JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[a fan]

OK. By your policy, even though we'd be laughing at Turkey, we'd support them as a NATO ally over our non-ally fighting partner SDF ?
obtw -- there's no mechanism to expel a NATO member.

Boy, that's a tough solve. Amend the document, or threaten to withdraw from NATO.

Does your policy allow us to go after terrorists who attack US citizens (at home or abroad) & partner with non-treaty "allies" in the process.
We have a post-911 AUMF (with no end state or end date) which authorizes combat operations.

My policy? If we're going back in time and enacting "my policy"? The US would never have been hit by terrorists in the first place.

We would not have overthrown the 51 election in Iran. Iran would be a democracy this very day. And never have been a threat to the US. Most Iranians would have no idea where America was, and would never have reason to chant "death to America".

Guess what that means? It means we would never have bankrolled, armed, and gave military training to Saddam. Not only would we not have to do that because Iran wouldn't have been a threat to the US... we wouldn't have prop up Saddam because (drumroll), we have a different strategy. So now there's no invasion in 91, because there's no need...and, again, that's not our strategy.

Afghanistan? Russia would still be dealing with that in 2019 had we not intervened. And who would OBL and others blame for their lot in life? That's right. Russia. Another problem solved.

Our large scale presence in the ME dates back to Desert Shield/Storm in '91. We stayed for the next 12 years, policing no fly zones, bombing to protect Iraqi civilians & to enforce UN resolutions, & going back into Iraq for Operation Provide Comfort to protect the Iraqi Kurds,
All that was done with the approval of Congress, including assembling a 150 nation coalition to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Yep. And all part of our interventionist policy.

Do you consider Desert Storm lawful ?

I'm not a lawyer. I'd imagine the answer is yes, but I don't know.

[old salt]

OK. By your policy, even though we'd be laughing at Turkey, we'd support them as a NATO ally over our non-ally fighting partner SDF ?
obtw -- there's no mechanism to expel a NATO member.

Boy, that's a tough solve. Amend the document, or threaten to withdraw from NATO.

Does your policy allow us to go after terrorists who attack US citizens (at home or abroad) & partner with non-treaty "allies" in the process.
We have a post-911 AUMF (with no end state or end date) which authorizes combat operations.

My policy? If we're going back in time and enacting "my policy"? The US would never have been hit by terrorists in the first place.

We would not have overthrown the 51 election in Iran. Iran would be a democracy this very day. And never have been a threat to the US. Most Iranians would have no idea where America was, and would never have reason to chant "death to America".

Guess what that means? It means we would never have bankrolled, armed, and gave military training to Saddam. Not only would we not have to do that because Iran wouldn't have been a threat to the US... we wouldn't have prop up Saddam because (drumroll), we have a different strategy. So now there's no invasion in 91, because there's no need...and, again, that's not our strategy.

Afghanistan? Russia would still be dealing with that in 2019 had we not intervened. And who would OBL and others blame for their lot in life? That's right. Russia. Another problem solved.

Our large scale presence in the ME dates back to Desert Shield/Storm in '91. We stayed for the next 12 years, policing no fly zones, bombing to protect Iraqi civilians & to enforce UN resolutions, & going back into Iraq for Operation Provide Comfort to protect the Iraqi Kurds,
All that was done with the approval of Congress, including assembling a 150 nation coalition to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Yep. And all part of our interventionist policy.

Do you consider Desert Storm lawful ?

I'm not a lawyer. I'd imagine the answer is yes, but I don't know.

OK. Now apply your policy to Trump & his successors. They can't undo history. They can only play the hand they're dealt.
BOTH Obama & Trump have tried to reduce our presence in the ME.

Obama just bailed, leaving it for Iran to dominate. The result :
-- AQ morphed into IS & conquered a caliphate.
-- Iran (through proxy militias) fomented civil war in Syria & Yemen.

^^^ that's what Trump inherited. He's employing a strategy to marginalize IS & contain/deter Iran, using a By-With-Through military strategy, as opposed to a large scale traditional military strategy. This requires far fewer US forces & enables "allies" to share more of the burden.
It's unrealistic to expect total disengagement & withdrawal. The region is not yet stable enough. We'd be drawn back in.

