You decide, the Axios headline or this Review's headline:

Jacob Knutson / Axios: Pence denies Ukraine quid pro quo despite testimony 

Or this comprehensive headline:

  Dems argue for quid pro quo despite the denials of President Trump,  VP Mike Pense,  our Secretary of State Pompeo,  the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Ukraine,  the President of the Ukraine,  and the fact that the military aid in question was withheld before the infamous phone call,  and was given to Ukraine 20 days later without even the hint of an investigation into the crooks we know as Hunter and Joe Biden.  

Who gives a care as to any testimony to the contrary.  the Review's headline trumps all contrary headlines and BS testimoney   . . . . . .   period.

All Democrat lawyers all the time. Their first crap effort didn't work so they have decided to do more of the same.

AOL :   A second whistleblower has come forward with information about President Donald Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine, according to attorneys representing that whistleblower and the intelligence official whose earlier complaint set off a series of events culminating in an impeachment inquiry.
"I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General," attorney Andrew Bakaj told NBC News.

Editor's notes:  Do you have any idea why there is no quid pro quo as relates to the Ukraine phone call?  Answer:  because Trump put a stop on the promised military aid a month before the call was made, AND,  when the military was finally sent,  it was without so much as a hint of an investigation into the Biden family    . . . .   no investigation means no possibility of a quid pro quo,   period.    

Here is a critical conversation regarding withholding military aid to Ukraine that will be completely ignored by Trump's Opposition.

Here is part of a text converation between Bill Taylor,  a top diplomate in the Ukraine and the Ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland

Taylor:  As I said on the phone,  I think its crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

Sondland replies:  Bill,  I believe you are incorrect aboutPresident Trump's intentions.  The President has been crystal clear:  no quid pro quo's of any kind.  The President is trying to evaluate whether Unkraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during the campaign.  I suggest we stop the back andforth by text.

Sept 9, 2019.

This conversation establishes Trump's true intentions well before the release of the whistleblower complaint . . . .   about three weeks before said complaint. This timeline is critical because it references Trump's intent well before any knowledge of a complaint.  In other words,  this conversation is not a defense/explanation against a complaint,  but rather a clarification as to what the President did when he decided to withhold military aid for a period of time in order to confirm a policy move in the Ukraine against government corruption.  And "yes,"  the aid was withheld in the month prior to the complaint's release.  Timelines are important, and the Opposition is ignoring the timeline.

The readership should also note that this military aid was eventually given to Ukraine but WITHOUT any hint of an Ukraine investigation into Biden   . . . .   a timeline of events that destroys the fantasy of a quid pro quo.  

FYI: As is my policy, I will wait to give a full report on the "transcrpt" events of the morning . . . . too many claims to "facts" at this point, too many to sort through. Here is what we know at this moment:

Update:  according to Bret Baier (Fox News)  we now know more than what was known by the whistleblower.  

FYI: As is my policy,  I will wait to give a full report on the "transcript" events of the morning  . . . .   too many claims to "facts" at this point,  too many to sort through.

Suffice it to say that there was no quid pro quo requests/demands from the President as there was in the Biden statement ("fire the prosecutor or we will withhold 1.2 billion dollars in federal aid to Ukraine").

We also know that the manuscript/transcript was the end result of 4 or 5 Intel agents and their transcriptions as the phone call was taking place, not the result of listening to a recording of the phone call.  Turns out that recordings are not made of such international conversations  . . . .   true for all Presidents.

It will be soon forgotten,  but the concern of the Inspector General as parroted by the Dems,  was based on the transcription process as represented in this post.  No one listend to or complained about the phone call to Ukraine based on a recording of said phone call and "no one" includes the I.G. andor any Democrat opponent of the President.

I doubt that I will add to this post before tomorrow or the following day  ~  editor

All in all, Putin has won round one of the new Cold War. Next stop? Ukraine . . . . . . or is it South America?

(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin signed laws completing Russia's annexation of Crimea on Friday, as investors took fright at a U.S. decision to slap sanctions on his inner circle of money men and security officials.  (Editorial note: what does down,  will come up, mark my words.  The deed is done and Obama/EU look like the sitting ducks they are).  

