Bill Weld

Bill Weld, on Trump's Ukraine Call: 'It's Treason, Pure and Simple, and the Penalty for Treason…Is Death'

That escalated quickly.


Today, the three candidates waging longshot bids to topple Donald Trump in the GOP primaries—Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, and Mark Sanford—appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to discuss the latest controversies swirling around the president.

You can watch the whole clip here. The shorter excerpt embedded below gets down to the bit making the most news: Former Watergate prosecutor, former U.S. attorney, former Massachusetts governor, and 2016 Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate Bill Weld is accusing Trump not just of impeachable crimes but of treason. Which, Weld adds, is punishable by death:

Former congressman turned talk show host Walsh, for his part, says Trump should be impeached. "He's a king, he's a would-be dictator," Walsh said, adding that the president is "unfit" and "a clear and present danger to this country." If Trump wins the nomination—a near certainty—the Republican Party "will be dead after 2020," Walsh claimed.

Sanford, the former South Carolina governor and congressman, stuck mostly to the theme that the three wrote about together in The Washington Post 10 days ago: that the state chapters of the GOP are being craven and cowardly in pushing to eliminate presidential primaries. On Saturday, Alaska became the fifth state to cancel out Trump's electoral competition, joining Nevada, Kansas, Arizona, and Sanford's home state. Nearly 8 percent of the total GOP delegate count is now off the table.

Walsh's reaction was colorful. "This isn't Russia, this isn't China, you can't just cancel elections in the United States of America," said the one-term Tea Partier from Illinois. "But that's what Donald Trump is doing. And make no mistake…this is Donald Trump telling the Republican Party bosses what to do, because the Republican Party bosses, the Republican Party establishment, all they want to do is wash their dictator's feet every doggone day."

In the handful of four-way GOP presidential polls taken thus far, Trump is obliterating his three challengers' combined total by an average of more than 70 percentage points. In the most recent Gallup presidential approval poll, the president's favorability among Republicans was at 91 percent, tied for the highest during his presidency. Trump has unprecedentedly merged his re-election organization with the Republican National Committee, and in the only apples-to-apples fundraising report thus far, outraised Bill Weld in the second quarter by a ratio of 150 to 1.

So Weld's rhetorical escalation is not particularly surprising, especially considering that he was stressing his former-prosecutor bonafides, his special relationship with Robert Mueller, and his critique of Trump's unfitness for office since even before officially jumping into the ring. But by playing loose with the T-word, the #NeverTrump candidates run the risk of succumbing to the same vein-popping hyperbole that they criticize the 45th president for. (Walsh, for his part, tweeted last year after Trump's press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin that "Trump was a traitor today. I cannot & will not support a traitor.")

I for one am happy that Trump is facing a challenge from his own party, however distant, and I hope the exercise surfaces critiques that Republicans once made but have now abandoned on debt, deficits, spending, executive power, tariffs, and—yes—comportment. But I worry that noisy #NeverTrumper Rick Wilson's saying that "everything Trump touches dies" applies not just to the president's most obsequious enablers but to the very people willing to criticize the only evident power in GOP politics.

NEXT: Tulsi Gabbard Warns Trump's Iran Actions Could Lead to 'All-Out Inferno of a War'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump told Ukraine that Joe Biden and his sons were bribing the shit out of and robbing the government there and they should probably look into it and somehow that is “treason”.

    It is funny how the people who claim Trump is crazy and unfit for office always turn out to be crazy and unfit themselves. Bill Weld has no business being a meter maid in a pay toilet. What a fucking bozo.

    1. It is Weld. He is friends with all the establishment Democrats. The are fine “normal” politicians who cannot possibly be bad actors.

    2. I agree that Trump didn’t commit treason, but do you really think he’s fit to be POTUS?

      1. He’s as fit as the next power-hungry egotist. I happen to like the fact that his brain-to-mouth pipeline has no filter. He’s too blunt and full of himself to hide anything from anyone.

      2. Over the age of 35? check
        Natural born citizens of the US? Check. Seems he is fit by the only requirements that we have formalized.

        1. Legally qualified and fit aren’t the same thing.

          But he got elected, so it’s a purely academic question anyway. He is the president and the whole country hasn’t burned down.

          1. What constitutes fit? There is no definition so qualified is the only agreed upon rubric we can use.

            1. Not orange apparently.

          2. > He is the president and the whole country hasn’t burned down.

            Don’t worry. He’s still working on it.

          3. He does not despise his country, so he is at least one up on Obama.

      3. do you really think he’s fit to be POTUS

        Of course not. He’s the second-worst candidate who ran in 2016.


        1. Yeah, given that Johnson was a sellout.

        2. He’s the second-worst candidate who ran in 2016.

          True, but it was a very near-run thing.

        3. And we are so lucky the 1st worse candidate didn’t win.

      4. “I agree that Trump didn’t commit treason, but do you really think he’s fit to be POTUS?”

        I don’t, but I think he’s more fit than Hillary Clinton would have been. Though, to be fair, I found them both horrible and wouldn’t vote for either one. I did vote for Gary Johnson and thus Bill Weld. I will never vote for Bill Weld again. He frankly seems worse than Trump.

        1. After writing in Dr. Ron Paul in 2008 & 2012, I wrote in his son, Dr. Rand Paul in 2016 & will do so again in 2020….I can do this since I live in a state that will go heavily for Trump again as it did in 2016…Now, if I was in a swing state, then I would have a tough decision!

          I’m no fan of Trump, but he is definitely better than the caravan of DEMON-CRAT clowns….They are like demented circus monkeys!!!

          1. Why would it be a tough decision? Your vote is statistically absolutely meaningless.

            1. As are your bleatings.

              And yet you persist as well.

              1. Eunuch gonna eunuch

            2. In a swing state your vote could matter!

        2. Trump’s super power is inducing other people to go out and prove to everybody just how insane they are.

          1. And, man, he’s GOOD at it!!!

            1. And not only that, he provokes them into then taking the absolute worst course of action for themselves.

              Joe Biden’s best move was to keep his mouth shut, let things blow over, and wait for the leftist press to give him a pass. But he couldn’t do that, so he actually went out and started running his mouth about it, spouted a few easily disprovable lies that raise probable cause to investigate, and basically dared the press to look into his kid’s dealings not only in Ukraine but also China.

              He provokes them into setting themselves on fire to try and spite him. Quite a superpower.

              1. Uncle Joe knows that with the MSM firmly on the side of the LIB-Tards, nothing will happen to him!!!

                1. The Hildebeest thought that too, but it couldn’t save her from losing.

                  1. It saved her from jail, though!

            2. You can say that again!! The way he makes You GOP suckups kiss his arse is shameless.

      5. Fit compared to who?

      6. No one is fit to be president.

        I’ll make the same request I do every for presidential election: How about we just try going without a president for 4 years and see how that goes. I can’t imagine it would be any worse than having a president.

        1. This is why we should revert back to federalism. Back to non popular elections for citizens, back to the state legislatures to vote them in. Reduce federal power by half as a start. Our tax pyramid is upside down, local should be higher than federal. It is a clown show that we send money to the feds to distribute back to the states with coercive means attached.

          1. This is so obvious to me as well, though I’d prefer 3/4 less Fedgov. People are oblivious to the perpetual money pit that is the bureaucracy.

          2. Alas, it will never happen without a violent & bloody revolution! Do you know how many jobs & lives depend on the bloated corrupt unmanageable FED BEAST Govt? It is like a 150 year old drug addict!…..Heck even St. Reagan made it bigger & so has Trump!…JFK wanted to cut it down & got killed for it! Ron & Rand Paul advocate for what you are saying & people & pundits & pols on BOTH SIDES continually call them crazy radicals & they never have a chance of being prez!
            The last hope for this to maybe happen even a little was Calvin Coolidge, the last great prez we had!

          3. JesseAz, “Our tax pyramid is upside down, local should be higher than federal.”
            You can say that again!
            A million times.

        2. Well, you’d still have the legislature to deal with. Imagine Pelosi and her ilk with Schumer in charge of the Senate and no president to veto them.

      7. The Don won the nomination, beat the commies in the election and has been pushing the Republican platform like a freshman in acting school to the delight of onlookers. The delighted onlookers are looking at appalled snowflakes, not The Don. And Weld is coming out swinging like any good contender–especially after attracting the LP some women voters and increasing our slice by 328%. This is good, clean American fun in the rough-and-tumble.

        1. Sorry Hank, that was far too coherent and intelligible. Stop it or we might start to worry about you.

      8. “Is he fit to be POTUS?” Tump’s every bit as fit as his opponent was. Hillary Clinton is a liar, cheat, criminal and con artist. Perhaps some have forgotten just what the choices were. SURE! We all went and voted for Gary Johnson …. big deal !!