[calourie]

Ukraine got the aid only because of a court ruling, had nothing to do with Trump or his obvious intentions.

What court ruling ? Plz explain.

Are you asserting that Trump intended to withhold the aid past 30 Sep, so it could no longer be authorized ?
If yes, plz explain the basis for that assertion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ukraine- ... f57940ff34

Here's the gist of what I was trying to say. Trump's actions are so corrupt I've given up on following the specifics laid out by his defenders.

[a fan]

OK. Now apply your policy to Trump & his successors. They can't undo history. They can only play the hand they're dealt.
BOTH Obama & Trump have tried to reduce our presence in the ME.

Obama just bailed, leaving it for Iran to dominate. The result :

Respectfully disagree, and you know that. Bush and Congress decided, foolishly, to take Saddam out.

THAT is why Iran is "left to dominate". WE did that. America. We did this by CHOICE, and are now paying the price.

AQ morphed into IS & conquered a caliphate.

And we wiped them out because they were dumb enough to come out in the wide open. Overall? Not a bad outcome if we're already committed to sticking our nose into the region.

Iran (through proxy militias) fomented civil war in Syria & Yemen.

Troops in Iraq wouldn't stop that, sorry. Iraq, Syria, and Yemen are different countries. We were only in one of them.

that's what Trump inherited. He's employing a strategy to marginalize IS & contain/deter Iran, using a By-With-Through military strategy, as opposed to a large scale traditional military strategy. This requires far fewer US forces & enables "allies" to share more of the burden.
It's unrealistic to expect total disengagement & withdrawal.

This is where we're having two different conversation.

My debate with you is simple. You told me he was isolationist. Or had isolationist tendencies....whichever you prefer.

I"m saying in plain terms: you're incorrect. Having smaller forces because of current conditions coupled with new tech (drones, etc.) doesn't mean that Trump has changed our strategy. All he's changed are our tactics.

In other words: I'm right.

As for your paragraph above, that's the part where YOU are right. Playing the hand dealt, and as I said 1,000 times, there are no right moves in the ME. I'm not blaming Trump for this cr*p any more than I blamed Obama.

That said, that doesn't mean that I don't get to get angry when we send in what will surely be long term troops in Syria.

[old salt]

Ukraine got the aid only because of a court ruling, had nothing to do with Trump or his obvious intentions.

What court ruling ? Plz explain.

Are you asserting that Trump intended to withhold the aid past 30 Sep, so it could no longer be authorized ?
If yes, plz explain the basis for that assertion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ukraine- ... f57940ff34

Here's the gist of what I was trying to say. Trump's actions are so corrupt I've given up on following the specifics laid out by his defenders.

Thanks. I though that's what you were referencing. Here's what I make of that :

It reinforces my contention that Trump never intended to deny Ukraine the aid.
He was legally constrained in his ability to do so. It was going to be released, regardless.
He was using it for leverage. QPQ ? Sure, OK. QPQ's are part & parcel of diplomatic horse trading.

Zelensky's CNN appearance is being cited as a big deal.
FZ usually scores the first interview with newly elected foreign leaders.
Any evidence that Zelensky was going to recite the QPQ talking points in that interview with FZ ?

[foreverlax]

Ukraine got the aid only because of a court ruling, had nothing to do with Trump or his obvious intentions.

What court ruling ? Plz explain.

Are you asserting that Trump intended to withhold the aid past 30 Sep, so it could no longer be authorized ?
If yes, plz explain the basis for that assertion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ukraine- ... f57940ff34

Here's the gist of what I was trying to say. Trump's actions are so corrupt I've given up on following the specifics laid out by his defenders.

Thanks. I though that's what you were referencing. Here's what I make of that :

It reinforces my contention that Trump never intended to deny Ukraine the aid.
He was legally constrained in his ability to do so. It was going to be released, regardless.
He was using it for leverage. QPQ ? Sure, OK. QPQ's are part & parcel of diplomatic horse trading.

Zelensky's CNN appearance is being cited as a big deal.
FZ usually scores the first interview with newly elected foreign leaders.
Any evidence that Zelensky was going to recite the QPQ talking points in that interview with FZ ?