Putin promised to protect a bank partly owned by an old ally, which Washington has blacklisted, and his spokesman said Russia would respond in kind to the financial and visa curbs.

Russian shares fell sharply after President Barack Obama also threatened on Thursday to target major sectors of the economy if Moscow tried to move on areas of Ukraine beyond the Black Sea peninsula. The financial noose began to tighten as Visa and MasterCard stopped processing payments for a Russian bank owned by two brothers on the U.S. blacklist.

European Union leaders - who like Obama insist Crimea is still part of Ukraine - expressed their determination to reduce the bloc's reliance on Russian energy, and signed a political deal with the Kiev leadership that took over after Moscow-backed President Viktor Yanukovich's ouster last month.

Editor's notes:  If the Russian markets are anything like ours, investors will recoup their losses,  and begin investing once again,  albeit in alternative stocks (perhaps).  In other words,  this ploy of the West and the EU will accomplish nothing.  The notion that Russia can be broken via financial pressure from the West,  is another LaLa Utopian myth  -  a "fact" only in the minds of those who can live outside of temporal reality.  

Despite a slight downgrade of the Russian economy,  there is no more reason to believe this is more critical than the downgrade levied against the American economy,  during the first two years of Obama.  Neither the downgrade or reprisals against a couple of dozen investors,  who were warned by Obama more than two weeks ago,  is expected to alter human events in the pro-Russian world.  All in all,  Putin has won round one of the new Cold War.  Next stop?  Ukraine  . . . . . .  or is it South America?  

Big question?  Has Putin already laid a foundation in Latin America that cannot be resisted by a do-nothing American foreign policy?  

_______________

Related articles:  

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-strategy/201305-putins-quiet-play-for-latin-america

Israel's judgment of America's "we have your back" claims? So much bull.

Critical points highlighted in red by blog editor

Senior minister says Israel can’t rely on US

By GIL HOFFMAN      03/20/2014 01:46

Another senior minister in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s cabinet sharply criticized American foreign policy Tuesday, anonymously joining the open attack by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon.

Speaking to journalists in the Knesset, the minister said the Americans’ handling of the crisis in Ukraine proved that Israel could no longer rely on the United States. He said it was clear to everyone that the US had never intended to take military action against the Russians.

“The lesson of this crisis screams to the sky,” the minister said. “US foreign policy is collapsing all over the world. America showing weakness in Russia has implications on the Palestinian front. Israel cannot be Ukraine. It is ridiculous to hear about American guarantees for Israeli security, which would at best last a few weeks. When we’re in danger, they won’t be there to defend us. We must be the sole guarantors of Israeli security.”  

(Source: Jerusalem Post, here:  http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Senior-minister-says-Israel-cant-rely-on-US-345924 )

Editor's notes:  Sadly,  Obama's opinion of the Jews is the same as the average street-wise black man.  Listen to Jeremiah Wright talk about the Jews or Louis Farrakhan  -  men Obama gave attention to for more than two decades before becoming our most recent OverLord.  He has never intended to support Israel,  and his Israeli/Palestinian "solution" proves the point.  

"Racialization"  is a rhetorical tool some black candidates use to get themselves elected,  in  primarily white districts.  They pacify the white voter, with "white talk,"  win the election,  and, then, do what Democrats usually do  -  work to accomplish their own agenda with no regard for the will of the people.  In the end,  campaign rhetoric is most often as a meaningless ploy to get or remain in power.  This is exactly what Obama has done,  and is doing,  with his talk of  "Israeli support."  

Understand that when the Ukraine asked for military arms from the US,  Obama proposed sending military food rations, instead,  and called, "Supporting our friends in Ukraine."  (Note: The food rations have, yet, to be sent.)

Israel knows the meaning of this sort of double talk,  and the American people are beginning to wake up to Obama's inherent dishonesty,  as well.  

______________

Related articles: 

U.S. Balks at Ukraine Request for Military Aid - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405270230491490...‎

The Wall Street Journal

Mar 13, 2014 - Ukraine appealed for arms, ammunition and intelligence support, ... But the Obama administration has agreed to send only military rations for .

