Reason Roundup

Move Over, Russia: Impeachment Talk Now Turns on Trump Dealings With Ukraine

Plus: Juul under criminal investigation, states pay millions to abortion providers, and more...

|

Impeachment is coming, impeachment is coming! We've been hearing that for so long and with such profoundly unearned certainty that it's no wonder such assurances are now greeted with all the gravitas of Henny Penny squawking. Still, this time it really is different, pundits say.

I am still not inclined to believe them. (And from the sound of yesterday's Reason podcast, neither are my colleagues.) But at this point, simply ignoring the proximate cause for the latest impeachment predictionsPresident Donald Trump's purported request for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son's business dealings thereno longer seems like an option. Since there's potential badness for both Democrats and Republicans to latch on to, both sides seem determined to make sure this story has legs.

So, here's a quickand nonpartisanrundown of what has happened, what's at stake, and what folks are saying about it.

Hunter Biden did have some potentially shady business dealings. As his dad was serving as vice president of the United States, the middle Biden child was brokering tight business relationships with state-associated companies in China and Ukraine, as part of work he was doing with John Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz. On multiple occasions, Heinz and Biden's business escapades coincided with their fathers meeting with (and sometimes being especially accommodating to) Chinese and Ukrainian leaders. "Of course, Trump would love to turn Hunter Biden into Hillary Clinton's e-mails. So, there's reasonable fear of giving too much oxygen to wild accusations," writes Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi. "But you don't have to work for Fox News to see legitimate concerns over Hunter Biden's business dealings. In fact, you can read all about them in presumably friendly media outposts like The New Yorker and the New York Times."

We have no evidence that Joe Biden was involved or acted improperly in service of his son. And the overlaps between Biden and Kerry statecraft and their sons' work could also be explained in the exact reverse way from how critics are framing it. That is, perhaps the younger Biden and Heinz got the deals they did because their fathers were already seen by foreign leaders as allies.

"On the narrow question of whether Joe Biden used his position as vice president to push for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Hunter Biden lots of money—there's no credible evidence of that," notes Vennochi. Yet "some State Department officials had expressed concern that Hunter Biden's work in Ukraine could complicate his father's diplomacy there," as The New York Times put it. At the very least, this didn't look good, and Republicans are right when they say it would likely be taken much more seriously if this were the Trump family, for example, not the Bidens.

Trump has been his typically bombastic and shady self about all of this. First, Trump keeps getting key details about the Hunter Biden situation wrong. Plus, Trump and his people keep flip-flopping about what the president said in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. We supposedly know about the phone call because a whistleblower filed a complaint with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. A recent Trump tweet suggested the whistleblower is full of crap.

And yet, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has admitted that he talked to the Ukrainian president about Biden. "As a brief review, we know that Giuliani…first denied, then admitted that he asked Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden," points out David French at National Review. "We also know that Giuliani then strongly implied that Trump himself requested that Ukraine investigate Biden, calling that the president 'doing his job.'"

And Trump himself seemed to admit as much recently. He told reporters over the weekend:

The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact that we don't want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine.

The media has played typically loose with insinuations and dot-connecting. "About a week before he urged Ukraine's president to investigate Hunter Biden, Trump told Mulvaney and others to halt aid," tweeted Washington Post reporter Josh Dawsey with a link to a new article. "Eventually some feared decision could be illegal, and he was convinced to reverse." But the Post article itself elaborates that this wasn't strictly or at all about the Bidens:

Republican senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee said Sept. 12 that the aid to Ukraine had been held up while the Trump administration explored whether Zelensky, the country's new president, was pro-Russian or pro-Western. They said the White House decided to release the aid after Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) threatened to freeze $5 billion in Pentagon funding for next year unless the money for 2019 was distributed.

Or, as Axios put it: "There is no evidence that the release is tied to Trump's calls for Ukraine to investigate Biden."

Is it really so wrong to spend a little more time finding out if an administration is on our side before we sent them military aid? Or, as Trump told reporters Monday, "If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"

We might hear more from the alleged whistleblower soon. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) sent a letter Sunday to all members of Congress saying that this Thursday, the House Intelligence Committee will hear from Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and that, "at that time, we expect him to obey the law and turn over the whistleblower's full complaint to the Committee. We also expect that he will establish a path for the whistleblower to speak directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as required by law."

Some top Democrats are saying this could really trigger impeachment proceedings. But for now, Pelosi seems to be taking things slowly. "We must be sure that the President and his Administration are always conducting our national security and foreign policy in the best interest of the American people, not the President's personal or political interest," said Pelosi in her letter. "If the Administration persists in blocking this whistleblower from disclosing to Congress a serious possible breach of constitutional duties by the President, they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation."

But we're not there yet.

Basically, there are fools and liars on all sides. "Yes, there are already public voices racing beyond the facts to presume the worst about the (still unknown) whistleblower complaint and to presume the worst about (still unread) transcript of President Trump's call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky," notes French.

But let's be honest: What we know from Rudy Giuliani and from Trump himself is troubling, and it's troubling enough that every conservative should be focused far more on discovering the truth than on reflexively defending the president.

It's unclear whether this is bad or good for Biden. Sure, "Even if Trump is left standing, this latest development could finally doom Biden's political career," suggested Post opinion writer Ed Rogers. But the attention from Trump also seems to be rallying more Democrats around Biden, elevating him as a resistance leader facing unfair attacks.


FREE MINDS

Anti-abortion laws costing states millions…while funding abortion clinics. "In the past four years, taxpayers in states trying to restrict abortion access have paid almost $10 million in attorney fees for abortion providers," The Washington Post reports. "That price tag is likely to keep growing as more abortion restrictions are challenged, including three in federal courts [on Monday]."

The states shelling out the most money were Texas ($2.3 million), Alabama ($1.7 million), Wisconsin ($1.6 million), North Carolina ($1 million), and Alaska ($995,000).


FREE MARKETS

Juul is facing a criminal investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice. For now, not much about the nature of the probe is known. "The investigation by the U.S. attorney's office of the Northern District of California is in its early stages," reported The Wall Street Journal yesterday.

A Juul spokesman had no immediate comment. The San Francisco company has said it never marketed to teens and that its products are intended for adult cigarette smokers who want to switch. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office said he couldn't confirm or deny an ongoing investigation.


QUICK HITS

  • Bad news for Boris Johnson, the U.K.'s new leader:

NEXT: 8 Cases Everyone Should Know from the Hughes Court

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Impeachment is coming, impeachment is coming!

    One if by the House, two if by the Senate?

    1. Hello.

      ENB is trying to trick us.

    2. Two by Paul and Silas

  2. This Ukraine bombshell is a tipping point for Drumpf. Impeachment is now 100% guaranteed. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

    #TrumpUkraine

    1. Tick tock, eh, OBL?

    2. And who built those walls?

    3. I bet that 23 year old midget masquerading as a child is somehow connected to all this.

  3. On multiple occasions, Heinz and Biden’s business escapades coincided with their fathers meeting with (and sometimes being especially accommodating to) Chinese and Ukrainian leaders.

    Always set up a foundation and work through that, dummies.

    1. Weird how they left off the fact that Biden flew on airforce 2 with his father on his chinese trips.

        1. yes it is what every privileged drug addicted idiot son gets to do when their daddy is an equally idiotic former Senator

  4. Was Trump ham-handed in raising Biden allegations? Maybe. But don’t give Biden a pass.

    The national interests of the United States and the political interests of the president are not the same thing. If President Trump conflated them in his discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, that was a failure of judgment.