Sure it is...we want a certain behavior and we'll pay for it

QPQ's are part & parcel of diplomatic horse trading.

And yet, never before have we heard a president ask a foreign leader to investigate their political opponent....not your run of the mill diplomacy, no matter how hard some try to paint it as so.

[old salt]

OK. Now apply your policy to Trump & his successors. They can't undo history. They can only play the hand they're dealt.
BOTH Obama & Trump have tried to reduce our presence in the ME.

Obama just bailed, leaving it for Iran to dominate. The result :

Respectfully disagree, and you know that. Bush and Congress decided, foolishly, to take Saddam out.
Yes. You keep defaulting to the way back machine to make excuses. It was Obama's responsibility to deal with the ME as he found it.
THAT is why Iran is "left to dominate". WE did that. America. We did this by CHOICE, and are now paying the price.
Obama made the decision to withdraw. Where's the treaty with Iran ?

AQ morphed into IS & conquered a caliphate.

And we wiped them out because they were dumb enough to come out in the wide open. Overall? Not a bad outcome if we're already committed to sticking our nose into the region.
Not a bad outcome ? Look at the death & devastation from the rise & fall of ISIS & their Caliphate ?

Iran (through proxy militias) fomented civil war in Syria & Yemen.

Troops in Iraq wouldn't stop that, sorry. Iraq, Syria, and Yemen are different countries. We were only in one of them.
A residual force in Iraq would have nipped the rise of IS in the bud & denied them their Caliphate, That would have dramatically altered the Syrian civil war & given the then moderate rebels the CIA supported a chance to topple Assad, before Russia intervened.

that's what Trump inherited. He's employing a strategy to marginalize IS & contain/deter Iran, using a By-With-Through military strategy, as opposed to a large scale traditional military strategy. This requires far fewer US forces & enables "allies" to share more of the burden.
It's unrealistic to expect total disengagement & withdrawal.

This is where we're having two different conversation.

My debate with you is simple. You told me he was isolationist. Or had isolationist tendencies....whichever you prefer.
That's why I specifically said "tendencies", to avoid your all or nothing trap.

I"m saying in plain terms: you're incorrect. Having smaller forces because of current conditions coupled with new tech (drones, etc.) doesn't mean that Trump has changed our strategy. All he's changed are our tactics.
Huge difference in size, scope & risk. Staying 'til stable vs staying forever.

In other words: I'm right.
No you're not. Trump's strategy is based on gradual US withdrawal. Obama's strategy was based on immediate withdrawal. The Bush strategy was based on staying forever.

As for your paragraph above, that's the part where YOU are right. Playing the hand dealt, and as I said 1,000 times, there are no right moves in the ME. I'm not blaming Trump for this cr*p any more than I blamed Obama.

That said, that doesn't mean that I don't get to get angry when we send in what will surely be long term troops in Syria.
I'm not sure that's the case. If it's this small # of SDF enablers, at little to no risk, funded by SDF oil$, I'm ok with it, to keep a boot on IS's neck.

[old salt]

Ukraine got the aid only because of a court ruling, had nothing to do with Trump or his obvious intentions.

What court ruling ? Plz explain.

Are you asserting that Trump intended to withhold the aid past 30 Sep, so it could no longer be authorized ?
If yes, plz explain the basis for that assertion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ukraine- ... f57940ff34

Here's the gist of what I was trying to say. Trump's actions are so corrupt I've given up on following the specifics laid out by his defenders.

Thanks. I though that's what you were referencing. Here's what I make of that :

It reinforces my contention that Trump never intended to deny Ukraine the aid.
He was legally constrained in his ability to do so. It was going to be released, regardless.
He was using it for leverage. QPQ ? Sure, OK. QPQ's are part & parcel of diplomatic horse trading.

Zelensky's CNN appearance is being cited as a big deal.
FZ usually scores the first interview with newly elected foreign leaders.
Any evidence that Zelensky was going to recite the QPQ talking points in that interview with FZ ?

Sure it is...we want a certain behavior and we'll pay for it

QPQ's are part & parcel of diplomatic horse trading.

And yet, never before have we heard a president ask a foreign leader to investigate their political opponent....not your run of the mill diplomacy, no matter how hard some try to paint it as so.