      9. More so than any of the available alternatives.

        And one benefit Trump has over the slick talkers and liars is: he actually gets people to question why we have given these people so much power to begin with.

    3. This episode more than anything else has helped me realize why the political establishment hates and fears Trump so much. Trump got rich before he got into politics. He’s not a part of their game. They can’t trust him not to spoil their game, and since he didn’t play the same game himself and doesn’t plan on using that game to get rich, they can’t use their usual tu quoque leverage to shut him up.

      1. Stop with the nonsense about Trump “getting rich”. He inherited his father’s money, squandered most of it on shitty investments, and managed to bail himself out through becoming a reality TV star and borrowing heavily from Deutsche Bank (and who knows who else). Trump is deeply in hoc to Russian organized criminals and the Saudis, and appears desperate to stay on the good side of Goldman Sachs. He may not be dependent on teacher’s unions and attorneys the way the Dems are, or eager to suck up to the Kochs like the GOP, but he is not a free man.

        1. Do you have proof about some of your more outlandish claims, e.g. Russian organized crime?
          And let’s see he went broke and found a way to make money by becoming a reality star? Even if he did go broke, which doesn’t seem to be born out by facts, his ability to make money as a TV star is not a disqualfier.

          1. His ability to make money as a TV star and as a brand ambassador is admirable, one of his few admirable qualities. But that is not the story he tells, or that people want to believe. He is not, and never has been, a great deal maker.

            Trump’s connections to Russian organized crime, Felix Sater in particular, are well known, were widely discussed before the election outside the MSM, and no one cares, apparently. It’s not as if the Clintons are particularly clean, I agree, but I have never understood why the Clintons lack of ethics make Trump’s lack of ethics acceptable. Surely there is a third choice somewhere.

            1. If they are so well known why did Mueller mention them? Why haven’t the Democrats who are trying to impeach him use it against him? Why do you not provide actual evidence instead of well known? I’ve seen the charges but little actual evidence.

            2. Funny how this supposedly horrible deal maker keeps getting his way and, on the occasions where it takes more commitment, he continues to shift the culture war in our favor. We certainly aren’t outbreeding you, so it seems like your ideas are losing.

            3. He is not, and never has been, a great deal maker.

              Actually, Trump’s failures generally stemmed from failures of management, which he has acknowledged as a weakness himself.

            4. “Trump’s connections to Russian organized crime, Felix Sater in particular, are well known, were widely discussed before the election outside the MSM, and no one cares, apparently.”

              ‘Everybody knows’ isn’t a cite, just in case you didn’t know that.

            5. Why, on Earth, would the MSM, who openly and unabashedly hate him, not broadcast these “well known” and “widely discussed” bits of information, before he got elected?
              I know it was hard for them – not really – to switch from giving him almost wall-to-wall coverage, to get him the nomination – because they thought him the easiest for HiLIARy to beat – but they’ve done it many other times.
              Think about it. Does what you say make any sense?

          2. He became broke when every other realtor did in the early 90s. He recovered when every other realtor did in the mid 90s. This whole he went broke through shitty investments takes an ignorance of reality of markets.

            1. And especially volatile markets like real estate. He was overleveraged and it bit him when the markets took a turn, and he did an impressive bit of dealmaking to get his way out of it and keep his company solvent.


              1. A big part of his financial troubles came when the three men, who managed his casinos, were all killed in a helicopter crash.
                Not being good at management of casino’s, himself, and needing to find three replacements in a short time, doomed him, due to being over-leveraged.
                He did let his personal life get in the way of things, around then, too, since it was during the time he was going from Ivana to Marla.

        2. The point is that he didn’t get rich the way career politicians usually do — by insider trading and influence peddling.

        3. “He inherited his father’s money, squandered most of it on shitty investments, …”

          That’s obviously untrue. Trump’s net worth is around $3 billion by most estimates. He inherited less than $20 million from his father.

          1. Not only did he inherit from his father, but he managed his father’s company for him for years before inheriting. So even his inheritance was largely his own work.

        4. Trump failed at the Taj Mahal and still walked away with 82 million in profit. Didn’t his losses also allow him to then make a fortune by not having to pay taxes? Even if he inherited his father’s money it isn’t like he lost it. He’s made more. If he blew it all on comic books and beef jerky then you may be right, but he’s now getting paid just to have his name on tall buildings. That would be a swell gig to have.

          1. You’re asking a democrat or an idealist reason libertarian to understand carry forward losses with those questions.

        5. Why would the most powerful man on the planet be “in hoc” to a nation with a GDP smaller than New Jersey?

          The only people more deranged than the Trumpcucks are the Russian Birth Certificate seekers.

      2. More to the point: Biden’s son Hunter went into business with John Kerry’s son, Chris Heinz & bought a Ukranian corporation & there was corruption & law-breaking with the previous corrupt Ukranian leader who was involved with Paul Manafort & charges were going to be filed, but good old Uncle Joe, while Vice Prez flew to the Ukraine & said the prosecutor must step down & no charges filed or else no $1 billion ins US aid & he said Obummy was on board with that!!!….Biden & Obummy should be hung for treason, NOT TRUMP!!!…BTW, I’m sure Horse-Face Mueller knew all about Biden’s action!

    4. Trump didn’t provide the Ukrainians information, he is being accused of telling the Ukrainians to do him a favor of spreading kompromat about a political opponent in exchange for him doing them a major financial favor. It is simply gangster 101. The idea that Biden’s idiot son could bribe and rob Ukrainians, of all people, is prima facie ridiculous. The Bidens would not last 2 days in Ukraine unless the Ukrainians found them useful. The Ukrainians bribing Biden would make sense, and is no doubt closer to the truth, but apparently that is not what Trump and Giuliani wanted the Ukrainians to tell people. Trump was trying to puff the Bidens up to make them seem more sinister than craven.

      1. You don’t know Ukrainians very well, do you?

        1. Note to foreign readers: a movement to form a Libertarian Party is afoot in the Ukraine.

          1. There is already a libertarian party here called the 5.10 party. There are also quite a few of libertarian leaning people who aren’t members but that’s typical of libertarians. I find that, in general, Ukrainians are pretty libertarian in their thinking if not heir policital affiliations. They’re very entrepreneurial and want to be left alone to live their lives.

      2. “The idea that Biden’s idiot son could bribe and rob Ukrainians, of all people, is prima facie ridiculous. ”

        But the idea that Biden’s son made millions in Ukraine legitimately is believable?

        “In April 2014, Biden’s son Hunter joined the board of Burisma Holdings. Hunter served on the board until early 2019.
        During his time with Burisma, Hunter reportedly received compensation up to $50,000 a month.”

      3. “…in exchange for him doing them a major financial favor.”
        That’s the lie the enemedia has been trying to push.
        Even the “whislteblower”, who wasn’t a first-hand source of information, acknowledged that there was no quid-pro-quo.

      4. The money threat to Ukraine came from VP Joe Biden with our tax money, not his idiot son. Get your hack story straight, troll.

    5. I realize that you’re going to continue believing lies for the next 14 months or however long as is politically expedient, but this Biden shit is all false. It’s a deflection. It’s a fake conspiracy theory Trump believes, like so many others.

      I realize I shouldn’t even bother, but you could confirm this if you wanted to, which you don’t.

      1. Unlike Putin and Trump conspired in a quid pro quo arrangement to make Trump president?

      2. Since you’re obvoiusly very knowledgeable on “this Biden shit”, please point us to the reputable source you used to educate yourself.

        Or just fuck off.

          1. Except your citation doesn’t say what you think it says. All it says is Biden denies he did it to protect his son and other world leaders also wanted the prosecutor out. That doesn’t disprove Biden used his authority to pressure the Ukraine into dropping an investigation into his son, nor does it support it.

            1. So surely you can provide the citation for the evidence that does prove what you claim.

              1. In Biden’s own words: “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.”
                Or are you going to try to peddle the canard that the prosecutor was corrupt and Biden was blackmailing the Ukraine government, out of a sense of neighborliness, to rid themselves of the guy?

                1. I don’t see any mention of his son in that sentence. I need confirmation of the claim of corruption you made, not confirmation of what everyone already knows, that Biden pressured Ukraine to rid itself of a source of corruption, which he openly bragged about.

                  1. “I don’t see any mention of his son in that sentence.”

                    Good ol’ Joe was just looking out for Ukraine’s best interests, guys.