    But have we lost our capacity to say conduct is censurable without turning it into something it is not – such as effective immunity for Biden and grounds for Trump’s impeachment?

    1. It almost sounds like you’re suggesting the Senate censure the President and Move. On. Maybe we could create an organization opposed to impeachment and come up with a cool name.

  5. It’s rather hilarious to watch Reason pretend like it’s somehow above the fray now after having spent 3 years wholly invested in the Russia collusion fever dreams.

    1. “Hilarious” is watching discredited #TrumpRussia denialists like Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey continue their shoddy journalism as if they have any credibility left.

    2. Not wholly invested. They took some time off from the Russian Collusion shit-flinging circus when credible accusations surfaced against Brett Kavanaugh.

      1. Credible accusations? God progs are insufferable turds.

    3. Some people can’t be happy. Seemed like a reasonable 60 second wrapup.

      1. Yeah, it was pretty even handed, especially when ENB covered what Biden said about what he did.

  6. Anti-abortion laws costing states millions…while funding abortion clinics.

    Taxpayers are funding both abortionists and attorneys? WHICH IS EVEN WORSE?

    1. The amounts listed are far less than. What PP gets yearly, so not sure why the freakout.

  7. Juul is facing a criminal investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice.

    Some young federal prosecutors are hungry for the salad days of Big Tobacco investigations.

    1. I guess it sucks having to just listen to the older guys telling war stories.

    2. I agree that the investigation is criminal, but who’s going to charge the DoJ with the RICO conspiracy?

    3. The states already squandered the tobacco settlement money, so it’s time to go back to the trough.

  8. Anti-abortion laws costing states millions…while funding abortion clinics. “In the past four years, taxpayers in states trying to restrict abortion access have paid almost $10 million in attorney fees for abortion providers

    So money is fungible when it’s the states paying abortion providers’ lawyer fees just not when it’s the states giving abortion providers community grants and Medicaid reimbursement?

  9. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $59.7 billion

    Even this self-made genius simply cannot thrive during the #DrumpfRecession. His businesses depend on the free flow of highly skilled doctors and engineers across our border with Mexico. And Orange Hitler is locking them up in literal concentration camps where they are forced to drink from toilets.

    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. Barack Obama in open microphone gaffe with Dmitry Medvedev

      “President Barack Obama was caught on microphone telling Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after November’s election deal with contentious issues such as missile defence.”

  10. No responsible adult should look at teen climate activist Greta Thunberg and see anything but a young woman who’s effectively been terrorized into fearing life.

    This is painful to watch. She’s clearly legitimately upset because she has been fed insane doomsday propaganda, and can’t comprehend why everyone else doesn’t believe the same things.

    Doing this to kids is child abuse.

    1. It’s sickening that the Watermelons are sending a 16 year-old (who looks no older than 10-12 years old) to do their dirty work.

      And why should I want to completely upend the economy and go back to living like it’s 999 based on the emotional rants of children?

      1. The tweets in support of her speech are the most insane thing I’ve ever read. It is obvious this girl doesnt know one thing about science. Her parents are utilizing munchausen by proxy but using climate fears instead of poison. This girl is literally insane. She offers nothing of logic. And the climate alarmist position is so weak they annointed her as the face. Shes the Joan of arc of a failed movement.

        1. She bared her soul to you, and you stole her dreams and her future again!

        2. Yup. This girl is a stupid kid who doesn’t know shit-from-Shinola.

          Shit…………………………Shinola

        3. As I understand it, even the Gangrene New Deal isn’t good enough for her.

          1. I figured it was all just platitudes. I’m afraid to ask but has she actually put forward real policy suggestions?

    2. Even worse…half of teens now think the world might end within 15 years.

      1. That’s not good if they really believe it (I have my doubts about how many people really believe the worst doom predictions, I think people just like talking about DOOM!). A society that believes there is no future can be rather dangerous.

        1. They’re called nihilists and Dostoevsky described them rather well in The Devils. They nihilists were liberals in the novel.

        2. M.A.D. working is premised on most of the World thinking rationally that there will be a decent future if we maintain relative peace.

        3. Thank you progressive left for convincing moronic kids that there is no future.

          …of course, those same kids insist on cell phones and the like…

      2. Take away their phones and the world ends now. Their phone is their world.

    3. Her opinion of this in another 20 years will be interesting. Will she look back proud, or disgusted?

      Frankly, screaming kids don’t impress me. If she wants to impress me, she can get a degree in engineering and invent a new type of power generation system that’s eco friendly and scalable.

      1. Did you see their list of demands and countries they wanted to target didnt include china? It’s not about science.

        1. It’s never been about science. It’s about destroying capitalism. Even AOC chief of staff that was pushing the GND admitted so.

          What I find funny is that this little girl is saying we should listen to the scientists. Does she know that excludes her?

        2. The list did not include India, either.

          Because they’re totes serious.

      2. It will be interesting. In 20 years the world still won’t have made any significant steps to fight climate change. The market will have likely reduced overall emissions by a little bit through efficiency gains, reduced population growth and consumers choosing companies that are reducing their emissions. But the market won’t have done nearly as much as the alarmists would have wanted. And yet the world will not have ended. Things will be better than they are now.

        How will the alarmists respond to this? Will they continue to claim that calamity is just around the corner (always just around the corner), or will they move on to fearing some other boogeyman?

        1. “”How will the alarmists respond to this? Will they continue to claim that calamity is just around the corner (always just around the corner),””

          Look at the history of the climate alarmists. The answer is yes.

        2. They’ll tweak the narrative some more, similar to how we went from “global cooling” to “global warming” to “climate change”.

      3. Her opinion of this in another 20 years will be interesting. Will she look back proud, or disgusted?

        She’s so autistic, I doubt she’ll have an ounce of self-awareness about it regardless of her age.

        1. Nobody is the villain in their own narrative.

          She will look back at this as her finest moment. Her crowning achievement.

          Anyone would.

          That is how we are wired.

          1. There’s a possibility that, like some child actors, she may some day wake up to the fact that her childhood was spent as a prostitute being pimped out by her own parents and that all the adults she knew and trusted were child molesters.

    4. Imagine being told by your parents from birth that there is a monster under your bed at night and if you aren’t eternally vigilant it will eat you alive. Imagine if they reinforce this by acting sincerely distraught every time they put you to bed, as if it might be the last time they see you. Imagine what that would do to a child.

      1. Yeah, but you grow up and realize it’s all been a lie and end up hating the people that did that to you. I could see her writing a book in a couple of decades about how she was a tool and she doesn’t want anyone else used like that.

      2. It’s worst than that. She has been battling depression and filled her brain with shit that compounded her depression with anxiety.

        Truly despicable parents. And adults who cheer her on.

        That was a neurotic nervous breakdown for all to see.

        Not a brave passionate little girl. But a frail one who has been fed a pack of propaganda.

    5. There’s an article on quillette that came out in April called “Self-Harm Versus the Greater Good” that reported on her severe developmental disabilities and mental illnesses–Aspberger’s, autism, selective mutism, and OCD that’s so bad, she starved herself at one point, and then wouldn’t eat anything with any kind of lettering on it because it triggered that same response.

      And this wasn’t some kind of armchair diagnosis–the article merely cited the book, Scenes From the Heart, written by Greta’s own attention-whore mother. Greta’s sister is even worse, demanding that her mother imitate her specific goony walk to school, which stretches the 10-minute trip to an hour, and literally has to have Mommy wait outside her class the whole fucking day, and she still ends up falling apart in tears.

