of his political rivals.

It is no longer a question of whether this happened. It is now a question of how the president explains it and how lawmakers — especially Republicans — choose to respond to it.

The lengthy prepared testimony by William B. Taylor Jr. to the House Intelligence Committee is painstakingly clear in its rendition of events. His account directly contradicts the president and asserts that military assistance was withheld for months as Trump was demanding an explicit statement from Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that he would launch investigations the president wanted.

Taylor’s prepared testimony documents with precision and clarity what he heard, saw, wrote and was asked to respond to over a period of weeks. In his telling, the squeeze on Ukraine, and Trump’s role in it, goes well beyond a single phone call July 25 between the U.S. president and Zelensky.

Trump’s long-standing characterization that there was no quid pro quo runs smack into evidence to the contrary. Characterizations now count for less than explanations. How does he explain what Taylor outlines, which is that Trump was directly linking military assistance to demands that the Ukraine president announce publicly his intention to start investigations into the 2016 campaign and former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden?

Republican lawmakers face a new calculus as they digest the contents of the Taylor testimony. They will have great difficulty denying that the suspension of the aid was being linked to an investigation of a political rival of the president. Will they conclude that what the president did was legitimate? Will they attempt to point in other directions? Will they argue that what Trump did wasn’t right but isn’t impeachable? There’s less room for equivocation about what happened today than there was before.


























Swalwell describes acting Ukraine ambassador's opening statement


 













Following the deposition of William B. Taylor Jr., the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) commented on the opening statement. (The Washington Post)
     
Taylor, who was newly reassigned to the embassy in Kyiv, describes events that took place over several months during the summer as he struggled to make sense of a dual-track diplomatic effort — one run through regular channels and another led by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, whose efforts in Taylor’s view were detrimental to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.



[U.S. envoy says it was told Ukraine aid was contingent on investigations]

Trump has called the July 25 phone call “perfect.” In that conversation, he asked for “a favor” from Zelensky and specifically mentioned 2016 and the Bidens. He has pointed to the rough transcript of the phone call to suggest there was nothing explicit enough in the exchange to warrant an impeachment inquiry, which he has regularly denounced and which he likened Tuesday to “a lynching.”

Taylor’s prepared testimony, however, dramatically undercuts the argument that there was no linkage. Taylor acknowledges that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a central figure in the Ukraine matter, explicitly told Taylor that Trump said there was no quid pro quo. But Taylor’s version of events makes it clear that denying there was no quid pro quo doesn’t square with the facts.



At first, Taylor could not quite put the pieces together, but slowly they fell into place. Taylor, the senior diplomat in Ukraine and a former ambassador to that country, testified that until the president released the rough transcript of the July 25 telephone call with Zelensky, he had not been read into the contents of it.

How Trump's attempt to force a Biden-Ukraine investigation backfired to an impeachment inquiry

The Fact Checker unravels what happened when Trump tried to force an investigation into the false rumor about then-Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine. (Meg Kelly, Sarah Cahlan/The Washington Post)

What he eventually realized, but not until much later, was that the official policy of the United States — a policy of strong support for Ukraine in the face of Russian hostility and military threat — was “undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

Taylor says he was told by another official that Trump had told Sondland he wasn’t asking for a quid pro quo. “But President Trump did insist that President [Zelensky] go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference,” according to the prepared testimony.

[Tuesday’s opening statement of William B. Taylor]

If that is how things played out, that is about as explicit as it can be. And it was shortly after that when Taylor told Sondland and Kurt Volker, who was special envoy for Ukraine, “I think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Days later, the hold on the military aid was lifted.

If there is a contrary version of events, the president is now under pressure to present it. Taylor outlines phone calls, diplomatic cables, face-to-face meetings and text messages among a group of U.S. officials during the period when military aid had been suspended, though for no clear reason other than by order of the president.

The first response from the White House to Taylor’s testimony came in a statement by press secretary Stephanie Grisham. She characterized Tuesday’s developments as part of “a coordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution.”

Ever since Trump released the rough transcript of the telephone call with Zelensky, the president’s position has been continuously weakened.

There was the whistleblower’s complaint that offered background that buttressed the transcript of the telephone call. Other witnesses, including Marie Yovanovitch, who was summarily removed as ambassador to Ukraine, and Fiona Hill, who had been the National Security Council’s top expert on Russia, have presented damning testimony about the two-track diplomatic efforts, Giuliani’s role and what became an internal war inside the administration over who should control Ukraine policy. Taylor’s testimony adds significantly to the chronology of events, and with the kind of documentation that will be difficult to refute.