                  2. You are a delusional retard.

                2. You know you can’t believe anything Biden says.

        1. And it comes with fucking citations, so don’t pull the fucking bias shit. You provide your sources now. NOW.

          1. But the citations don’t disprove anything. In fact a few support the above charge.

      3. Please list hunters qualifications for a 50k a year job in ukranian energy dumbfuck.

        1. 50k a month not year.

          1. Yeah. Mistake. Tony wont answer even the year mistake question. He bitched about Ivana and Jared having a non paid advisory role.

            1. Libertarians for nepotistic promotion of incompetent people in government!

              Par for the fucking course.

              1. So you agree Biden’s son getting a 50k a month job in which he has no experience, is shady?

                1. I don’t give a fuck. Send the Bidens to prison. I don’t want Biden to be president.

                  And you shouldn’t want Trump to be president, but you’re a sad propagandized little earthworm.

                  1. I didn’t want Trump for president. But there is no one in the Democratic party I want anymore then him. Jesus, just because I don’t buy your hate Trump talking points doesn’t mean I am his biggest fan.

        2. After you list Trump’s qualifications to be president.

          1. They are listed above. What do you think the qualifications are?

          2. He is an natural born American Citizen and he is older than 35. What other qualifications are required? Hint there are none, officially.

            1. You’ll notice I have not defended Hunter Biden’s job once.

              1. What does Hunter Biden have to do with the above statement?

      4. Tony
        September.23.2019 at 5:09 pm
        “I realize that you’re going to continue believing lies for the next 14 months or however long as is politically expedient,…”

        Shitbag, here, seems to think someone believes his posts.

      5. Man, you’re going to be so mad when Trump gets reelected.

      6. Hunter Biden got paid $50k/month from a Ukrainian company for doing nothing. That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s a fact. That’s wrong no matter what his father did or didn’t do. And it is perfectly legitimate for Trump to suggest Ukraine investigate it and anything connected to it.

      7. Ah, calling for the state to kill people over a phone call: the mark of a True big-L Libertarian like Bill Weld!

    6. Weld is an attention-seeking faggot.

      1. Thanks for that valuable contribution to the discussion. It’s important that we sort out the attention seeking faggots from the attention seeking non-faggots.

        1. Geez Zeb, touched a nerve, did he?

      2. Kind of like Tony, in that regard.

    7. Trump didn’t tell them any such thing.

      They told us that.

      The Hill had a nice write up of the whole thing.

      This is the result of Ukraine reaching out to the Obama administration to complain about Biden’s actions – and the Obama administration trying very hard not to hear it.

      The state department sent Giuliani to meet with the Ukrainian rep in hopes of repairing relations. He coordinated with and reported to career diplomats in the State Department the whole time.

      Trump’s call was the culmination of that. He’s basically saying “sorry we didn’t listen before. No, we won’t cut off foreign aid if you don’t fire the prosecutor who is looking into corruption involving Biden’s son.”

      If the Hill has it right, this is going to explode in their faces. Badly.

      1. But TheHill is nearly as right wing as Breitbart isn’t it?

        1. The had a mass banning during the vox/crowder thing. Banning only pro crowder side. They are as bad as Vox.

          1. I was being sarcastic.

      2. On another note, if this blows up in their face (which is looking far more likely) how much lower can the lack of trust the public has in the media go? Can it reach negative numbers?

        1. Feels like we’re going to find out.

  2. So Weld’s vanity campaign results in a spectacular derailment of what remains of his credibility.

    1. His and Sanford’s campaigns are sad cries for help as much as anything. Can’t these losers get a life?

    2. Can you even call it a vanity campaign when no one except weird politics nerds even know he’s running?
      It does seem like he must have something better to do with himself.

  3. I have to agree. The son of the sitting Vice President was given a $600k/yr salary at a foreign oil company despite a lack of relevant experience (or, if one site I read was correct, even speaking Ukranian). The company was one of many under investigation for corruption. Biden threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was fired. That company’s investigation was dropped.

    At the very least, it’s a significant conflict of interest that should have been investigated. At the worst, it’s transparent corruption to protect his son.

    What biased media broke this story? Breitbart? Fox News? No. It was the New York Times. MONTHS ago. However, the story was buried despite Biden being the leading Democratic nominee for president.

    On the other hand, the “whistleblower” who mentioned that Trump had suggested that Ukraine resume the investigation stated that they had no first-hand knowledge of the event. That’s known as hearsay, or in layman’s terms, gossip.

    1. There is no evidence Trump ever actually did this. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is on tape admitting that he strong armed the Ukrainian government into firing the prosecutor looking into his son.

      But all this means Trump is a traitor who should be shot because reasons!!

      1. It is amazing how the Left’s desire to end Trump’s Presidency keeps turning up stuff to use against him that is adjacent to at least the appearance of impropriety on the part of prominent Democrats

        1. I’ve heard several commentators suggest that Warren is pushing this forward against Trump to pander to her base while the real target is Biden himself. 2-birds-1-stone.

      2. Do you ever read a neutral source?

        You’re wrong about this. They’re wrong about this. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. The timeline presented in that right-wing propaganda website is wrong. The facts are wrong. You’re wrong. Meanwhile Trump admitted to wrongdoing on camera.

        But you don’t give the slightest stringy shit, do you? You don’t even care if it’s true, do you?

        1. The NYT? Who first questioned the connection? Wrong doing meaning what? He stated he discussed with them an investigation he felt needed to be reopened which is also what the Ukrainian diplomat who he was speaking also confirmed. What is the wrong doing? Or are you basing it upon an unnamed whistle blower who admitted he didn’t hear the conversation?

        2. He posted a video you fucking retard. This was also in the NYT.

          1. Yeah, but TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!

          2. In the rare instances where the Biden/Ukraine connection is discussed, I’ve seen them using the new poll-tested phrase:

            Republicans allege – without offering evidence – that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor…..

            At least 3 different articles used that exact turn of phrase – without evidence? I mean, yeah… other than Biden bragging that he threatened Ukraine into firing the prosecutor… Sure. No evidence. I mean, he never actually claimed he did it on behalf of his son. So I guess you could call that “no evidence”, in the same way that the Grassy Knoll conspiracy theorists say there is no evidence that Kennedy was shot from the Book Depository.

            1. “No smoking gun” never gets old.

              If you are a Democrat. If you are Trump it alone is proof of guilt.

          3. A video that says what? That he was bragging about getting rid of a political figure the entire world wanted rid of?

            1. So you’re backing off the biased source? It’s a video of using 1 billion in leverage to have a prosecutor stop investigating a company his son was on. Pretend if it was eric trump dumbass. Biden also bragged about choosing the successor who conveniently dropped the investigation with a “small fine” to his office by said company.

              1. No, that’s not what happened, and if I’m wrong, you can surely provide a link.

                Biden leveraged aid on getting rid of the guy and it had nothing to do with his sone.

                I will add: I don’t give a shit if it did have to do with his son. Send all the Bidens to prison. I don’t like the Bidens, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they were corrupt.

                Second addendum: The story is about Trump’s wrongdoing too. You gonna, like, even acknowledge that part, or are you a psychotic partisan hack with no principles?

                Remember when you people used to lecture me about principles? Like, before Trump? I miss those days.

                1. You haven’t yet listed what Trump did wrong.

                  1. Threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they provided him oppo on his likely election opponent.

                    How about you tell me what’s wrong with that, just so we know we’re on the same page about the existence of reality?

                    1. Proof other than hearsay?

                    2. Even the “whistleblower” said there wasn’t any quid-pro-quo.

                    3. Trump admitted it on camera. I watched it happen.

                    4. He never admitted he used pressure. He admitted to talking to the Ukrainian diplomat about it. He never admitted to using pressure and the Ukrainian diplomat backed up his story.

                2. Tony. Even if it was legitimate, Biden had a serious conflict of interest. He should not have been involved in anything that could personally benefit his immediate family. If it was inevitable, it should have been publicly disclosed.

                  Then, there is the odd coincidence that the corruption investigation against his son’s company was never restarted after the prosecutor was fired.

                  Finally, there is the odd coincidence that his son was hired by a Ukrainian oil firm in the first place despite his apparent lack of qualifications. The only qualification he had was really being the son of the vice president.

                  That is a lot of coincidences.

                  A request to resume a corruption investigation that was so oddly stopped is hardly malfeasance. Even if it was self-serving on Trump’s part, in the end, Biden’s actions have the clear appearance of corruption and should be investigated. Now, if Trump threatened Ukraine to resume the investigation, that would be a problem. However, we have no evidence that suggests that such a threat actually happened.