      From all appearances, her parents appear to be completely incapable of raising children, especially ones with the kind of developmental disorders that Greta has. And to make matters worse, this kid is being held up as some kind of messianic figure by empty-headed world leaders and media figures, acting like her disabilities are actually superpowers (they’re claiming she can “see” CO2, an odorless, colorless gas, for fucks sake) as if she’s some kind of prophetess that will predict the Mayan apocalypse.

      1. (they’re claiming she can “see” CO2, an odorless, colorless gas, for fucks sake)

        Do you have a citation for this? Because that’s ridiculous.

        1. Holy cow. Her mom thinks so and is promoting it. Do a google search for can greta see CO2. I was surprised at the hits.

        2. “”In a book about her family, climate activist Greta Thunberg’s mother writes: “Greta is one of the few people who can recognize our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how greenhouse gases flow from our chimneys, rise to the sky through the wind and turn our atmosphere into a gigantic, invisible heap of waste.” “””

          However, her mom now says it was figuratively, not literally.

          1. Then she can also see that a hell of a lot more CO2 comes from volcanoes and other natural sources.

    6. This is painful to watch. She’s clearly legitimately upset because she has been fed insane doomsday propaganda, and can’t comprehend why everyone else doesn’t believe the same things.

      I thought it was sad when her parents were killed by an escaped rhinoceros, but it’s pretty cool that she used seagulls to sail her giant peach to the UN and made a bunch of friends.

      1. If she watches The Lorax she may end up shooting san Antonio.

    7. Radicalism isn’t restricted to Islamic terrorism.

      She’d kill for her cause.

    8. She started off at 13 with holocaust denial so the parents feel this is an improvement.

  11. …keep your benefits, we prefer the best benefit—our freedom

    Nannies simply cannot brook any of that.

  12. “We have no evidence that Joe Biden was involved or acted improperly in service of his son. ”

    Let’s spend 2.5 years, 40 million, and involve foreign agencies to find out. That’s the standard right?

    1. No credible evidence.
      Biden admitting the whole thing on stage at the CFR is incredible

      1. Hey…did he make the claim about it happening thirty years ago with nobody willing to corroborate him?

        Because that seems to be required for credibility these days…

  13. If the democrats impeach Trump they can’t possibly have Biden continue to run….. can they? Would they go Hillary due to Obama’s and establishment dems hatred of Warren?

    1. I bet the next Dem President will enjoy Republicans demanding impeachment from day one.

      …but I bet CNN will cover it WAY differently.

      Like how Don Lemon forgiving Justin Trudeau for WEARING blackface but condemning Megyn Kelly for not being sufficiently anti-wearing-blackface (but not wearing it herself)

  14. We have no evidence that Joe Biden was involved or acted improperly in service of his son.

    Except for him openly bragging about it on TV.

    1. Perhaps they should check with unnamed Whitehouse sources.

  15. Biden is why one of his opponents in the Democrat party released this. Just like Hillary did four years ago. Knock him out. Probably Lizzie did it but who knows. It was a twofer attack Trump and Biden at once. Democrats are just that unscrupulous. Well almost as bad as Republican white trash.

    1. What’s funny is it was hillary who first promoted the biden scandal in 2016. Much like the obama birther story.

  16. “Impeachment Talk Now Turns on Trump Dealings With Ukraine”

    You misspelled “Biden”

    1. How would you impeach someone that doesn’t hold federal office?

      1. Try again, this time with literacy.

        “Impeachment Talk Now Turns on Trump Biden Dealings With Ukraine”

  17. Giuliani seems like a really shitty lawyer. Isn’t one of the qualities one looks for in a lawyer, I dunno, discretion and not blabbing.

    1. He isn’t even competent. He’s one of the worst lawyers I’ve ever seen. He CONSTANTLY goes on TV with bad info, and then ends up changing his story at some point. Fire his ass.

    2. Isn’t one of the qualities one looks for in a lawyer, I dunno, discretion and not blabbing.

      Not since at least June 21, 1995.

    3. He needs to head off into the sunset. It’s amazing how quickly Giuliani destroyed his own reputation.

      1. He was once called America’s Mayor.

        How the mighty have fallen.

  18. “”On the narrow question of whether Joe Biden used his position as vice president to push for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Hunter Biden lots of money—there’s no credible evidence of that,” notes Vennochi.L

    Other than Biden himself, in a recorded interview that Google is desperately taking down every time any posts it, admitting he did exactly that under threat of cancellation of $1B in aid.

    But who are you going to believe – your lying eyes and ears, or the press and Deep State spokesmen?

    1. My understanding is that the dismissed Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt and well deserving of being fired. And that Tump and company are once again pushing lies and propaganda that was created by Russia to undermine the people who were dismantling their corrupt grip on Ukraine.

      1. Except Biden admitted that he tried to bribe and extort the Ukraine.

        Deepfakes?

        1. Below is a clear description of the event. Biden’s “extortion” was the policy of the State Department, White House, European Union, IMF, World Bank, and a substantial percentage of Ukrainians – there were street protest in the country demanding the prosecutor in question be fired. But – hey – probably all those protesters, governments and organizations were related to Hunter Biden, right?

          Almost immediately after Viktor Shokin was appointed, he started to cause almost irreparable harm to Ukraine’s legal system. For starters, he failed to prosecute any prominent members of the Yanukovych regime or anybody in the current government. He constantly blocked reform to Ukraine’s broken legal system. He was in charge of implementing the 2014 law on prosecution which the European Union had asked Ukraine to do for years. The law aimed to reduce to role of prosecutors who “were absurdly superior to judges in the Soviet legal system that persisted in post-Soviet Ukraine” according to Atlantic Council. It also called for a reevaluation of all prosecutors in order to weed out the more corrupt and incompetent ones. Shokin manipulated the process so that the old system mostly remained the same and minimal, ineffective changes were implemented.

          He was the largest obstacle to judicial reform in Ukraine. It wasn’t just Joe Biden calling for his ouster, it was the United States government and the European Union. Steven Pifer, a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton, told Politifact that “”virtually everyone” he knew in the U.S. government and virtually all non-governmental experts on Ukraine “felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office.””

          The European Union also called for him to be fired and celebrated his removal. “This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s envoy to Ukraine, in a statement at the time

          1. ““I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

            If you’re going to mount a defense of his extortion, make sure you quote it so people can see he committed extortion.

          2. What’s your point?

            (1) The White House wanted Shokin fired, because he was single-handedly blocking reform of Ukraine’s corrupt judical system.

            (2) The State Department wanted Shokin fired, because he was single-handedly blocking reform of Ukraine’s corrupt judical system.

            (3) The European Union wanted Shokin fired, because he was single-handedly blocking reform of Ukraine’s corrupt judical system.

            (4) The World Bank wanted Shokin fired, because he was single-handedly blocking reform of Ukraine’s corrupt judical system.

            (5) The International Monetary Fund wanted Shokin fired, because he was single-handedly blocking reform of Ukraine’s corrupt judical system.

            If calling the pressure from all these parties “extortion” makes you happy, go for it. But words won’t make your weak case any stronger. Different works won’t make Trump’s conduct less sleazy, either…..

            1. “What’s your point?”

              The same as it has always been. Biden admitted the very thing you are trying to pin on Trump, and you’re ignoring it.