1. U.S. eyes military supplies for Ukraine, seeks to avoid ... - Reuters

   www.reuters.com/.../us-ukraine-crisis-pentagon-idUSBREA2J2DS...‎

   Reuters

   11 hours ago - Obama's critics, including Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, have lambasted the hesitancy, saying last week the United States should not be "imposing an arms embargo on a ... He noted the food rations have not been delivered yet. ... Why would we have Poland in NATO, and not Ukraine?

1. US Food for Ukraine is M.I.A.

   Daily Beast ‎- 1 day ago

   The only help Obama has offered the Ukrainian military are militaryrations, ... The Obama administration has rejected, for now,Ukrainian requests for direct military assistance. That policy, along with the delay in sending the food that was ... promised MREs in place of requested weapons to the Free Syrian ...

Obama’s Betrayal of Israel as a Jewish StateMarch 10, 2014 by Joseph Klein 

". . . . .    spokeswoman for the State Department, Jen Psaki, stated in an interview Saturday with the “Al-Quds” newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”

While the Left cheers "sanctions" and talk of peace, Putin continues his assault on Crimea and Ukraine.

Why Putin Will Buckle Under Sanctions 

Russia may be talking a big game when it comes to Ukraine, but the Kremlin knows full well it can’t afford prolonged economic warfare.

Whatever Vladimir Putin’s talent at bullying, he cannot hide his country’s fundamental weakness.  The economy behind this show of force is in no position to withstand even the least strain.  It is distorted, fragile, and volatile.  Russia needs oil and gas sales to the West more than the West needs Russian oil and gas, and Russia, needs the West for just about everything else.  If it comes to an economic confrontation, Russia would not stand a chance.  As diplomats try to disarm the situation, hopefully without strong-arm tactics of any kind, they can gain from knowledge of how uneven an economic contest would be. . . . . . .   (editorial opinion from the Left leaning Daily Beast)

Editor's notes:  Problem with the above diplomatic theory:  while sanctions might work,  years and years down the road,  Putin and the growing Russia Cabal will have done so much harm to the free people it seeks to control,  that "victory" will be nothing more than an empty claim,  especially to those whose lives will have been ruined or lost during the interm.  

We have been down this nonsensical road before.  Jimmy Carter nearly destroyed our military might and was made to look the fool,  during the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis,  a crisis that ended with the release of those hostages on the same afternoon Ronald Reagan was sworn into office  . . . . . . . .  the same afternoon.  It was the threat of military force,  not the Utopian fantasies of a Leftist president,  that ended the crisis.

What are our options to the Russian challenge?  We have none.  Obama's do-nothing diplomacy cannot be repaired in time to prevent or,  even, amend Putin's expressed ambitions concerning Crimea and his growing threat against Ukraine.  Obama and his peace-nik friends have sat around,  busily refusing military support to the region,  unilaterally cancelling missile defense systems/treatises with The Czech Republic and Poland and against their pleadings to continue those treatise.  In 2006,  the hapless Obama proudly shared in the disarmament of Ukraine and, in 2012,  told the Russians,  "I will have more flexibility"  after the 2012 elections.  All of this screams "weakness !!!" to a Communist thug such as Putin.  

John Kerry is simply running his mouth and time will prove this claim to be true.  He has nothing else to do.  Besides the lack of leverage on the part of the United States,  we should remember that 25% of European fuel supply comes through Ukraine,  out of Russia.  A "war of sanctions" will work against a European alliance just as certainly as it would,  against Russia . . . .   and Putin knows this.  More than this,  he also knows that sanctions have not worked against the Palestinians,  Syria,  Iran,  and North Korea.  

In the end,  the Utopian world of peace, love and mutual respect,  has lost another battle,  and,  as relates to the Ukraine,  Utopia has lost another war.    What is most frustrating,  is the fact that the Ukraine is one of the largest of the European nations,  and has valued strategery to a Russian threat in the region.  