                  1. You’re wrong and relying on hack partisan fuckstain sources, but I still don’t care about the Bidens.

                    Let’s talk about Trump. He’s actually in a job that matters to us.

                    1. Projection.

                3. Your link does not say that the prosecutor had nothing to do with his son.

                  It says the exact opposite.

                  What it says is that it isn’t clear how aggressively he was pursuing a case against that company. One insider says it was languishing. But that insider could be the guy who knows to say what they want to hear so he gets to be in charge. Who knows?

                  But “it had nothing to do with his son” is patently false. Even the DNC backed “fact check” site doesn’t claim that at all.

                  The only thing in dispute is “why did Joe Biden pressure Ukraine to fire their chief prosecutor?” Not what happened, but why.

                  In defense of Joe we have “the prosecutor wasn’t being very aggressive and other nations wanted him gone too”. And “Joe didn’t even know his son worked for a Ukrainian company.”

                  The first one is suspect, but possibly true.

                  The second one is an obvious lie. There is absolutely no chance that Joe and his boy are flying back and forth to Ukraine and “hey, why is my son who doesn’t have any involvement in Ukraine flying there repeatedly?” doesn’t come up at all. “Hey dad? You know how you were so mad because I was screwing up my career and making things hard for you? Well guess what? I got a huge job as director of a big Ukrainian company! I don’t even have to go to the office! I just pick up checks!” Nah, no way he would have said anything to dad…

            2. If “the entire world wanted rid of” this prosecutor, why would it take Joe Biden blackmailing them to get it done?
              Why would he need to use such sever leverage for something that “the whole world” wanted?
              Here’s a suggestion, you should heed: THINK ABOUT IT.

            3. “A video that says what? That he was bragging about getting rid of a political figure the entire world wanted rid of?”

              To be honest, Trump did that to Comey and it led to a multiple year special prosecutor…

        3. Tony says: Meanwhile Trump admitted to wrongdoing on camera.
          Question from WH press corpse: Did you threaten to cut off military aid if they didn’t investigate.
          Trump: No.
          I guess, to Tony, that’s an admission of guilt.

        4. Well-known right-wing propaganda website, the New York Times.

          Do you ever get tired of being incredibly, embarrassingly wrong, you dribble-chinned mongoloid?

        5. Sorry, but this Biden thing is really quacking like a duck. I won’t mention China and the Bidens because no one wants you too explode…oops.

    2. So hearsay now equals whistleblower. Okay did Orwell mention this in 1984 as well?

      1. He thought about it, but decided it was too outlandish.

    3. Lies. All fucking lies. Biden’s condition of getting rid of the corrupt prosecutor had absolutely nothing to do with his son. The timeline doesn’t remotely add up. Do some fucking research before you beclown yourself.

      I don’t even like Biden. But I do like facts.

      1. You like facts? That is a surprise based upon how many times you resort to unsupported induendoes against conservatives. I mean where is the proof you promised us that Trump conspired with Putin.

      2. You’ve never actually used a fact. Do you eat them instead you obese POS?

          1. The best fact you could come up with was a hand waive to get to a half true from heavily biased politifact?

            1. Biased politifact. Drink!

              How about your source now?

              1. No, the citation simply says Biden denies the charge and supposedly he didn’t know his son was working for a Ukrainian company making 50k a month until the media reported on it. It isn’t definitive proof. It is a collection of Biden and Obama administration figures denying anything wrong happened. It doesn’t provide any exculpatory facts.

              2. BTW your citation does include Biden’s rather bizarre statement about his handling of Ukraine in regards to the aforementioned prosecutor while offering little to explain it.

              3. Also, I notice you love to attack anyone elses sources as biased but when they question your sources your response is derision. Do you understand hypocrisy?

                1. Still waiting on a source.

                2. Me too.

                  1. A source for what? Because you’ve been provided multiple sources for Biden’s bragging about using pressure to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

      3. Uh….

        If his involvement had nothing to do with his son, then exactly what is the US vice president doing involving himself in the appointment of anti-corruption prosecutors in the Ukraine?

        How does that even remotely make sense?

        Is that what we have our Veep doing? Did Biden also make demands about the prosecutor for the southern district in Chile? Is he involved in the hiring of prosecutors in Indonesia?


          Now it’s your turn to provide a source, jackass.

          Do it now or shut the fuck up.

          Don’t be embarrassed if it’s fucking Breitbart. If you believe it, you shouldn’t be embarrassed by it.

          1. Did you even read your link?

              1. If you read your link and you think it actually proves anything you have very poor reading skills. It is a collection of Biden denying he knew his son was working for the company, making 50k a month, until the media told him (did anyone in the Obama administration know anything until the media reported it?), Biden denying he did anything wrong, and Carney saying that no one did anything wrong. That isn’t proof.

            1. Still waiting on your link.

              1. What are you on about? Link to what?

                I asked why the US VP would involve himself in the hiring/firing decisions of a foreign country’s anti-corruption prosecutor. That’s all.

                We know Biden did that. Because Biden said that Biden did that.

                The only thing you are pretending to contest is that the reason Biden did it is because of the involvement of his son’s company.

                But that’s not the question I posed.

                I asked “why does the US Veep get involved in something at that level in a foreign nation?” Does the Veep do that in any other country? Or just Ukraine?

                You don’t have to go to weird minutia like what particular day a check was cut to someone. Just at a high level….. is “Fire this prosecutor or we will pull our foreign aid” something that the US Veep does?

                Or is that a pretty unique situation?

                1. Oh, and as for links…

                  The link you cite as exoneration says that

                  1. Joe Biden threatened to withhold billions in aid to Ukraine if they did not fire the prosecutor

                  2. They did fire the prosecutor

                  3. Biden’s kid took a highly paid position as director for a Ukrainian company – a position for which he had no specific qualifications other than being Biden’s son. Politifact says this was a conflict of interest.

                  4. The prosecutor was indeed investigating Biden’s kid’s company.

                  5. Whether that investigation was going anywhere is in dispute.

                  6. “Western Experts” say that other nations were not happy with the prosecutor, saying he was not aggressive enough in going after corruption.

                  So 5 and 6 are the only points auguring in Biden’s favor. Everything else looks way, way worse than anything Trump is supposedly up to. (remember, people wanted him impeached because the VP stayed in a Trump hotel)

                  Now, questions abound about 5 and 6. Is the assertion that anti-corruption guy seen as needing to go because he’s to lax really true? As in, when some guy from Turkey or Slovenia says the Ukrainian prosecutor is lax on corruption – are they saying that because he is lax, or because they are getting worried about where his investigations are headed?

                  Oh, and there was one other…. Biden says he didn’t know his son worked for a Ukrainian company. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you….

                  1. Yet still no link.

                    1. Link to what? What are you on about?

                      I asked a simple question. It does not require any links. You don’t cite a source for what you are wondering about.

                      Are you paid to be here? This is idiotic…

                      What is my source for “Why is the Veep getting involved in personnel decisions in the Ukraine government?”


                      You are so married to your handout sheet that you can’t figure out how to respond to that simple question? And your instructions are “ask for a source!” when you get stuck, right?

                      I mean, if that isn’t the case, then you have an aneurysm or something. “what is your source” makes no sense in this context. And repeating it after that has been pointed out is even dumber.

                      So seriously, do you have a clue as to why Biden would be making personnel decisions for Ukraine? Did Obama even know about it, or was it on his own nickel?

                      These are simple questions that cut past all of the obfuscation.

                      If this was really US foreign policy in action, then we’d have a back story for that. Maybe one exists. But nobody has bothered to trot it out yet…. which is kinda suspicious, seeing as how this story has been hanging around for a half a year. That’s plenty of time to make up a convincing story.

                    2. A link for whatever your claim is. Keeping in mind I don’t give a shit if the Bidens are corrupt. I hope they are so I don’t have to look at them anymore.

                      The United States government putting pressure on foreign governments for the sake of meeting the foreign policy goals of the United States and, for that matter, global peace and harmony? Well, I never.

                      Maybe we should have just dropped a MOAB on them so it would be libertarian-approved aggression.

                    3. Ok, you are just done then… and “link” is your go to.

                      There is no claim. Just a question. No assertion. Nothing to back up. Just “Why?”

          2. Your link doesn’t provide counter-evidence, just denials. It also contains facts that I find extraordinary (as I’ve repeatedly said, how was Hunter Biden, a lawyer with no apparent qualifications who had just been dishonorably discharged from the Navy for cocaine possession put on the board of directors of a company whose language he did not even speak?) and others that are simply baffling (does Joe Biden have no interest in his son’s life at all? My father knows not only my employer, but the ins and outs of daily life).