              1. I guess being dense is a prerequisite for Trumpian bootlickers.

                Yeah, Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin, while following the anti-corruption policy of the White House, State Department, European Union, World Bank, International Monetary Fund – along with all the reformist groups in Ukraine itself.

                Yeah, Trump pressured Ukraine – in a scheme cooked-up by him and his clown-attorney Giuliani to help Trump’s reelection.

                These two things are very different. Everyone else understands that, why can’t you?

                1. Yeah, these two things are very different. We have Biden on video openly admitting that he strong-armed Ukraine into doing something he wanted, and an unsubstantiated rumor of Trump strong-arming Ukraine into doing something he wanted.

                  But that difference is lost on left-wing chowderheads who really need to commit mass seppuku.

                  1. “an unsubstantiated rumor of Trump strong-arming Ukraine”

                    I’m curious : Every day Trump makes his defenders look like idiots. Do you enjoy that? Have any self-respect left at all ?!?

                    Trump just admitted putting a stop on military aid to the Ukraine (currently dealing with an invasion by DJT BFF Putin). So what lie did Trump use to excuse this latest bit of sleaze? Oh right, the Europeans :

                    “President Trump said Tuesday that he held up American aid to Ukraine that has become the subject of furious controversy because European countries have not paid their fair share to support the country”

                    The European Union has sent more than €15 billion in grants and loans to support the reform process in Ukraine” since 2014, including €500 million appropriated late last year for 2019.

                    This compares to US aid of about $1.2 billion over the same period, plus about $1 billion in military aid. In other words, the EU has already provided Ukraine with about eight times as much aid as the US over the past five years, and will provide more in 2019 as well.

                    So Trump lied, but we already knew that – given he lies like other people breathe. And he made all his little defenders look like fools yet again. But that (apparently) is their purpose in life, eternal dupes to a two-bit huckster…..

                    1. No he didnt you fucking retard. Trump didnt admit shit. Any hes even releasing the call transcript. The defense was held up because the Ukraine was still corrupt and they were still investigating russian times. You lie so fucking much how can anyone take you seriously?

                    2. Nothing you wrote in this post is accurate, as usual.

                      Do you enjoy looking like a complete moron every time you post? Is there some sort of sexual satisfaction it gives you that the touch of a woman is incapable of providing?

                2. This is the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen on this site, and that’s saying a lot.

            2. “If calling the pressure from all these parties “extortion””

              ACTUALLY, we’re calling Biden’s making fund contingent upon behavior extortion. Because it is.

              But because some people you like wanted it, the extortion is OK.

            3. I imagine it’s hard to understand his point when you keep willfully ignoring it.

              His point is that Biden admitted he was going to withhold money unless his demand was met. It has nothing to do with what any of those entities wanted. It has everything to do with what Biden wanted and said.

            4. The point, you exceptional dipshit, is that the press having a conniption fit over Trump supposedly strong-arming Ukraine into doing something he wants (based, right now, on nothing more than hearsay from someone who wasn’t even there) isn’t any different than Biden strong-arming Ukraine into doing something he wants.

            5. The point, you exceptional dipshit, is that the press having a conniption fit over Trump supposedly strong-arming Ukraine into doing something he wants (based, right now, on nothing more than hearsay from someone who wasn’t even there), but isn’t any different than Biden strong-arming Ukraine into doing something he wants.

              1. Yeah, that’s the false equivalence that the Trump defenders want us all to believe.

                Biden, along with a good chunk of the rest of the world, wanted the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin, because Shokin was a corrupt dirtbag. It was not for any personal advantage to Biden. Unless of course you think all of the rest of the world were also in the bag deeply invested in trying to protect Hunter Biden, right?

                Besides, if Biden really was interested in protecting his son from prosecution, he should have wanted the corrupt prosecutor to remain – because the corrupt prosecutor wasn’t actually doing his job! Replacing a corrupt prosecutor with a clean prosecutor would have exposed Hunter Biden to some actual legal jeopardy.

                By contrast, Trump allegedly pressured the Ukrainian government for campaign-related dirt on Biden. Not because he thought the Ukrainian government was corrupt per se, but because he thought they were being too easy on the Bidens. Trump (allegedly) did it for personal advantage. Biden? Not so much.

                1. chemjeff standing up for his lefty boos again.

                2. You idiots keep repeating this farce over and over because that is what democrats are telling you. Ukraine has been corrupt for decades. They still are corrupt. In fact bursima settled with Bidens hand picked successor for a “small fine” while spending 100 million more to stop investigations into it with the new prosecutor. You dumbfucks are pretending Biden and obama cleaned up the corruption by firing a single prosecutor. How fucking stupid are you to believe this?

      2. “”well deserving of being fired.””

        So was Comey and Rosenstein. But liberals didn’t focus on the deserving part.

        1. The issue was that Trump fired Comey after unsuccessfully but corrupting trying to get Comey to “go easy” i.e. (rig a criminal investigation) on Flynn.

          1. No, the issue is that you lost an election and can’t accept it.

          2. What dumb interpretation of obstruction. Are you the Greta of corruption?

          3. Even democrats wanted Comey fired.

            But you proved my point by not focusing on the deserving part.

      3. And the evidence of this? I’ve seen the same charges but there never seems to be much evidence to support these induendoes. The funny thing is, at the time, the prosecutor was felt to be not going after corruption hard enough. That he was going to soft on the Russian tied corruption.

      4. Your understanding is what Vox tells you to understand. Did they tell you Biden helped choose the successor who quickly dropped the investigation for a “small fine” to his office?

    1. An AR-15 is as heavy as 10 boxes you might be moving? Yes. If those boxes are empty.

  19. “and nonpartisan”

    Ahahahahahahah you lying whore!

  20. “California, China to Join Forces With New University Partnership for Climate Research”
    […]
    “As tensions between China and the United States ratchet up, former California Gov. Jerry Brown sees a way to bring together the world’s largest carbon emitter and a U.S. state that’s leading the way in energy standards: climate change.
    Brown and Xie Zhenhua, China’s top climate official, will announce a new university partnership focused on climate research and policy on Monday as part of the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York….”
    https://ktla.com/2019/09/23/california-china-to-join-forces-with-new-university-partnership-for-climate-research/

    You might remember moonbeam as that world-famous expert on climate, who declared California was now in a “permanent drought” one year before the second-wetest rainy season on record.
    Or, you might remember him as one more fucking lefty camera whore.

  21. “”On the narrow question of whether Joe Biden used his position as vice president to push for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Hunter Biden lots of money—there’s no credible evidence of that,” notes Vennochi.”

    I guess Biden was lying when he said he did exactly that. I can understand however that she thinks Joe Biden commenting on his own behavior is “not credible”

    1. Remember. . Fords story with all evidence denying it is more credible than Biden on video bragging about it

      1. This does seem to be the narrative.

        Media – “No evidence Biden bribed and extorted”

        The entire sane world – “He said he did”

        Media – “NO EVIDENCE!!! TRUMP MADE A PHONE CALL!!!”

        The entire sane world – “this is why everyone hates you”

        1. No, that’s not exactly the scenario.

          Biden told them to remove the prosecutor.

          But there’s no hard proof that he did so for the benefit of his son.

          That’s the level of hair-splitting involved.

          Now, the next step is to ask: Ok, so if you weren’t doing it for your kid’s benefit….. exactly why was the US Vice President demanding a prosecutor in Ukraine be fired as a condition for foreign aid that had already been approved?