Taylor will not be the last word in the investigation. Other witnesses will appear before the Intelligence Committee. The White House will have an opportunity to offer additional explanations or a counter narrative. The president’s allies will, too. But what was put into the record Tuesday, unless there is a powerful rebuttal that goes beyond simple denials, makes the debate of the words “quid pro quo” less relevant than the question of how lawmakers react to what happened.
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #128 on: October 23, 2019, 09:39:14 AM »
I BELIEVE THAT I NOW PRECISELY UNDERSTAND WHY "Y" HAS NOT A WORD TO SAY ON THIS MATTER SINCE IT BECAME NEWS ON SEPT 28, 2019. :nod:

OVER 1,000 VIEWS NOW.  FOLKS NOW HAVE PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF PRECISELY WHAT "y04185" IS. :nod:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


New testimony undercuts Trump’s claim of no quid pro quo on Ukraine. How will Washington respond?
 
By: Dan Balz

October 22 at 6:53 PM 
The closed-door testimony by the United States’ senior diplomat in Ukraine significantly changes the discussion about whether President Trump withheld military assistance to compel a foreign government to investigate one of his political rivals.

It is no longer a question of whether this happened. It is now a question of how the president explains it and how lawmakers — especially Republicans — choose to respond to it.

The lengthy prepared testimony by William B. Taylor Jr. to the House Intelligence Committee is painstakingly clear in its rendition of events. His account directly contradicts the president and asserts that military assistance was withheld for months as Trump was demanding an explicit statement from Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that he would launch investigations the president wanted.

Taylor’s prepared testimony documents with precision and clarity what he heard, saw, wrote and was asked to respond to over a period of weeks. In his telling, the squeeze on Ukraine, and Trump’s role in it, goes well beyond a single phone call July 25 between the U.S. president and Zelensky.

Trump’s long-standing characterization that there was no quid pro quo runs smack into evidence to the contrary. Characterizations now count for less than explanations. How does he explain what Taylor outlines, which is that Trump was directly linking military assistance to demands that the Ukraine president announce publicly his intention to start investigations into the 2016 campaign and former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden?

Republican lawmakers face a new calculus as they digest the contents of the Taylor testimony. They will have great difficulty denying that the suspension of the aid was being linked to an investigation of a political rival of the president. Will they conclude that what the president did was legitimate? Will they attempt to point in other directions? Will they argue that what Trump did wasn’t right but isn’t impeachable? There’s less room for equivocation about what happened today than there was before.


























Swalwell describes acting Ukraine ambassador's opening statement


 













Following the deposition of William B. Taylor Jr., the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) commented on the opening statement. (The Washington Post)
     
Taylor, who was newly reassigned to the embassy in Kyiv, describes events that took place over several months during the summer as he struggled to make sense of a dual-track diplomatic effort — one run through regular channels and another led by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, whose efforts in Taylor’s view were detrimental to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.



[U.S. envoy says it was told Ukraine aid was contingent on investigations]

Trump has called the July 25 phone call “perfect.” In that conversation, he asked for “a favor” from Zelensky and specifically mentioned 2016 and the Bidens. He has pointed to the rough transcript of the phone call to suggest there was nothing explicit enough in the exchange to warrant an impeachment inquiry, which he has regularly denounced and which he likened Tuesday to “a lynching.”

Taylor’s prepared testimony, however, dramatically undercuts the argument that there was no linkage. Taylor acknowledges that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a central figure in the Ukraine matter, explicitly told Taylor that Trump said there was no quid pro quo. But Taylor’s version of events makes it clear that denying there was no quid pro quo doesn’t square with the facts.



At first, Taylor could not quite put the pieces together, but slowly they fell into place. Taylor, the senior diplomat in Ukraine and a former ambassador to that country, testified that until the president released the rough transcript of the July 25 telephone call with Zelensky, he had not been read into the contents of it.

How Trump's attempt to force a Biden-Ukraine investigation backfired to an impeachment inquiry

The Fact Checker unravels what happened when Trump tried to force an investigation into the false rumor about then-Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine. (Meg Kelly, Sarah Cahlan/The Washington Post)

What he eventually realized, but not until much later, was that the official policy of the United States — a policy of strong support for Ukraine in the face of Russian hostility and military threat — was “undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

Taylor says he was told by another official that Trump had told Sondland he wasn’t asking for a quid pro quo. “But President Trump did insist that President [Zelensky] go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference,” according to the prepared testimony.

[Tuesday’s opening statement of William B. Taylor]

If that is how things played out, that is about as explicit as it can be. And it was shortly after that when Taylor told Sondland and Kurt Volker, who was special envoy for Ukraine, “I think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Days later, the hold on the military aid was lifted.

If there is a contrary version of events, the president is now under pressure to present it. Taylor outlines phone calls, diplomatic cables, face-to-face meetings and text messages among a group of U.S. officials during the period when military aid had been suspended, though for no clear reason other than by order of the president.

The first response from the White House to Taylor’s testimony came in a statement by press secretary Stephanie Grisham. She characterized Tuesday’s developments as part of “a coordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution.”