            In the end, I have to side with the New York Times on this one. I do not find the claim that Biden was unaware of his son’s involvement credible. I definitely think that the timing and actions are far too convenient for coincidence. At the very least, there is a failure of transparency and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest. You should welcome a full investigation to ensure that that is all that went wrong.

            1. But the Obama administration denied wrong doing and that is proof enough for hyperpartisan Tony. He loves to deride others for being tribalist while being one of the most tribalist shitheads on here.

            2. Fully investigate. I don’t care. I want Biden to lose the primary. Make it partisan and unfair for all I give a shit.

              Now let’s talk about Trump, the guy with a job that is arguably important to the world.

              1. Sure, heads of state should absolutely not be asking about corruption by former officials in each others’ countries, especially when it hurts Democrats.

                1. You adopt his obvious lies and bullshit talking points like it’s something you’re supposed to do as a normal human being, let alone a libertarian.

                  He was asking about corruption (on a largely congratulatory call, naturally), like his son was talking about Russians about adoption.

                  1. I’m supposed to take your parroting of left-wing talking points seriously? Try something different.

          3. Keep repeating the link over and over again despite multiple debunkings of your interpretation. After 1,000,000 times we will finally capitulate.

      4. You’re not very good at this gaslighting thing. Try making your lies less obvious.

  4. How long have we been at war with Ukraine? Are we at war with Russia also? China? I know we’re at war with drugs, poverty, Christmas, women and the environment, possibly the English language as well, but It’s so hard to keep track of all the actual countries we’ve declared war on.

    1. You’d think with all the ‘interventions’ we’re doing in everything and everywhere that this ‘Pax Americana’ would at least bring a bit of peace.

      1. Actually, based upon pure casualties and economic factors we are living in one of the most peaceful times ever.

        1. Most of our modern wars are just “entertainment” to keep people distracted while oligarchs fight over resources using capital and subterfuge. It’s not much consolation to American grunts who lose their legs, dying Yemeni children, Russian solidiers in Syria or Pakistani families killed by drones, but in reality the stakes of war have never been lower.

          1. Wars have almost always been about fighting over resources

            1. Yes and no. It’s more often about land than the particular resources on the land (although land itself could also be considered a resource). The German push for WWII, for example, was in large part due to their goal of lebensraum. That and societal, racial, and political problems that countries have been unable or unwilling to resolve through peaceful methods.

              Countries don’t generally go to war over basic resources like water and food. They’ll go to war over things like oil and wealth, but that’s a little bigger picture economically than the resources themselves.

              1. Land is a resource. Oil is a resource. Thus wars are usually fought to protect or acquire resource.

    2. Not hard at all. Zero.

  5. Just as an aside, is it just me or did anybody else read that last paragraph in OBL’s voice?

    1. No that you say that, no. My God, it sounds exactly like him.

  6. So, let me get this straight Weld. Asking the Ukrainian government to look into the actions of a former Vice-President using his office to coerce a country into protecting one of his relatives from having their possibly criminal actions investigated is ‘treason’.

    But a sitting Vice-President using his office to coerce a country into protecting one of his relatives from having their possibly criminal actions investigated is not?

    Also, even if Trumps actions here were an abuse of his office – I don’t see how this particular abuse would arise to the level of treason. Is it really so against American interests to have *Ukraine* investigate Hunter Biden and his company?

    Or is Weld trying to play Trump’s aggressive, confrontational, game without understanding how it works?

    1. Are you really this dense or are just playing dense for partisan reasons? Trump threatened to withdraw aid committed to Ukraine by the US Congress unless a foreign country investigated his political opponent. If Trump really wants Biden and his son investigated he has his own DOJ to do so. If he was serious about a criminal investigation, he would have entrusted that investigation to a government agency, not to Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer. Trump was trying to get a foreign power to fabricate dirt on an American political opponent. Trump overstepped the powers of his office by a long shot. This is certainly far worse than Watergate (although to be fair, Watergate is probably one of the least egregious offenses a sitting President has committed in the last 50 years.)

      1. There is no proof that Trump said anything of the sort. In fact the whistleblower didn’t even hear the conversation and both parties involved denied that is what happened.

        1. “There is no proof that Trump said anything of the sort.”

          Isn’t there a recording of the conversation?

          1. Is there?

            1. I assume the transcript is not written from memory. Tape recorders are employed for this sort of thing.

              1. So where’s the recording?

                1. Have you tried the library? Careful of the drag queens though.

                  1. I am sure the IG first move was to listen to the tapes. Why not wait until we have the report?

      2. A small correction that changes everything, Trump put in a request for renewed investigation into the company who employed the son of Joe Biden, not Joe or even Biden Jr. personally.

        Secondly, The New York Times itself said in a May article that this was a potential corrupt action by Biden that needs to be investigated. The American Justice Department has an enormous conflict of interest in this case, and lacks jurisdiction in any case, as the corruption being investigated occurred in Ukraine.

        Thirdly, the “whistleblower” admitted in their own claim that they had no firsthand knowledge of this actually happening. It was a rumor.

        1. Yeah, except for the part where Dear Leader basically admitted it, which was recorded by an actual microphone— which, to be fair, we have not confirmed if it was implanted with an Obama mind-control device.

          Dear Leader: We want to make sure that country is honest. It’s very important to talk about corruption. If you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?”

          Jesus Christ! Soldier, is this Pavlovian or something else? I haven’t studied it.

          1. Corroborated what? That he spoke to the Ukrainian minister about the investigation? Wow the smoking gun. What is wrong about that?

      3. Biden threatened to withdraw American aid unless a foreign country fired a local prosecutor who just happened to be investigating a company that paid Biden’s son half a million dollars. I’ll agree Trump looks sleazy if you’ll agree Biden looks sleazy. But I’m sure they both dotted the “i”s and crossed the “t”s to stay this side of pretty loose law. In any case, Biden is not going to be able to run against Trump for turning the government into a family business. Which is why I suspect that behind the scenes the leaker supports a different Democrat and hopes to dirty both of them.

        1. Which is why I suspect that behind the scenes the leaker supports a different Democrat and hopes to dirty both of them.

          These people aren’t that clever.

      4. No it’s not. The president is diplomat-in-chief as well as lawman-in-chief. He is not conspiring against his own government. If Biden is a suspected criminal, implicated by HIS OWN WORDS, any president can and should use whatever powers that come with the office to prosecute Biden.

        But go ahead, keep squawking like a little blue chicken.

  7. “This isn’t Russia, this isn’t China, you can’t just cancel elections in the United States of America,” said the one-term Tea Partier from Illinois. “But that’s what Donald Trump is doing. And make no mistake…this is Donald Trump telling the Republican Party bosses what to do, because the Republican Party bosses, the Republican Party establishment, all they want to do is wash their dictator’s feet every doggone day.”

    Oh, wait, I see what is happening here. Weld has been the lapdog of Democrats for so long that he thinks the Republican Party is organized the same way as the Democratic Party. Where the top Party officials tell everyone else who will be their candidate and are organized in such a way that Hillary Clinton was able to take effective control over the Dem Party by getting a stranglehold on its fundraising.

    The Republican Party, for all its faults, is a lot more decentralized.

    I don’t know why these states are canceling their R primary elections – other than the basic ‘polls are saying no one is interested in voting other than Trump so its not worth the cost’ – and I wish they didn’t, but its not Trump telling them to.

    1. I think that was Walsh rather than Weld. Of course, there is nothing in the American system that requires parties choose their general election candidates via primary elections. It is just something that has grown onto our political system. It may be crass for the party to cancel primaries, but that is all it is.

      1. “Wel[ch] has been the lapdog of Democrats for so long that he thinks the Republican Party is organized the same way as the Democratic Party.”

        Still accurate

    2. Parties are private orgs and can be run the way the members or leaders want them to be run. If we stop pretending they’re somehow parts of the government, we’d go a long way toward breaking their duopoly. Libertarians should understand that concept well. So, states are not canceling primaries, private organizations are and they are doing it because they can.

      1. Parties are private orgs and can be run the way the members or leaders want them to be run.

        Then can we stop being taxed to fund their primary elections?

        1. That would be nice, yes, but it won’t happen anytime soon.

  8. This ‘primary’ is actually a Zen koan.

  9. Every so often, Weld makes me re-think legalizing marijuana.

    1. Johnson was the smoker. Weld is clearly a drinker.

  10. Weld quotes the Constitutional requirements for impeachment, but doesn’t mention the Constitutional definition of treason. How has President Trump “levied war” on the United States, or “adhered to” or “given aid and comfort” to its enemies? Do we actually have “enemies” in the Constitutional sense when we are not at war? I don’t like Trump as a person, but the idea of having him killed is just so far out there, I don’t know what to think. The United States doesn’t do stuff like that, and we had damn well better not ever start.