          I mean, sure, it is possible that Obama said “Hey, Joe…. now, let me be clear… This prosecutor in Ukraine is really important to the United States national interest. So I want you to get over there and tell them they are not getting one dime from us until they remove that prosecutor from office!”

          But I kinda doubt it. Biden sure made it seem like he was taking the initiative on this one himself. Far be it from Joe Biden to be self-serving, I know… but it did seem like he was sincere about that part.

          It is an odd standard: Nobody can look into this because there’s no hard proof that Biden doing this thing that seems really strange for a Veep to do that ends up benefiting his son’s company that his son is director of but has absolutely none of the requisite skills to be in charge….. Well…. you get the picture.

          You’d think that someone would have asked this question way back in the spring when it came out. I suppose the NYT was asking by publishing the article…. but nobody followed up and tried to find out where this push to remove the prosecutor came from, how the younger Biden managed to get a plum no-show job in Ukraine, why Ukraine was so eager to get in touch with the Obama administration going in to the 2016 elections, why the Obama administration seemed so absolutely not interested in hearing it from Ukraine, why Ukraine wanted to meet with Giuliani to discuss these issues, why the State Department asked him to do so….

          There’s a whole lot of “Why did they do this?” questions that are not being asked at all. Everyone is just jumping to “foreign country therefore impeach Trump”. Which is, of course, a non-starter for a large chunk of the nation, having watched the democrats scream about impeachment literally since the morning after the election (NBC had some high-level HRC/DNC reps coming out of her hotel the morning after and sidewalk-interviewed them…. they said “don’t worry, we are going to impeach him”.) If you have come up with 37 different reasons that you want to impeach him, everyone else is going to suspect that your motives are impure.

          By the same token, if you have 37 different reasons why you never ask questions like “Yeah, what was Biden up to in Ukraine if it wasn’t for his son’s benefit?” but always assert “Trump is a dictator who must be impeached” after every tweet… maybe people are going to suspect that your motives are impure.

          1. Ok, so if you weren’t doing it for your kid’s benefit….. exactly why was the US Vice President demanding a prosecutor in Ukraine be fired as a condition for foreign aid that had already been approved?

            Because the prosecutor was a corrupt piece of shit that wasn’t actually prosecuting corruption.

            https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

            It was not just Obama or Biden who wanted the guy fired. The EU, the IMF, etc., all wanted the guy gone.

            1. “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

              That’s bribery and extortion. EVEN IF the prosecutor is corrupt.

              But you go on fellating progs you sad fuck.

              1. Sure, whatever, pointing out how the right-wing narrative is full of holes is equivalent to “fellating progs”.

                I guess a good little libertarian would be all on board pushing whatever narrative will defeat The Left, even if it bears only a passing resemblance to reality. So sure, as the narrative goes, Biden pressured Ukraine’s government to fire their top prosecutor so as to benefit his son, but let’s not even consider any of the other information available on this little saga. Such as whether other groups wanted the prosecutor fired for reasons that had nothing to do with Biden’s son.

                Here is the IMF threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine if they don’t fire the prosecutor, way back in February 2016. Were they doing so at Biden’s behest as well?

                https://www.ft.com/content/44c1641e-cff7-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

                1. “Sure, whatever, pointing out how the right-wing narrative”

                  God you have literally NOTHING ELSE GOING ON IN YOUR LIFE.

                  “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

                  That’s bribery and extortion. EVEN IF the prosecutor is corrupt.

                  But you go on fellating progs you sad fuck.

                2. “Here is the IMF”

                  I don’t care about op eds from the IMF. Or anything else they do to further their agenda.

                  But no, you fellating them isn’t you fellating progs no sir!

                3. “So sure, as the narrative goes, Biden pressured Ukraine’s government to fire their top prosecutor”

                  He said he did it.

                  You DO realize he said he said that right? That’s not a narrative. He said it.

                4. “Such as whether other groups wanted the prosecutor fired for reasons that had nothing to do with Biden’s son.”

                  Who cares? That doesn’t excuse ANYTHING WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU.

                  1. Oh good heavens. Tulpa is off his meds again.

                    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extorting

                    “to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power”

                    First, I don’t even know if Biden had the legal authority to revoke Ukraine’s aid money on the spot, as he claimed he tried to do while visiting Ukraine. His statement could be just campaign bluster, or just a bluff.

                    But, even assuming he did, it depends on whether one thinks Biden was exerting “undue” power. To make the case that the US government isn’t going to continue to fund a corrupt regime with foreign aid money, doesn’t sound like an “undue” use of power. It’s not the height of statesmanship to make the claim as bluntly as Biden allegedly did, sure. That’s not how I would have handled it.

                    Of course the Team Red crowd is going to try to twist the story to make it seem as bad as they can make it for Biden while (barely) staying within the bounds of credulity. Such as, calling it “bribery and extortion”.

                    1. ““to obtain from a person by force, intimidation”

                      “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’

                      WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU YOU SAD PROG SUCKING LOSER.

                      YOUR OWN DEFINTION!!!

                    2. “First, I don’t even know if Biden had the legal authority to revoke Ukraine’s aid”

                      Absolutely irrelevant and a diversion.

                      “But, even assuming he did, it depends on whether one thinks Biden was exerting “undue” power”

                      No it doesn’t and WEBSTER’S ISN’T THE STATUE YOU STUPID FUCK. LAWS AREN’T IN WEBSTERS. SO STOP STUPIDLY APPEALING TO A FUCKING DICTIONARY. WHEN IT HAS EXACTLY ZERO TO DO WITH THE LAW WE ARE DISCUSSING YOU PROG SUCKING IDIOT.

                    3. https://bribery.uslegal.com/federal-laws-on-bribery/

                      USLegal
                      Federal Laws On Bribery
                      Bribery is the practice of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in discharge of his/ her public or legal duties. Bribery is a gain to an illicit advantage. Federal statutes refer to two classes of offenses: graft and bribery. The word graft means the fraudulent obtaining of public money unlawfully by the corruption of public officers. Graft is an advantage which one person by reason of his peculiar position of superiority, influence or trust extracts from another. Charging an official with graft is to charge him/her for lack of integrity[i]. Graft includes the fraudulent obtaining of public money by the corruption of public officials[ii].

                      The General Federal Bribery Statute punishes the offence of bribery in the U.S[iii]. According to 18 USCS prec § 201(b), whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence that person’s official act will be fined for the offence of bribery.

                      “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

                    4. So in the span of two posts, you claim that (a) the dictionary proves you right, and (b) the dictionary doesn’t matter anyway. Huh.

                      Well then. If you don’t like my definition, why don’t you cite the legal definition of extortion you wish to use for the purpose of this conversation, and then we can proceed from a common premise.

                    5. https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/extortion-essential-elements-and-broader-reach-rico

                      “Extortion is a criminal offense that occurs when a person unlawfully obtains money, property or services from another person or entity by means of particular types of threats.

                      Suck my dick you sad prog fuck.

                    6. “why don’t you cite the legal definition of extortion”

                      I did. Now explain why YOU ignored that the legal definition I posted which means Biden committed bribery.

                    7. directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence that person’s official act will be fined for the offence of bribery.

                      Assuming for the moment that the term “public official” in the US legal code applies also to public officers in foreign governments, then it depends on whether one thinks Biden “corruptly” made his statement with regards to foreign aid.

                      And so it goes back to the claim that Biden threatened to cut off aid to the Ukrainian government so as to protect his son. That would be a corrupt use of his power.