Guess whose big idea it was to disarm the Ukraine? I am betting Putin knew the answer to this question all along.

Flashback: Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine

• Obama traveled to Ukraine with Sen. Dick Lugar in 2005 just seven months after he became a senator, touring surplus weapons stockpiles
• Most of the small arms and ammunition were left over when Soviets withdrew from Eastern bloc nations, and later dumped in Ukraine 
• The two senators secured U.S. funding to help destroy the weapons instead of leaving them intact
• Ukraine exported more than 700,000 small arms in 2004-2007, including 101,000 each to Libya and the UK, and 260,000 to the U.S.
• But most of the ammunition stockpiles – crucial for keeping a standing army battle-ready – were destroyed
• 
  

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.html#ixzz2vVTDt0cZ 

Now the Left, laughing about Palin and Romney years ago, now have to admit they were duped by their leader.

From the New Republic - a far left leaning news source:  

In the course of the last presidential campaign, Mitt Romney made a comment about America's number one "geopolitical foe," which Romney claimed was Russia. He was mocked by the president and many liberal commentators. Here are Romney's remarks, in their full context, which came during a conversation with Wolf Blitzer: 

ROMNEY:  Russia...is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.  They fight every cause for the world's worst actors.

BLITZER:  But you think Russia is a bigger foe right now than, let's say, Iran or China or North Korea? Is that—is that what you're suggesting, Governor?

ROMNEY:  Well, I'm saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world's worst actors.  Of course, the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran.  A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.

But when these—these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them, when—when Assad, for instance, is murdering his own people, we go—we go to the United Nations, and who is it that always stands up for the world's worst actors? It is always Russia, typically with China alongside.

And—and so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that's on the Security Council, that has the heft of the Security Council and is, of course, a—a massive nuclear power, Russia is the—the geopolitical foe.

This all seems...exactly right. 

After five years of playing golf and giving speeches (two or more per day for five stinking years). Obama is now embarrassing the US with his ineptness.

Part of the problem in dealing with the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine,  is embedded in the fact that much of the population is Russian speaking and sympathetic to Russian dominance.  You can see that Eastern Ukraine, fully half of the nation,  is colored in light blue (grey?) and is Russian Speaking.  

Here,  we have the Ukraine (red print) with its Crimea Peninsula (not named on the map) extending into the Black Sea with Georgia to its immediate East.  Crimea is where the confrontation has reached a military pitch.  No shots have been fired,  but,  there is simply no way to stop Russia from doing whatever it has planned for the region.  Sadly,  Obama has spent the first 5 years of his presidency doing nothing in terms of diplomacy.  We have no military options already in place,  as we should.  Obama canceled the missile defense shields promised to Poland and the Czech Republic,  getting absolutely nothing in return for this favor to Russia.  

While Obama is talking about the costs of this Russian action,  Britain is backing away from any serious involvement.  Germany gets 75% of its energy from Russia,  so count Germany out.  

And the Viet Nam traitor,  John Kerry,  announced,  today,  that the United States "does not want confrontation with Russia."  There is no talk of a military option,  no movement of force of any kind to the surround seas and/or region  -  just nothing.    

Know how this sounds?  Let me paint a picture:  If or when you find yourself suddenly surrounded by a gang of seriously tough guys,  the first thing you will say is :  "I don't want no trouble."  That is what our leaders have chosen to say to the tough guy,  V Putin.   They sound like cowards,  folks unwilling to stand up to the bully on the block;  heck,  even refusing to admit that Putin IS the bully on the block.  LaLa land is where our leadership lives.  

Russia invading the Ukraine is not the biggest story of today and all my friends need to know this. All of you. Taiwan is next, folks.

From my Facebook:  

Russia invading the Ukraine is not the biggest story of today and all my friends need to know this. All of you. 

Today, Obama is going to tell Netanhahu, of Israel, that if he and Israel do not accept Obama's solutions to the Israeli/Palestinian problem, returning to the pre-67 borders and basically deserting the West Bank, Obama will walk away from Israel, that Israel will invite "demographic disaster." In other words, Obama is about to issue the worst kind of threat any of us could imagine, when it comes to Israel. Here is how Bloomberg.com is reporting the story:

"When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House tomorrow, President Barack Obama will tell him that his country could face a bleak future -- one of international isolation and demographic disaster -- if he refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians. Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy.