    1. Which brings up an interesting question…

      What would you call using the powers of the state to destroy a political opponent.

      Let’s say that Trump decides he’s not leaving in 2020. Let’s suppose he loses re-election to Biden.

      And let’s suppose that instead of shaking hands and congratulating Biden and then moving out, Trump has the FBI start investigating Biden. And he has the NSA, Treasury Department, CIA…. anyone that he can order around… start looking for crimes. They even go so far as sending spies to get close to him and even try to plant evidence of wrongdoing… all in the hope of holding on to power.

      What would we call that? It isn’t a foreign power we are at war with… But if Trump was using Ukrainian diplomats to try to set Biden up? Would that count as Treason? Or do we have a different word for that?

      1. You are assuming that the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc. would take orders from a man who was no longer the legal President. They wouldn’t. (People have been speculating about a Republican president refusing to leave office since the days of Richard Nixon. It hasn’t happened, and it won’t happen, because career government employees simply would not obey such a presidential pretender.)

        1. Actually, I assume that I changed “Obama” to “Trump” and made a couple of other minor alterations to what actually happened in 2016 so that it would fit the “Trump is a dictator” narrative for 2020.

      2. It can only be treason if you consider the Ukraine and enemy and if Trump’s actions would benefit the Ukraine at the cost of the US.
        Treason has a very specific definition and meaning. It is literally one of the few crimes mentioned in the Constitution and the only one mentioned that carries the death penalty.
        Sedition is a little closer but still a far stretch. As for Trump refusing to leave office, that would require the rest of the goverernment to recognize his authority. He doesn’t have to concede. All Biden has to do is be sworn in. Trump could continue to call himself the president but by law he would have no authority.

    2. Trump hasn’t committed technical treason. Just many, many crimes.

      1. Name one?

        1. Obstruction of justice. Want me to name 10 more?

          How many would I have to name if he had a (D) after his name before you would be pissed off?

          1. Can’t obstruct a non-existent crime.

            1. Donald Trump doesn’t get to make new laws out of thin air with his weird little mouth.

              You can obstruct justice without there being an eventual conviction. Especially if you’re a president, actually.

              1. Mueller Claus really broke your heart with that stocking of coal.

              2. And yet, he wasn’t indicted or impeached, and never will be. Why is that? How angry does it make you?

                1. Biden just called for impeachment.

                  1. And my dick is screaming out for Scarlett Johansson. What is your point? It’s not going to happen, no matter how many retards on the left, such as Joe Biden and yourself, scream for it to happen. Might as well get used to the pace of things because we are now two into Trump’s presidency and we still have six to go. If you don’t calm down soon, you run a legitimate risk of necking yourself.

                    1. Don’t you feel like an idiot.

          2. Yes name 10 more. The obstruction charges are debatable at best and would be nearly impossible to prove beyond a shadow of doubt. All he’d have to point to is Mueller’s testimony where Mueller admitted his investigation was never hindered and Trump never followed through with his actions. Oh and the underlying crime never occurred.

            1. And the law allows a President to fire a special prosecutor and the attorney general and the head of the FBI. But since he never fired Mueller and cooperated with the investigation that would be difficult at best to even argue is obstruction.

  11. Does Reason believe that the executive branch alone is more threat to our freedom than a hostile one party rule at congress and a complicit media.

    The elites lean left and they despise Trump. The only thing Trump can get done with democrats is spending. When Obama was in the white house the media properly kissed his ring and didn’t bat an eye when he “caged” families, dropped bombs on nations and relied on secret drone kill lists.

    The democrats aren’t calling for impeachment on Trump because they care about ethics or restraint on government. They want that and investigations as a means to take down their political opponents. It’s THAT simple. Look what happened to BK and Smollett. Look at happened to Fairfax and Northam.

    We took out entire regimes for our national interests. But oh no, Donald Trump asked Ukraine to look into Biden! Treason! Imperial presidency! Let’s impeach a duly elected public official over a whistleblower (with no direct access to any conversation that took place) who filed complaint over a rumor!

    1. The democrats aren’t calling for impeachment on Trump because they care about ethics or restraint on government.

      Yeah, and neither do you, Trump buttkisser.

      1. Yay let’s impeach or someone because we don’t like him.

        The loser is you and your leftist buddies, sir.

  12. Whoop… Whoop… Whoop. Team Trump! Activate!

  13. Are there any libertarians left at this site or did the Trumpkins drive them all away?

    1. Would you like to be a founding member of WCATCHLAPCLWDCF

    2. The thread following your comment suggests the answer.

      AIDS anyone? Apparently I’m ridden with it.

  14. Weld’s comments are absurd and expose his ignorance of the Constitution. What a complete joke.

  15. I’m so proud to be present to witness the birth of a new Benghazi. Say what you will about Trump, he still has the requisite brain function to practice a tic-tac-toe version of Roy Cohn’s tactics.

    Why didn’t Trump go to the FBI, John?

    1. Because the FBI doesn’t have jurisdiction. The crime occurred in the Ukraine and not the US.

      1. Well that’s certainly a novel theory. But it’s not novel, is it? You got it from some guy who eats his own boogers who owns a blog, didn’t you?

        The alleged culprits are American citizens. The FBI doesn’t have jurisdiction?

        1. No. The question of jurisdiction is not some novel idea. And I’m not sure which blogger you are speaking of since I don’t follow bloggers but rather I study the data and make up my own mind. I know you aren’t capable of doing anything but parroting others but some of us actually have some ability to form our own thoughts.

        2. No, they don’t, you literal fucking retard.

      2. The FBI actually does have jurisdiction over political corruption by U.S. officials and employees in foreign countries. The DOJ can prosecute U.S. persons overseas for things that would be crimes under U.S. law. That was changed during the Bush administration to combat sex trafficking and sex tourism overseas.

        But it’s usually more effective and more desirable if other countries handle their own investigations of wrongdoing in their country as the first option.

        1. Without the Ukrainian finishing their investigation there is no strong evidence of wrong doing. The accusation is Biden used his position to protect a Ukrainian company his son worked for. The FBI has no jurisdiction regarding the conduct of the Ukrainian company unless it committee crimes in the US.

    2. “Why didn’t Trump go to the FBI, John?”

      The FBI’s office in Kiev?
      Man, there are times you out-do yourself…

      1. There are only two possibilities with you people. Either you know this is all bullshit Trump deflection, as per usual, thus you’re evil. Or you don’t know, thus you’re a raging fucking moron.

        If you don’t know which it is, guess which it is.

        1. No, they just know that you’re all bullshit deflection, because you’re a pathological liar.

          I honestly don’t know why you even bother to show up here. You’re basically at the social strata of a pedophile.

          1. Yet 80% of the people here are sucking the dick of a man who wants to fuck his daughter.

            1. That’s your best. Not automatically condemning Trump does not equal sucking his dick.

              1. By now it does, surely. Are you even paying attention?

                Where do you get your news?

                If you trust it, you shouldn’t be embarrassed to say.

              2. When have you ever once condemned Dear Leader for anything?

                1. Bump stocks, a number of his statements about immigrants, his use of executive orders. Etc

                2. His call for more gun control. I have only been lukewarm on his tariffs (hate the tariffs but do want China to be forced to stop it’s unfair and illegal trade practices). His appointment of John Bolton. Oh and the biggest one, I campaigned for Johnson, donated money to Johnson (but first to Rand Paul) and voted for Johnson.

            2. “Yet 80% of the people here are sucking the dick of a man who wants to fuck his daughter.”
              Isn’t that what you do to men you “love”?

        2. There are two possibilities that you are willing to condemn a man for an unfounded accusation because he is on the wrong team, thus you are evil. Or you are willing to overlook your sides bad behavior because it’s “muh team” in which case you are a partisan hack and evil. Don’t you love being able to set the perimeters of your opponents position?

          1. This whole “go to the FBI” thing is a bit weird…

            Because, let’s just play that out….

            “Trump ordered the FBI to investigate Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden”….

            Exactly how does that play out any differently in the minds of Vox readers?

            1. It wouldn’t. It would probably be worse. But these are the same people who saw nothing wrong with Obama doing that exact thing to Trump.

  16. I believe this qualifies. Yes, yes, it does qualify.

    Dumbest article of the year.

    1. C’mon are you forgetting every single Shikha article or Schackleford’s multiple “this time we got Trump” stories?

  17. Three Loons. I would have said Three Stooges, but that’s just too cliché.

  18. Bill Weld?
    I hope next year the LP will get a candidate that is informed and has some fire in his belly instead of this sissy.