                      But if Biden threatened to cut off aid to the Ukrainian government so as to encourage the Ukrainian government to fire the crooks working in its government, then that would not necessarily be a corrupt use of his power.

                      So, do you think Biden threatened to cut off aid to the Ukrainian government for the purpose of protecting his son?

                    8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/872

                      “(2) Definitions .— For purposes of this subsection— (A) the term “assault with intent to commit rape” means an offense that has as its elements engaging in physical contact with another person or using or brandishing a weapon against another person with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse (as described in sections 2241 and 2242 ); (B) the term “arson” means an offense that has as its elements maliciously damaging or destroying any building, inhabited structure, vehicle, vessel, or real property by means of fire or an explosive; (C) the term “extortion” means an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person;

                      “Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

                      You lose prog fuck.

                    9. “Extortion is a criminal offense that occurs when a person unlawfully obtains money, property or services from another person or entity by means of particular types of threats.

                      Under this theory, what services did Biden allegedly obtain?

                    10. “But if Biden threatened to cut off aid to the Ukrainian government so as to encourage the Ukrainian government to fire the crooks working in its government, then that would not necessarily be a corrupt use of his power.

                      So, do you think Biden threatened to cut off aid to the Ukrainian government for the purpose of protecting his son?”

                      I think you’re desperately trying to backpedal and avoid admitting what we all see.

                      Your BEST argument is that it is a matter for a jury.

                      But let’s be clear, this thing you do when you bitch at me until post tones of proof making you look stupid, that gets you told to fuck off. You don’t get to do that, the like a Borderline Personality girlfriend then pretend you want to have a conversation immediately afterwards wasn’t fun when I was getting ass fr her and she was hot, and so you doing it is never going to work.

                      You were wrong. Fuck off now.

                    11. “what services did Biden allegedly obtain?”

                      Are you serious?

                      Or is then when you try to stupidly argue that having a prosecutor fired wouldn’t be a service.

                    12. Incoming Jeff post

                      “It isn’t a restaurant or a rack room so there were no servers so it isn’t a service. No tennis or badminton or volleyball were involved either. And you couldn’t put tea it or on it.”

                5. If you think this one prosecutor is the only corrupt entity in ukraine then you’re a bigger dumbfuck than I imagined. You can find negative articles on half of Ukraine’s politicians. So why the focus on one guy dumbshit?

            2. “The EU, the IMF, etc., all wanted the guy gone”

              Ahahahah well that’s certainly proof of exactly fuck all ahahahahahahaahaj

              1. It demonstrates that there were good reasons to want the prosecutor fired that had nothing to do with Biden’s son.

                Unless you think that the EU, the IMF, etc., were all in on the Biden conspiracy as well.

                1. “It demonstrates that there were good reasons to want the prosecutor fired”

                  So Biden’s bribery and extortion were OK THEN!! Because it SER ED THE EU AND IMF AGENDA!!!

                  LOLOL WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU.

                  Your hatred of non progs is making you ignore Biden’s OPEN ADMISSION of bribery and extortion. IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU THINK IT WAS WORTH IT.

              2. “chemjeff radical individualist
                September.24.2019 at 12:46 pm
                So in the span of two posts, you claim that (a) the dictionary proves you right, and (b) the dictionary doesn’t matter anyway. Huh”

                So you’re saying two thing being true is inscrutable to you. I believe that.

            3. But that isn’t the question…

              The question is why did Joe Biden make that demand at that moment.

              Name another time when a US Veep made personnel decisions for a foreign nation…. particularly an internal-only position like a prosecutor.

              I can’t think of any… at least none that have ever become public.

              And the point is that it is rare enough that someone on the political Veep beat should have asked about it. It isn’t like it was a ribbon cutting ceremony at a mall in St. Louis.

              1. The question is why did Joe Biden make that demand at that moment.

                Because he was visiting the Ukraine at that moment? I don’t know. When should he have made that demand, if at all?

                Here is some more info on the subject.

                https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/what-us-whistleblower-scandal-means-for-ukraine.html

                The Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine investigated Burisma, the company that employed Hunter Biden, for money laundering and illicit enrichment. It closed the case in November 2016, under Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, Shokin’s successor, reporting that it didn’t find any crime, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.

                Trump’s lawyer Giuliani, in an interview with CNN on Sept. 20, admitted that he had asked a Ukrainian official to investigate Biden’s alleged pressure on Ukraine’s authorities to sack Shokin in 2016. Giuliani claimed Biden’s efforts were linked to Shokin’s investigation of Burisma.

                However, by the time that Biden intervened, anti-corruption activists in Ukraine led the campaign against Shokin for months, accusing him of sabotage in the investigation of the corruption cases, including the Burisma case involving Zlochevsky. In fact, as early as 2015, the U.S. had wanted Shokin removed and investigated, partly because of obstruction of the Burisma case.

                Geoffrey R. Pyatt, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine at the time, took a strong stance on the need to fire Shokin, with prosecutors’ sabotage of the Zlochevsky case factoring high in the reasoning of U.S. policy. In a landmark speech against Ukraine’s corrupt prosecutors at the Odesa Financial Forum on Sept. 24, 2015, Pyatt cited the case:

                “For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead, they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus. The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”

                It was known for a couple of years by that point that Shokin was a corrupt piece of shit.

                1. “It was known for a couple of years by that point that Shokin was a corrupt piece of shit.”

                  Which has exactly fuck all to do with Biden’s extortion.

                2. chemjeff acting as an apologist for his left-wing boos again.

                  1. You’re totally right! I should instead act as an apologist for right-wing narratives, whatever it takes to see The Left defeated! That’s the way to go, amirite?

                    1. chemjeff doesn’t like it when his apologias for his left-wing boos aren’t taken seriously.

                  2. God how does he live with himself it’s so pathetic.

            4. “Because the prosecutor was a corrupt piece of shit that wasn’t actually prosecuting corruption.”

              ….how, exactly, would that have been an American concern?

              Plenty of corrupt prosecutors out there. We have quite a few here.

              1. Jeff is literally arguing that taking out Saddam was OK.

              2. ….how, exactly, would that have been an American concern?

                Because the Ukrainian government was receiving American foreign aid money?

                1. Then the problem isn’t the corruption and the answer isn’t extortion.

                  It’s funny when you accidentally air your prog bonafides.

                2. “Because the Ukrainian government was receiving American foreign aid money?”

                  For having non-corrupt government officials? That’s a new one.

          2. Let’s leave out the Why for a moment.

            ““I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.”

            That’s extortion. That he did it for his son only makes it an additional crime.

            That said, yours is a very good analysis.

            1. That’s extortion.

              I think you mispelled “realpolitik”. Nothing that happens between different countries’ principals can be considered extortion.

              “If you don’t give up nuclear weapons research, we will sanction your ass into the middle ages.” <- Also not extortion.

              1. “I think you mispelled “realpolitik”.”

                I think you misspelled “both”

                “Nothing that happens between different countries’ principals can be considered extortion.”

                Take it up with the progs boyo.

                1. Yeah, if Trump has done something illegal (according to somebody who didn’t hear the call in the first place), how did Biden NOT do the same?

                  1. The IMF wanted the prosecutor out. Which I’m told should matter for some reason.

                    1. Was the IMF also interested in protecting Hunter Biden from prosecution?

                      How about the UK government?