That's why I said it was a stupid thing for Trump to do.

[jhu72]

Ukraine got the aid only because of a court ruling, had nothing to do with Trump or his obvious intentions.

What court ruling ? Plz explain.

Are you asserting that Trump intended to withhold the aid past 30 Sep, so it could no longer be authorized ?
If yes, plz explain the basis for that assertion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ukraine- ... f57940ff34

Here's the gist of what I was trying to say. Trump's actions are so corrupt I've given up on following the specifics laid out by his defenders.

Thanks. I though that's what you were referencing. Here's what I make of that :

It reinforces my contention that Trump never intended to deny Ukraine the aid.
He was legally constrained in his ability to do so. It was going to be released, regardless.
He was using it for leverage. QPQ ? Sure, OK. QPQ's are part & parcel of diplomatic horse trading.

Zelensky's CNN appearance is being cited as a big deal.
FZ usually scores the first interview with newly elected foreign leaders.
Any evidence that Zelensky was going to recite the QPQ talking points in that interview with FZ ?

The wheels on the bus go round and round …

[a fan]

Yes. You keep defaulting to the way back machine to make excuses.

Pot. Kettle. You always use the wayback machine and stop at point where you can pretend like Obama invaded Iraq, not Bush. If we're going to go back in time, go back to before this lunacy started.

Obama made the decision to withdraw. Where's the treaty with Iran ?

You lost me..what's the point here?

Not a bad outcome ? Look at the death & devastation from the rise & fall of ISIS & their Caliphate ?

Would you prefer to look at the death and devastation from the Iraq War and its aftermath? No. Of course not. People only die when Democrats are President according to you.

A residual force in Iraq would have nipped the rise of IS in the bud & denied them their Caliphate

And they would still be underground, and blowing stuff up all over the world. Hard pass.

That would have dramatically altered the Syrian civil war & given the then moderate rebels the CIA supported a chance to topple Assad,

Topple Assad? You haven't learned a thing, have you?

Who's going to replace him? You think someone who likes warm hugs? Remember if you and McCain had your way, we would have armed ISIS rebels. Whoops.

You'll never learn. You STILL think we can "arm the right guys" after 50 years of failures playing that game. We armed Saddam, remember? And you want to try that again?

And by toppling Assad, you'd make Iran even MORE powerful in the region. For heaven's sake, you just complained about empowering Iran in one place, and now you want to give them more power in another.

That's why I specifically said "tendencies", to avoid your all or nothing trap.

And that's fine. It's still wrong.

Huge difference in size, scope & risk. Staying 'til stable vs staying forever.

You still think we're leaving? Yeah, ok. Keep thinking that.

No you're not. Trump's strategy is based on gradual US withdrawal.

Actions say otherwise. We're still in every country. You can't claim this until we leave a nation. That

I'm not sure that's the case. If it's this small # of SDF enablers, at little to no risk, funded by SDF oil$, I'm ok with it, to keep a boot on IS's neck.[/color]

Oh come on. We're going to pick up the tab. We always do. And we can't leave....when will terrorism go away. Answer: never.

We can't leave any of these nations based on Trump's strategy.

[old salt]

Yes. You keep defaulting to the way back machine to make excuses.

Pot. Kettle. You always use the wayback machine and stop at point where you can pretend like Obama invaded Iraq, not Bush. If we're going to go back in time, go back to before this lunacy started.
I do. I always go back to '91. I've always acknowledged that Bush invaded Iraq & Obama withdrew.

Obama made the decision to withdraw. Where's the treaty with Iran ?

You lost me..what's the point here?
You insist on honoring only treaties, except the JCPOA, of course.

Not a bad outcome ? Look at the death & devastation from the rise & fall of ISIS & their Caliphate ?

Would you prefer to look at the death and devastation from the Iraq War and its aftermath? No. Of course not. People only die when Democrats are President according to you.There you go again, in your way back machine. The rise of IS & their Caliphate was not inevitable. Obama left the door wide open.