  19. If Trump had asked Ukraine to look into corruption by, say, the Koch Brothers, this would be a non-issue. But because the target is a possible presidential opponent, it is treason, etc. etc. Are we now in a state of mind that potential opponents of the administration in power can carry out all manner of corrupt and criminal activities, secure in the knowledge that the media will have their back should an investigation be launched by the administration in power?

    1. I’m enjoying all the people who didn’t think Obama having the CIA, NSA and FBI spying on Trump was a big deal, and the FBI infiltrating Trump’s campaign, attempting to set up Trump campaign officials for bogus crimes (offering a job and giving a cash payment in Europe on the way to the airport, then meeting him at the airport with FBI agents searching for the cash when he arrived in the US), getting foreign government officials to spy on the Trump campaign…. none of that was worthy of even the slightest scrutiny….. I’m enjoying watching those same people have conniption fits that maybe, possibly Trump told Ukraine that it was OK with the US government if they reopened that corruption investigation that Biden threatened them into closing when he was the VP.

      The mind truly boggles.

      1. Lies, again. But he probably deserved to be spied on.

        I’m sure you have credible sources if I’m wrong.

        1. He deserved to be spied upon? I’m sure you have credible sources.

        2. What lies? Is there even a single syllable in there that isn’t true?

        3. There were three lies in those two sentences.

  20. Trump is King of the Jews, and I’m a Jew. Thus, I’ll kill for him.

    1. “Trump is King of the Jews, and I’m a Jew. Thus, I’ll kill for him.”

      Please fuck off and die, asshole

  21. Here’s the details of the timeline from The Hill. No clue if this is accurate or not, but here’s what they said:

    Officials from Ukraine were trying to report on Biden’s activity when he was the VP. The State Department kept delaying getting them visas, so they ended up hiring a former US attorney (not Rudy) to carry their information to the DOJ.

    The DOJ promptly and swiftly sat on it and did nothing.

    So when Trump gets in office Ukraine is worried about US/Ukraine relations.

    The US State Department is worried about US/Ukraine relations in the wake of all of this. They have a representative from Ukraine who is trying to smooth things over. The State Department asks Rudy Giuliani to talk to the guy. He demures at first, but after they explain things he agrees – even though he says he doesn’t know anything about any of this stuff.

    Giuliani works closely with State, reporting back everything after each meeting. State is in charge.

    It is in this context that Trump ends up on a call with the Ukrainian President who has just won election on an anti-corruption platform.

    This is why the Biden thing comes up. It is important to the Ukrainians because they are not happy with what happened with the Obama administration, Biden specifically.

    That is the timeline that they reported. No clue if any of that is true or not…. but it certainly should be front and center in the reporting if it is true – even if it is only part of the story.

    1. Trump bribed a country in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

      What, you think he’s morally incapable of that?

      1. Your proof he bribed them? The so called whistle blower didn’t hear the conversation and is reporting 3rd hand information and the Ukrainian diplomat on the call denies that is what happened. Do you have proof otherwise?

      2. I am simply relaying the timeline as described by the reporting of The Hill.

        It certainly changes the context quite a bit, if it is true.

  22. The sickest part of all of this to me is that if everything in the universe were exactly the same except Trump had a (D) after his name, all of you bleating fucking moron assholes would have run him out of office in his first year.

    That’s the only variable that matters. On a libertarian site.

    1. We can talk about the real scandal:

      Why are hard working Americans forced to send the Ukraine $1 billion of their hard earned pay?

      That’s where you’re going: to the heart of the issue, right?

      1. At least it would be a legitimately libertarian position.

    2. No, the sickest part is rather than waiting on more information, you are condemning someone based upon hearsay. The whistleblower didn’t hear the conversation and wasn’t present. It is all hearsay until more information comes out.

  23. I’m completely amazed at all the Trump toadies on a Reason comment board. This man is an arrogant, narcissistic buffoon, who no clear thinking man would either want to associate with or worse, date his daughter. His answer to every slight is to attack and debase, including almost every person that has quit his administration. He has no clear policy on any major issue, and uses the presidency as if it were his personal toy. Worse, the suck-up Republican Senators and Congressmen line up to lick his boots and abandon their principles, if they ever had any. I left the party in 2016 because of this clown, and they have done nothing to convince me to return. One last thing; Bill Weld is a very smart, principled man with actual cogent policy positions, but as we saw in 2016, the electorate is only interested in fluff like sex tapes and emails. Intelligent policy discussion is gone.

    1. You had me until you espoused your opinion if weld. A more festering and unserious carbuncle there never was; he looks like a rubber dildo gave birth to a potato and he is trotted out solely to throw out hyperbolic nonsense for MSM, box-checking the “libertarian” viewpoint.

      1. Thanks for proving my point with your elegant response. Mr. Weld has given his policy positions on issues clearly and often for 30 years, but I don’t expect anyone here to really address that. I believe he would make an excellent president.

        1. Yeah, he’s expressed his support for gun control and Hillary Clinton, while he was running against her no less.

      2. I want you to explain in a moderate amount of detail, but not too much—don’t strain yourself—who is more libertarian: Trump or Weld; and why.

        1. Tony
          September.23.2019 at 11:34 pm
          “I want you to explain in a moderate amount of detail, but not too much—don’t strain yourself—who is more libertarian: Trump or Weld; and why.”

          Shitbag here seems confused. Or stupid. Or both.
          Trump’s got the gold since Silent Cal, and I understand why you have no idea what that means or why.
          You are a fucking lefty ignoramus absent the ability to do so.
          Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

          1. Does everyone else agree that Sevo is the authority and spokesman on what true libertarianism consists of? I’ll take it as a yes if I don’t hear back.

            1. He understands far better than you. And considering his understanding is limited at best…

        2. Neither are libertarians in any way beyond the incidental, but due to a variety of factors, Trump’s presidency will result in a more libertarian United States than Gary Johnson’s presidency or Bill Weld’s presidency ever could have. Weld is a snake, and Johnson is a buffoon. Either of their cabinets would have been filled with swamp monsters of the highest order. Instead, the country is being treated with an 8-year-long crash course on the deep state. The entire corrupt media system is crashing down. It’s beautiful.

          I’m a fucking anarchist, retard. My ideal outcome would be radical Balkanization, and I definitely don’t think ANYONE is capable of wielding the power of the Presidency. I am perfectly comfortable knocking Trump when he deserves it and I have many, many times, but you and your side have been wrong on 90+% of the shit you criticize him for. He’s beating you at every single turn, and you’re so stupid and arrogant that you really think you’re doing well, which is just one more reason I find him so entertaining.

          1. So Trump doesn’t want to spend your taxpayer money to build a giant useless wall, and in the meantime isn’t caging thousands of non-criminal refugee families because they aren’t the right skin color?

            As an anarchist, you must at least object to this. I’ll assume it goes without saying.

            1. >So Trump doesn’t want to spend your taxpayer money to build a giant useless wall

              I don’t like federally-funded public works projects. One good point out of a thousand utterly braindead points makes you a broken clock and a useful idiot. The wall is also, objectively, not useless.

              >and in the meantime isn’t caging thousands of non-criminal refugee families

              They are criminals by definition, whether or not I believe the law that criminalizes them is ‘fair’, which I do not. They also largely aren’t refugees, they are economic migrants and that is an important distinction. I also think it is a perfectly reasonable opinion that we do standard identity and health checks on people coming into the country, and that they put in as much to the system as everyone else has to. They are coming here for free shit, paid for by me, and they don’t want to learn our language, our laws, or our constitution. Why would I want to live with them? Why would anyone?

              >because they aren’t the right skin color?

              Your inane, non-stop assertion that Trump is a racist is based upon intentional misreadings of his speech, along with thin air. It is patently false that the only reason a person could be for border control is because of race. Stop pulling this card. It’s pathetic, and it makes rational people who do even a moderate amount of digging immediately understand how full of shit you are.

              >As an anarchist, you must at least object to this. I’ll assume it goes without saying.

              Everything you post is obnoxious and arrogant. You are a little faggot.

              1. Asylum seekers are not criminals by definition. Having swarthy skin is not illegal either, in case I needed to clear that up.

    2. Bill Weld is smart and principled? Really?
      And defending the idea of innocent until proven guilty, especially of a charge that is on its face value stupid (treason) and carries a death sentence isn’t supporting Trump
      Additionally, the original story has changed as we have been made aware that the so called whistleblower wasn’t actually present during the conversation and is reporting 3rd hand gossip. I would hope if the same thing were happening to Warren that I would defend her as well.