                    2. I don’t care and it changes nothing.

          3. There’s a whole lot of “Why did they do this?” questions that are not being asked at all.

            You mean, like this?

            https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/23/abcs_tom_llamas_was_hunter_biden_profiting_off_his_dads_work_as_vice_president_and_did_joe_biden_allow_it.html

            1. No he means from credible sources, not prog mouthpieces.

  22. Hey look, Reason is interested in Presidential wrong-doing. It’s been a quiet 3 years of ignoring an attempted coup by the former President and much of the upper echelons of US government as well as foreign agents.

    1. Seriously. I hope one day people realize a soft coup was attempted.

    1. A book written by the Flynn Effect guy, no less. Not some rando.

  23. Since when is it illegal for a president to talk to another countries president and ask them to investigate something? answer, its not and it happens all the time. Some say thats what the FBI is for but as in all international cased you need to get the host nations approval before you send in the FBI unless you want the FBI agents arrested for spying. And in Trumps case there is no reason to trust the FBI to do their job in the first place considering how they botched the Clinton emails and their spying on him personally in order to remove him form office

    1. The IC literally recruited Australia, ukraine, and Britain to help investigate Trump. This whole outrage against looking into Biden seems like protesting a bit too much. Kerry’s son was even skeptical of hunters Ukraine dealings and bought put of their partnership after talking to State.

    2. “Since when is it illegal for a president to talk to another countries president and ask them to investigate something?”

      It became so just about the same time a bunch of other POTUS activities became illegal: 1/20/17

  24. This Trump extortion/bribery scandal should kill two birds with one stone.

    1. Agreed, there’s no way Biden and his son, as the
      principals, survive their attempt to engage in corruption and bribery.

      1. Are you a liar or an idiot? I’ll go with liar.

        1. So you think there is a way that Biden and his son, as the principals, survive their attempt to engage in corruption and bribery?

          1. I think the Russian govt has discovered that conservatives will believe anything.

            1. It helps a lot when Biden goes on stage and admits it though.

              Joe Biden, Russian agent?

              1. The fired prosecutor was a crook. Do you deny this?

                1. I don’t particularly care. It certainly doesn’t change what Biden did in any way.

                  ““I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.”

                  Biden admitted to bribery and extortion. Right there. Maybe the prosecutor was a bad guy, but I certainly don’t beloeve any of the people who have a ton of skin in the game claiming that of him.

                  And it’s beside the point. Biden’s behavior isn’t contingent on the morality of the prosecutor.

                  1. Getting rid of crooks in foreign govts is the business of America. Using our money to hire crooks to investigate a political opponent is a crime. That’s the difference.

                    1. “Getting rid of crooks in foreign govts is the business of America”

                      And yet you’ve spent hours complaining about Trump doing exactly that.

                    2. “Getting rid of crooks in foreign govts is the business of America.”

                      OK…how?

                      How is it our business?

                      And if you commit bribery to do so…aren’t you every inch as bad?

                    3. “”Getting rid of crooks in foreign govts is the business of America.”‘

                      Really? You must love the wars we are involved in.

                    4. “”Getting rid of crooks in foreign govts is the business of America. “‘

                      You think it’s our job to meddle in other governments that way?

                      Do you think it’s ok for other governments to have an equal view towards the US?

                    5. Getting rid of crooks in foreign govts is the business of America.

                      No, that goes too far. It isn’t America’s job to be every nation’s policeman.

                      But it is not an unreasonable position for the US government to take a position that a requirement for receiving money from the US government is to fire the crooks, so as not to see that money squandered by theft.

                    6. Getting ride of crooks in foreign governments to protect your crooked child by using U.S. tax dollars. Thats Legal now?

                2. Are you saying that a bureaucrat in a eastern European country in which clandestine us and russian operations are going on is on the take from someone? shocking.

                  1. I’m on team America. Fuck Russia.

                    1. Sure you are, child.

            2. “I think the Russian govt has discovered that conservatives will believe anything.”

              And you show up to prove how amazingly gullible fucking lefty ignoramuses are.

              1. What false beliefs do I hold? Should be easy to say. Maybe then we can talk about the specifics.

                1. “What false beliefs do I hold?”

                  We can start with your fantasy that Biden didn’t swap aid for his son’s protection, you fucking ignoramus.

                  1. What crime did the company Biden Jr was working for commit that needed sweeping under the rug?

                    1. Well, we don’t know because his dad admitted spiking the investigation.

                      If he has nothing to hide, why are you so scared of an investigation?

                    2. “What crime did the company Biden Jr was working for commit that needed sweeping under the rug?”

                      So you’re not drunk, you’re just dizzy.
                      Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

                  2. We can start with your fantasy that Biden didn’t swap aid for his son’s protection, you fucking ignoramus.

                    You do realize that there were good reasons to want this prosecutor fired, that had nothing to do specifically with Hunter Biden, right?

                    1. Which doesn’t change the extortion part of it at all, unless you want to admit that you believe Trump talking with the Ukrainian head of state before releasing an aid package is illegal.

                    2. “You do realize that there were good reasons to want this prosecutor fired, that had nothing to do specifically with Hunter Biden, right?”

                      Well, if you ignore how losing foreign aide is tied to protecting him, as a lying lefty fucktard, you could make that claim.
                      BTW, lying lefty fucktard, wanna make up some stories excusing the hag from selling political access when she was a sitting SoS? I’m sure you’ve got some good ones.

      1. That’s what made it clear he was talking about Biden. That and the extortion claim.

      2. If you open an investigation of my political opponent I will give you half a billion dollars.

        1. Show me the money first.

        2. What about bribing to end the career of a prosecutor who had given your sons company a hard time?

        3. You have no proof that occurred and in this very article there is ample e idem e that it didn’t.

          Meanwhile, Biden did exactly what you’re bitching about.

          “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

          “If you fire the prosecutor in my son’s case, you get the money”

  25. The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine.

    When asked to clarify his statement, President Trump replied that the bigly creptitude of the Fake News media was ham sandwich and questioned why they weren’t reporting his fantastic work on the Korean and by the way. There were unconfirmed reports that George Bush was involved in the crafting of that statement.

  26. The greatest hope coming out of the last 3 years is perhaps people will realize all politicians are evil and corrupt.
    Vote everyone out, every time.

    1. This in my opinion is Trumps second biggest letdown. The swamp is hardly any closer to being drained. He could push legislation for term limits, or at least make a fuss about it, but hasn’t said a word.

      The biggest let down is the continuation of illegal wars. SAD!

      1. I’m not sure what term limits might do.

        It could leave the bureaucrats with even more power and control than they already have.

        I suppose the bottom line in both cases is that the government has way, way too much power.

    2. The greatest hope coming out of the last 3 years is perhaps people will realize all politicians are evil and corrupt.

      I admit he’s opened my eyes to the feet-thick layer of fetid scum media that is floating on top. I’ve never much liked or believed the media and known since I can remember to triangulate the truth rather than just listen to any given news source, but the degree to which the news now actively colludes and rather openly refutes reality is mind boggling.

      1. Yeah, the Obama years of worshipful following by the media should have done it… but the open goal of “we have to get Trump” in today’s media is pretty hard to ignore. It isn’t MSNBC or similar outlets either… it is Today and Good Morning America and The Nightly News… every mainstream media outlet is all-in on getting Trump.

        They openly say “We” when referring to democrats selecting their next presidential nominee. “We” when referring to getting an impeachment of Trump.

        It is really mind-boggling for someone who grew up in the days of Murrow and Cronkite.

        1. It is really mind-boggling for someone who grew up in the days of Murrow and Cronkite.

          And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Search engines ‘curating’ results and Senators having whistleblowers deplatformed from private companies adds several whole other dimensions to the unholy slime’s putrescence.