Ever since Trump released the rough transcript of the telephone call with Zelensky, the president’s position has been continuously weakened.

There was the whistleblower’s complaint that offered background that buttressed the transcript of the telephone call. Other witnesses, including Marie Yovanovitch, who was summarily removed as ambassador to Ukraine, and Fiona Hill, who had been the National Security Council’s top expert on Russia, have presented damning testimony about the two-track diplomatic efforts, Giuliani’s role and what became an internal war inside the administration over who should control Ukraine policy. Taylor’s testimony adds significantly to the chronology of events, and with the kind of documentation that will be difficult to refute.

Taylor will not be the last word in the investigation. Other witnesses will appear before the Intelligence Committee. The White House will have an opportunity to offer additional explanations or a counter narrative. The president’s allies will, too. But what was put into the record Tuesday, unless there is a powerful rebuttal that goes beyond simple denials, makes the debate of the words “quid pro quo” less relevant than the question of how lawmakers react to what happened.
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #129 on: October 23, 2019, 10:49:01 AM »
US' top diplomat Taylor was told Trump wanted aid withheld until Ukraine said it would investigate Biden

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-deposition-text-messages/index.html

 (CNN)The top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, testified Tuesday that he had been told President Donald Trump would withhold military aid to the country until it publicly declared investigations would be launched that could help his reelection chances — including into former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a copy of Taylor's opening statement obtained by CNN.

Taylor said he was told that "everything" Ukraine wanted — from a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to hundreds of millions in security aid — was dependent on publicly announcing an investigation that included Burisma, the company that hired Biden's son Hunter, and Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 election.

Taylor's explosive testimony is likely to add fuel to Democrats' impeachment inquiry into Trump and Ukraine, with Democratic lawmakers leaving the closed door session before three House committees declaring Taylor's testimony was damning for the President. The testimony also undercuts White House assertions that there was no "quid pro quo" tying security assistance with the opening of an investigation, as Taylor says he was told repeatedly that the two were linked.
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #130 on: October 23, 2019, 10:53:14 AM »
THIS IS WHY "y04185" HAS BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN QUID PRO QUO INCIDENT:

TRUMP HAS:

1. He patently obstructed justice
2. He tried to create a hostile environment for witnesses.
3. He filed fraudulent taxes with at least two different books for his corporations.
4. He filed, on behalf of his now wife, a fraudulent visa exemption claim.
5. He directed his ‘fixer’ to use campaign funds to pay hush money for marital affairs.
6. That minuteman raw dogged a porn actress...and paid her $130K
7. His personal lawyer is under federal indictments
8. Several former staffers are already in prison, and will be joined by several others very soon.   :popcorn:
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 11:23:08 AM by CIAA-FAN »
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #131 on: October 23, 2019, 11:24:31 AM »
I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS STRING AND I WILL HAVE A DEFINING POST IN A FEW DAYS. STAY TUNED.  :nod:
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #132 on: October 23, 2019, 12:30:56 PM »
I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS STRING AND I WILL HAVE A DEFINING POST IN A FEW DAYS. STAY TUNED.  :nod:
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline CIAA-FAN

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,485
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #133 on: October 23, 2019, 03:44:38 PM »
I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS STRING AND I WILL HAVE A DEFINING POST FOR ALL, IN A FEW MORE DAYS. STAY TUNED.  :nod:

 :nod:
I'm an Army Civilian and former Soldier on the Army Team. I'm dedicated to my Army, Soldiers and Civilians. I will always support the mission. I provide stability and continuity during war and peace. I'll support and defend the Constitution and consider it an honor to serve our nation and my Army.

Offline soflorattler

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,187
    • View Profile
    • The Snake Pit
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?
« Reply #134 on: October 23, 2019, 06:19:13 PM »
Re: WHY HAS "Y" BEEN SO SILENT ON THE UKRAINIAN SCANDAL?

 :popcorn:

 

2019 Onnidan HBCU Composite Football Schedule

Support Our Efforts

Support our efforts

With all the divisive rhetoric on social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, websites such as ours, especially message boards, are under the watchful eye of the Internet giants. And those giants are coming down hard on sites like this one due to the perception of the need for better "oversight".

We recognize the cultural conflict that exists and over the past few months we've been accused of allowing content in posts/threads that supposedly violates some advertiser's policies. Those threads weren’t an issue in the past, but for some reason, they are an issue now. And we are being penalized (financially) because of it.

 

As a result we are coming to you directly for your financial support>

 

Please consider supporting our efforts to foster free and open discussion of current issues as they relate to the topics you are interested in. You can use the Cash App and contribute to $onnidan, or process your donation through PayPal below.

=OW= 


 

Onnidan's HBCUSports Logo
News

 

 

Powered by EzPortal