      1. I’m guessing that your response is to Weld’s “campaign” manager…

    3. Is this 2020’s version of the “Concerned Conservative Christian”? That’s two “where muh libertarianz gone?” posts in four hours over yet another “scandal” that looks far worse fir Biden than Trump..

      We getting some ‘tards trickling over from Balloon Juice to LARP as “glibertarians” for an evening?

    4. Gflyer
      September.23.2019 at 8:57 pm
      “I’m completely amazed at all the Trump toadies on a Reason comment board.”

      I am no longer amazed at the fucking losers who show up to make sure their TDS is a matter of public record.
      Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

    5. Gflyer
      September.23.2019 at 8:57 pm
      “I’m completely amazed at all the Trump toadies on a Reason comment board.”

      I’m not so completely amazed at al the loser victims of TDS who who show up to claim they are the chosen tribe and those of us who find what he’s done valuable must be some ‘toadies’ since shitstains like Gflyer claim it’s true!

      1. Sevo, LOL! I see you have graduated from the Donald Trump Jr. High debate class. If you have nothing intelligent to say, just trash and demonize the other person. Absolutely intellectually brilliant. Bravo!

        1. Gflyer
          September.24.2019 at 12:43 am
          “Sevo, LOL! I see you have graduated from the Donald Trump Jr. High debate class. If you have nothing intelligent to say, just trash and demonize the other person. Absolutely intellectually brilliant. Bravo!”
          So we get the infantile or adolescent response from our newest fucking lefty sock absent a single response to my comment.
          Imagine my lack of surprise and that fucking lefty ignoramus unable to read!
          Fuck off and die where your stink won’t bother decent people, you pathetic piece of shit.

    6. It’s because we think harumphing little faggots like yourself are arrogant pieces of shit, who are completely full of it. All you have is pomp. You don’t know anything that you are talking about, and yet you still somehow think everyone else is dumber than you. You are losing and will continue losing. Weld will thankfully never hold public office again, and you will go on being politically worthless.

  24. What this quote proves is that Bill Weld was the perfect fit for the Libertarian Party. He should be at the next convention. He’ll fit right in.

    Him and McAffee can have a panel discussion….

  25. What a freaking idiot. If the Libertarian party wants to run someone who’s going to say crazy shit they should run John McCafee, at least he’s actually a Libertarian.

  26. It’s hard to paint yourself as the more reasonable alternative when you’re the one sharpening the guillotine over a phone call.

  27. Hey look, here’s the part of the story that establishes intent. To be honest, i’m Surprised Dear Leader’s watery brain is capable of something resembling forethought and that this episode wasn’t him just selling out the country on the fly. That would still be treason, of course.

    President Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold back almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine at least a week before a phone call in which Trump is said to have pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden, according to three senior administration officials.
    Officials at the Office of Management and Budget relayed Trump’s order to the State Department and the Pentagon during an interagency meeting in mid-July, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. They explained that the president had “concerns” and wanted to analyze whether the money needed to be spent.

    1. “…Surprised Dear Leader’s…”
      Early cap, but that’s no surprise.
      I’m guessing that ‘tards must spend at least half their lives dreaming up nick-names which should embarrass grammar-school kids. But since they are so abysmally stupid they smile, post to face book or something and pat themselves on the back. And that stupidity means they are incapable of embarrassment when called on it.
      And here’s a fucking lefty ignoramus to prove the claim.

    2. Oh no, Trump didn’t automatically make an aid payment? The scandal!

      is said to have pressured
      according to three senior administration officials.
      according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity
      They explained that the president had “concerns” and wanted to analyze whether the money needed to be spent.


      1. The problem isn’t with holding back aid money. It’s the apparent quid pro quo: if you do this for me, you’ll get more aid money.

        That’s okay if “this” is arguably for the United States, which President Trump leads and makes foreign policy for. It’s not so okay if “this” is something for Trump’s personal benefit.

        I’m sure Presidents and VPs and Secretaries of State have often negotiated arms deals and other benefits with foreign countries in return for something that would make the President look good. But AFAIK it’s always for something like, “you release these Americans” or “You help us secure this border”. That also is beneficial to the US, even though the “real” motive may be the public relations benefit to the President.

        Or so it has seemed to me in the past.

        1. Except there is no evidence of quid pro quo except coincidence at this point. The Ukrainian diplomat who was actually on the call denies that any quid pro quo occurred and the so called whistleblower was not present during the call and was reporting 3rd hand gossip.

  28. “Bill Weld, on Trump’s Ukraine Call: ‘It’s Treason, Pure and Simple, and the Penalty for Treason…Is Death'”

    What’s the penalty for public stupidity?

    1. Elevation to high office.

      1. Or some idiotic sophistry at which you excel.
        Fuck off and please get killed by someone who recognizes your value to humanity, you pathetic piece of shit.

        1. LOL… defending this fucking corrupt imbecile in the WH makes old crank even crankier.

          1. That fucking corrupt imbecile seems to be owning you like Kunta Kinte.

        2. You seem angry. Look at it this way. If someone assassinates Trump in the next year, you’ll have to support Weld. So go easy on him. Insult me all you like, and I’ll see that you get all the spam flags you deserve.

          1. That isn’t how it works. Weld isn’t the VP. Pence will be sworn in and the likely GOP candidate.

            1. He’ll support the Republican candidate, whatever his name is.

    2. Is Ukraine an enemy of the US? If Weld can’t get the definition of a crime right when it’s defined in the Constitution, how did he ever function as a prosecutor? The DOJ should open an investigation of the cases he prosecuted, to determine how many people he jailed for imaginary crimes.

  29. Hard to take the Libertarians very seriously when so many supported Hillary from Penn Jillette to the guy running for Vice President.
    Buried in the CNN report on Ukraine is that the “whistleblower” was reporting a rumor they heard, not a phone call they heard. That is raw data and should never have been made public. But it will make people ask what happened with Biden and Ukraine. So he could very well be gone, leaving libertarians and angry Republicans to support socialism.
    If the economy tanks Trump has little chance, but at this point against Elizabeth Warren or Biden he will crush them.
    It is interesting to note that the backbone of the EU, Deutsche Bank did not get one penny in bailout money and the economies of the world have not failed.
    I think we need to get all that bailout money back!

  30. I see Bill Weld is still drunk,

    He should probably stop. A man of his age only has so many shots left.

  31. Teacher! Today I learned that in order to be a proper libertarian, you have to lick Trump taint on a constant basis, never question anything he ever does, and call anyone who does think he might be somewhat, just a little, incompetent and corrupt, an AIDS-ridden faggot.

    Will tomorrow’s lesson be different, or is it gonna be the same all over again for the hundred thousandth time? Because I have things to do.

    1. Teacher Teacher today I learned that anyone who provides Trump with the benefit of the doubt, and honors innocent until proven guilty must be a Trump lover. God you are bad at this shit.

      1. All anyone’s talking about is submitting evidence for a possible indictment. Do you not think there’s enough to do that?

        Or are you asserting an entirely novel legal principle that nobody can ever be investigated?

      2. And did you give Barack Obama such a benefit of the doubt, out of curiosity?

        Or were you perhaps up his asshole about every little thing down to his fucking tan suit?

    2. Tony, you are about as ignorant of how to be a proper libertarian as you are of how to be a proper man or a decent human being.

      1. Do tell, how does one be a proper man?

  32. I’d be willing to vote for just about anyone on the right as an alternative to Trump…. Unfortunately it seems like Weld is more left-center. When he jumped on the impeachment wagon all I could do was sigh and roll my eyes as he lost credibility as a reasonable and rational alternative.

  33. Weld — and some other people — should look up the definition of treason.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

  34. Trump doesn’t have any primary challengers.

    Republican primary challengers would be regularly featured on FOX.

    Walsh, Weld, and Sanford are fixtures on CNN and MSNBC. So they’re talking to Democrats.

    1. Actually they are irrelevant and just haven’t figured it out yet.

  35. The Left: “Nationalism is evil! We need open borders!”

    Also the Left: “Treason is punishable by DEATH!”

    Hhhhmmmmmmm…..Make up your minds.

  36. Maybe the words “former Massachusetts governor” should be disqualifying for any presidential candidate!

  37. Weld pretended to be a Libertarian and is now pretending to be relevant. He is making the impeachment obsessed liberals look sane in comparison to his calls for a death sentence without an iota of evidence being produced yet.

  38. If Trump should be impeached for investigating Biden during a campaign, what does this say about Obama investigating Trump during a campaign?

  39. How is the message leaked? It should be kept in a very confidential condition. So who watch Trump and leaked?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.