A residual force in Iraq would have nipped the rise of IS in the bud & denied them their Caliphate

And they would still be underground, and blowing stuff up all over the world. Hard pass.
You're ignoring the facts. IS barely existed in 2010 & they're ineffective again. Look at the devastation the wrought in the interim.

That would have dramatically altered the Syrian civil war & given the then moderate rebels the CIA supported a chance to topple Assad,

Topple Assad? You haven't learned a thing, have you?

Who's going to replace him? You think someone who likes warm hugs? Remember if you and McCain had your way, we would have armed ISIS rebels. Whoops.
Putin's favorite Syrian General. You confuse me with McCain & Obama's CIA.

You'll never learn. You STILL think we can "arm the right guys" after 50 years of failures playing that game. We armed Saddam, remember? And you want to try that again?
No so. The Iraqi & Syrian turned out to be a good bet. Couldn't have wiped out IS without them. They both still took their lumps when they ignored our advice not to overreach on autonomy & hold onto Arab & Turkman land.

And by toppling Assad, you'd make Iran even MORE powerful in the region. For heaven's sake, you just complained about empowering Iran in one place, and now you want to give them more power in another.
Assad's already Iran's ally. McCain & Obama's CIA had a moderate Arab Syrian Nationalist in mind.

That's why I specifically said "tendencies", to avoid your all or nothing trap.

And that's fine. It's still wrong.

Huge difference in size, scope & risk. Staying 'til stable vs staying forever.

You still think we're leaving? Yeah, ok. Keep thinking that.

No you're not. Trump's strategy is based on gradual US withdrawal.

Actions say otherwise. We're still in every country. You can't claim this until we leave a nation. That
I've watched a lot of "leaving' from Cold War bases in Europe. I guess it's all or nothing by your standard.

I'm not sure that's the case. If it's this small # of SDF enablers, at little to no risk, funded by SDF oil$, I'm ok with it, to keep a boot on IS's neck.[/color]

Oh come on. We're going to pick up the tab. We always do. And we can't leave....when will terrorism go away. Answer: never.

We can't leave any of these nations based on Trump's strategy.

[old salt]

Yes. You keep defaulting to the way back machine to make excuses.

Pot. Kettle. You always use the wayback machine and stop at point where you can pretend like Obama invaded Iraq, not Bush. If we're going to go back in time, go back to before this lunacy started.
I do. I always go back to '91. I've always acknowledged that Bush invaded Iraq & Obama withdrew.

Obama made the decision to withdraw. Where's the treaty with Iran ?

You lost me..what's the point here?
You insist on honoring only treaties, except the JCPOA, of course.

Not a bad outcome ? Look at the death & devastation from the rise & fall of ISIS & their Caliphate ?

Would you prefer to look at the death and devastation from the Iraq War and its aftermath? No. Of course not. People only die when Democrats are President according to you.There you go again, in your way back machine. The rise of IS & their Caliphate was not inevitable. Obama left the door wide open.

A residual force in Iraq would have nipped the rise of IS in the bud & denied them their Caliphate

And they would still be underground, and blowing stuff up all over the world. Hard pass.
You're ignoring the facts. IS barely existed in 2010 & they're ineffective again. Look at the devastation they wrought in the interim.

That would have dramatically altered the Syrian civil war & given the then moderate rebels the CIA supported a chance to topple Assad,

Topple Assad? You haven't learned a thing, have you?

Who's going to replace him? You think someone who likes warm hugs? Remember if you and McCain had your way, we would have armed ISIS rebels. Whoops.
Putin's favorite Syrian General. You confuse me with McCain & Obama's CIA.

You'll never learn. You STILL think we can "arm the right guys" after 50 years of failures playing that game. We armed Saddam, remember? And you want to try that again?
No so. The Iraqi & Syrian Kurds turned out to be a good bet. Couldn't have wiped out IS without them. They both still took their lumps when they ignored our advice not to overreach on autonomy & hold onto Arab & Turkman land.

And by toppling Assad, you'd make Iran even MORE powerful in the region. For heaven's sake, you just complained about empowering Iran in one place, and now you want to give them more power in another.
Assad's already Iran's ally. McCain & Obama's CIA had a moderate Arab Syrian Nationalist in mind.

That's why I specifically said "tendencies", to avoid your all or nothing trap.