Editor's notes:  Obama threatens the existence of Israel, today,  in his conversation with Israel's Prim Minister.  What's next,  Taiwan?  Wanna take any bets?  

Jimmy Carter reduced the size of our military and stepped back from any military preparedness. We all know how that worked out. Now, "Jimmy Carter on Steroids" is doing it again. Here is a brief review and a serious word of caution.

Here is my response to an Utopian "peace and love" socialist with regard to the military crisis in Ukraine.  Sadly,  because our world's domestic circumstance is "global,"  what happens in Ukraine DOES NOT stay in Ukraine.  Obama and his peace-at any-price cabal,  is giving the world over to evil forces on every front (Africa,  the Middle East,  the Orient,  and South America).  

John SmithsonMarch 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM

We kept thousands of troops in Japan (12 years in Japan) and Germany, after WW II. 50,000 or still in Germany. Neither are "hot zones," of course, but, still serve the purpose of "additional military outposting" in a world that is or could be very hostile to our nation. China, has tripled the size of its military to 2.2 million, over the past 20 years. What would you do, continue to pretend that China/Russia/Radical Islam/North Korea are not serious threats to the US, in a world in which a "global domestic or civilian" reality is, now, the case? Build up or stick your head in the sand, these are your choices. We already know your answer as a peace and love pundit, but correct me if I am wrong.

Bush destroyed the Taliban, in Afghanistan, and every military review supports this conclusion. BUT, you are right, he should have never left that country and Obama is making the same huge mistake.

Iraq was critical to Bush because CLINTON AND GEORGE TENET (Clinton’s CIA director) TOLD HIM SO. Now that Obama has wasted the 4,000 lives lost in winning the Iraqi war, al Qaeda has moved back into that country, and is staging/training in Northern Iraq. If we had honored and moved on Bush's "status of forces" treatise with Iraq, Iraq, as a country, would be safe from Radical Islamic invasion, and Syria would not have the disaster it is now having - perhaps it might even be "free" as a sectarian Islamic nation - like Egypt once was, before the bumbling Obama came onto the scene, there.

Maybe, Slick, if Obama had not canceled the Bush treatises as to missile defense, with Georgia and Poland (neighbors to Ukraine), Putin would have stayed out of Ukraine. Maybe, Slick, if Obama had not promised to be "more flexible" after the 2012 elections, Putin would have some respect our president.

The real problem, of course, is the fact that Obama cannot think or speak above an 8th grade level and believes that his immature view of “fairness” is even shared by the despotism, throughout the world . How stupid is that? We are just now, finding out. 

If Palin knew what Obama and his advisers did not, who is the most qualified to be Commander in Chief and the leader of a strong and free nation? (Hint: the answer is as obvious as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.)

From Breitbart: 

Palin said then:

After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next.

For those comments, she was mocked by the high-brow Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of Politico magazine. 

In light of recent events in Ukraine and concerns that Russia is getting its troops ready to cross the border into the neighboring nation, nobody seems to be laughing at or dismissing those comments now.

Hounshell wrote then that Palin's comments were "strange" and "this is an extremely far-fetched scenario."

"And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel," Hounshell dismissively wrote. 

Palin made her remarks on the stump after Obama's running mate Joe Biden warned Obama supporters to "gird  your loins" if Obama is elected because international leaders may test or try to take advantage of him.

Editor's notes:  Turns out that tough guys and moralless people always go after the weak and unsuspecting.  You would think a foreign policy expert such as Hounshell would know that  -  but liberals have this genetic defect thing going for them.  It renders then "stupid" when it comes to spending other peoples money,  domestic and foreign policy,  and,  the waging of war,  among a host of other issues.  

Palin made her prediction based on commonsense.  Hounshell, now proven to be the actual nutcase in this story,  knows nothing about foreign policy if the invasion of Ukraine was unpredicatable to him.