And that's fine. It's still wrong.

Huge difference in size, scope & risk. Staying 'til stable vs staying forever.

You still think we're leaving? Yeah, ok. Keep thinking that.

No you're not. Trump's strategy is based on gradual US withdrawal.

Actions say otherwise. We're still in every country. You can't claim this until we leave a nation. That
I've watched a lot of "leaving' from Cold War bases in Europe. I guess it's all or nothing by your standard.

I'm not sure that's the case. If it's this small # of SDF enablers, at little to no risk, funded by SDF oil$, I'm ok with it, to keep a boot on IS's neck.[/color]

Oh come on. We're going to pick up the tab. We always do. And we can't leave....when will terrorism go away. Answer: never.

We can't leave any of these nations based on Trump's strategy.

[Trinity]

Former NSA Bolton says Trump screwed the Kurds for his own business interests.
Rick Gates says Trump knew all about Wikileaks. Roger Stone says...nothing?
This Impeachment Inquiry is truly earned.

[youthathletics]

[Trinity]

He should send all his people to testify and clear this up.

[Typical Lax Dad]

He should send all his people to testify and clear this up.

Yep. It shouldn’t take long. Must be a long list of people that can vouch for him.

[old salt]

From George Kent's opening statement. I don't recall a US President or Secretary of State telling us that this is US policy re Ukraine.
...afan wants to see the Treaty obligating us for all this.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/ ... eorge-kent

THE UNITED STATES HAS VERY CLEAR NATIONAL INTEREST AT STAKE IN UKRAINE. UKRAINE'S SUCCESS IS VERY MUCH IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST. IN THE WAY WE HAVE DEFINED OUR NATIONAL INTEREST BROADLY IN EUROPE FOR THE PAST 75 YEARS.

SUPPORT OF UKRAINE'S SUCCESS ALSO FITS SQUARELY INTO OUR STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE SINCE THE FALL OF THE WALL 30
YEARS AGO THIS PAST WEEK. A EUROPE TRULY WHOLE, FREE AND AT PEACE...IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT A UKRAINE, WHOLE, FREE AND AT PEACE, INCLUDING CRIMEA, TERRITORIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY RUSSIA.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY MAKES CLEAR THE GLOBAL STRATEGIC CHALLENGE NOW BEFORE US. GREAT POWER COMPETITION WITH RIVALS SUCH AS RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE NEED TO COMPETE FOR POSITIVE INFLUENCE. WITHOUT TAKING COUNTRIES FOR GRANTED. IN THAT SENSE, UKRAINE HAS BEEN ON THE FRONT LINES, NOT JUST OF RUSSIA'S CONVENTIONAL WAR IN EASTERN EUROPE SINCE 2013 AND ITS BROADER CAMPAIGN OF INFLUENCE, BUT THE GREATER GEO POLITICAL INFLUENCES NOW FACING THE UNITED STATES.

UKRAINE'S POPULAR REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014 FORCED A CORRUPT PRO RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP TO FLEE TO MOSCOW. AFTER THAT, RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE, OCCUPYING 7% OF ITS TERRITORY... AT THAT TIME, UKRAINE'S STATE INSTITUTIONS WERE ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE. UKRAINIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ANSWERED THE CHALLENGE. THEY FORMED VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS OF CITIZENS, INCLUDING TECHNOLOGY OFFICIALS AND MEDICS. THEY CROWDSOURCED THEIR BODY WEAPONS AND SUPPLIES. THEY WERE THE EQUIVALENT OF OUR MINUTEMEN OF 1776. BUYING TIME FOR A REGULAR ARMY. SINCE THEN, MORE THAN 13,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED ON UKRAINIAN SOIL DEFENDING THEIR SOVEREIGNTY FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. AMERICA'S SUPPORT IN UKRAINE'S OWN DE FACTO WAR OF INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN CRITICAL IN THIS REGARD.

CONGRESS HAS GENEROUSLY APPROPRIATED OVER $1.5 BILLION OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS IN TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. THESE FUNDS INCREASE UKRAINE'S STRENGTH AND ABILITY TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. UKRAINE IS ON A PATH TO BECOME A FULL SECURITY PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN NATO. SIMILAR U.S. AND NATO ALLY TRAINERS DEVELOP THE SKILLS OF UKRAINIANS. THEY HELP REWRITE MILITARY EDUCATION FOR UKRAINE'S NEXT GENERATION. IN SUPPORTING UKRAINE'S BRAVE RESISTANCE TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AGGRESSION, WE HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THE RUSSIAN WAY OF WAR IN THE 21st CENTURY. GAINING PRICELESS INSIGHTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR OWN SECURITY.

THIS YEAR IN 2019, UKRAINIAN CITIZENS PASSED THE POLITICAL TORCH TO A NEW GENERATION. ONE THAT CAME OF AGE NOT IN THE FINAL YEARS OF THE SOVIET UNION, BUT IN AN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE. PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS SWEPT OUT MUCH OF UKRAINE'S PREVIOUS GOVERNING ELITE AND CEDED 41-YEAR-OLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, A CABINET WITH AN AVERAGE AGE OF 39 AND A PARLIAMENT WITH THE AVERAGE AGE OF 41. AT THE HEART OF THAT CHANGE MANDATE FIVE YEARS AFTER UKRAINE'S REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IS A THIRST FOR JUSTICE BECAUSE THERE CANNOT BE DIGNITY WITHOUT JUSTICE. WITHOUT A REFORMED JUDICIAL SECTOR THAT DELIVERS JUSTICE WITH INTEGRITY FOR ALL, UKRAINIAN SOCIETY WILL REMAIN UNSETTLED. FOREIGN INVESTORS, INCLUDING AMERICAN INVESTORS WILL NOT BRING THE GREAT INVESTMENT NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT UKRAINE'S LONG-TERM PROSPERITY IS SECURED. THIS IS WHY THE PRINCIPLED PROMOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY IS SO NECESSARY TO OUR STRATEGY FOR A SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE. IT'S ALSO TRUE FOR OTHER NATIONS STILL RECOVERING FROM THE ASHES OF SOVIET AND COMMUNIST MISRULE. IT'S WHY ACTING INCONSISTENTLY WITH THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF THE RULE OF LAW COMES AT GREAT PERIL.

I'M GRATEFUL TO ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS... WHO HAVE... OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS... BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ASSISTANCE...
THOSE FUNDS INCREASE UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN THE DEFENSE, ENERGY, CYBER, AND INFORMATION SPHERE AND THEY EMPOWER STATE INSTITUTIONS IN CIVIL SOCIETY TO UNDERTAKE SYSTEMIC REFORMS AND TACKLE CORRUPTION. ...MUCH REMAINS TO BE DONE.

WE CANNOT ALLOW OUR RESOLVE TO WAIVER, SINCE TOO MUCH IS AT STAKE. NOT JUST FOR UKRAINE AND THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY, BUT FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES BROADLY DEFINED.

UKRAINE IS ON A PATH TO BECOME A FULL SECURITY PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN NATO.
WE HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THE RUSSIAN WAY OF WAR IN THE 21st CENTURY. GAINING PRICELESS INSIGHTS
Oh Boy !!! I can't wait.

[a fan]

Um. Call me silly, but perhaps he's talking about US Intel gains now that a new leader is in the Ukraine, working with US Intel?

Why are you making fun of this?

[old salt]

Um. Call me silly, but perhaps he's talking about US Intel gains now that a new leader is in the Ukraine, working with US Intel?

Why are you making fun of this?

OK. You're silly. He's saying we're preparing Ukraine to become a NATO ally.
" ON A PATH TO BECOME A FULL SECURITY PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN NATO."

We already have intel co-operation. We pay for it.

Amb Taylor said -- " Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States. Important for the security of our country, as well as Europe.
Ukraine is on the front line in the conflict with a newly aggressive Russia.

Who signed us up for that. Where's the Treaty ?

[a fan]

We already have intel co-operation. We pay for it.

He's clearly referring to the new administration.

Amb Taylor said -- " Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States. Important for the security of our country, as well as Europe.
Ukraine is on the front line in the conflict with a newly aggressive Russia.

Who signed us up for that.

Trump did, remember? He sent them aid.