    3. Unfortunately not. You know the Dems aren’t serious when they never, not even once, suggest that maybe they pushed for a little too much power for the President. They’ll call Trump and authoritarian but hope only that they can replace him in whatever way possible with their own authoritarian.

  27. The second half of Trump Season 3 sucks. Multiple repetitive plots, lackluster performances, no real enemies to combat. The neo-cons are chomping at the bit to push more wars but what else is new?

  28. Juul is BackPage all over again.

  29. They should get Jewel to testify before Congress in support of Juul. Congressblobs eat that shit up.

    1. They already had Kermit the Frog. They sound the same.

      Kermit

  30. Biden is on record claiming he told the ukranian president to fire a prosecutor who had an open corruption probe on the company his son sat on or he would withhold aid money and it happened. What other evidence is needed here? I’m serious what other evidence do you need? him on record saying explicitly the purpose was to get rid of a guy who was giving his son a hard time? Any story he gives about why it happened is irrelevant the material facts are damning. Or are we to believe none of these facts are relevant because we have to take Biden’s word it was about fighting corruption harder even though a family member stood to gain financially at the guy being let go and Biden would avoid a political scandal? This story is fucking retarded.

    1. Can you even imagine if one Donald Trumps kid sat on some fucking board somewhere that ? that would be the story. All the evidence you need of corrupt intent.

    2. That prosecutor was a crook. Do you understand that? And there was no open investigation when the prosecutor was fired. You’re just wrong about the facts.

      1. Why does it matter if the prosecutor was a cook? Do you honestly think there is a single uncorrupt individual in the Ukrain today they are either on the take from the CIA or the Russian equivalent dumbass. Who says the probe was closed? from what I understand the Prosecutor was trying to shake everyone down with threats of indictments?

        1. also it’s immaterial if the probe was open or closed. Biden influenced a foreign gov prosecutor with money that directly oversaw a something that stood to gain his family directly.

          1. I hope we condition our aid on the rooting out of corrupt local officials. Which is the exact opposite of conditioning the money on concocting corrupt investigations for the purpose of undermining a political opponent.

            1. “I hope we condition our aid on the rooting out of corrupt local officials”

              Who are investigating our families apparently.

              I LOVE that you are so in the bag that you’re cool with Biden playing fixer and then bitching about Trump. That is delicious.

        2. Could you imagine if foreign govts were pouring money directly into Trump’s businesses? Oh wait that is happening.

          1. Could you imagine if you were actively ignoring Biden’s admitted corruption, bribery and extortion in a sad fucking attempt to get Trump?

            Oh wait that is happening.

            Now change the subject for the 30th time

            1. If Biden did any of what you baseless allege then those facts would speak for themselves and there would have been no need for Trump to use our money to induce the opening of an investigation. I’m fact the FBI could prosecute the Biden’s if those lies of yours were true. Why hasn’t William Barr indicted the Bidens if your lies are true?

              1. I’m notalleging it I’m quoting him.

                So he was lying? Is that what you’re going with?

                then those facts would speak for themselves and there would have been no need for Trump to use our money to induce the opening of an investigation

                Unless, as, he ADMITTED, Biden used our money to get it closed on the first place.

                Jesus you are falling apart here guy.

                1. You’re a fucking liar and a fucking traitor. I can see right through you.

              2. ““I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.”

                Biden’s own words are not baseless.

      2. Doesn’t all that spinning make you dizzy?

        1. No the devil is usually in the details and that requires critical thinking which can appear confusing to those who lack the ability to unravel complex stories.

          1. Well, the details are that you’re ignoring that Biden actually admitted doing what you’re trying to gin up evidence of Trump doing. When confronted with this, you deflect.

  31. Maybe the lawyers and law professors of Reason can help me out here. Let’s assume that the things alleged VP Biden and POTUS Trump are both true. Are the actions actually illegal?

    I mean, foreign policy is the purview of the Executive branch. These are foreign policy matters (Ukraine), and I think some different rules apply when it comes to foreign policy and national security matters.

    Who is to say that both were not playing diplomatic hardball, and nothing more than that?

    1. Who is to say that both were not playing diplomatic hardball, and nothing more than that?

      Even if playing diplomatic hardball, there’s still a distinction of alleged extortion vs. extortion *and* circumstantial evidence vs. hearsay.

      Trump’s case is alleged extortion based on hearsay. Biden’s case (ignoring his own testimony) is circumstantially extortion. You may be entirely correct that both men are playing diplomatic hardball within their purview, but if they both aren’t equally, Biden’s case is more empirically a crime and open and shut.

      1. That’s what I was thinking. If both stories are true, which is more damning? Biden’s concerns wielding government money; Trump’s does not.

        1. Biden wielded government money to protect his sons criminal activity where Trump was asking for an investigation into further criminal activity by an American. do we not want to know if a person running for president committed crimes that he could be blackmailed over by a foreign government.

          1. Trump was asking for an investigation into further criminal activity by an American

            And this isn’t even clear. For all we know it was a factual discussion about a political rival and/or that VZ brought the whole thing up. Obviously, we shouldn’t just assume that such conversations are so banal or innocuous, but without further evidence, it’s hard to leap from “Mr. President how’s the campaign going?” on the part of Ukraine to “Pray I don’t alter the deal any further.” on the part of Trump.

  32. Interesting article on surviving the Trump Vortex.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/how-republicans-are-surviving-life-in-the-trump-vortex

    Yes I know it’s Vanity Fair. But this one is worth a read.

    1. No, it is not worth a read.

  33. Did anyone bother to read the story about the fake (maybe) 6 year old?

    It is really, really, really bizarre.

    TLDR version, couple who rescue kids a lot adopt a Ukrainian 6 year old under emergency conditions.

    Said kid turns out to have serious mental issues. And pubic hair and a period. To get her the help she needs they have her declared legally an adult – she’s 22, not 6, and a con artist with dwarfism.

    After 2 different courts say she’s an adult, the local prosecutor and detective charge the parents with abandoning a minor when they move away…. said kid had been living on her own for a couple of years when they left.

    Crazy town.

    1. Did anyone bother to read the story about the fake (maybe) 6 year old?

      Yeah, it’s utter craziness. Twain’s comments about truth and fiction personified. I gave up when I saw that two independent exams confirmed her to be over the age of 18 but two independent bone density scans, two years apart, confirmed her to be 8 and 10.

      I’d have thrown up my hands and made a run to the nearest border too.

      1. That bone density thing struck me as odd. I have never heard of that as a measure of age in young children. It is not a normal test you’d ever run on kids unless there was a problem. You look at growth plates to see if they’ve finished growing, which would correspond to an end of adolescence – but density?

        That’s a pretty broad range, and subject to “abnormal” readings because of various conditions. Figuring out the difference between 8 and 10 sounds suspicious. Like Mississippi chief coroner suspicious.

        I did a couple of google searches and wasn’t able to find anything about using bone density to determine age of young children. At least not using a bone density scan like they use for osteoporosis. But I did find that they use an X-ray of the hand to determine Bone Age. Which might be what they are referring to.

        I didn’t see anything about the error bars for that….

        But there are some things that can cause the Bone Age to read younger than the actual age. Number 1 on that list? Growth hormone deficiency.

        Hm….. so you have someone with dwarfism. And you use a method of determining age that definitely does not work on people with dwarfism.

        Yeah…. this is pretty close to Hayne and West territory… at least if the other facts alleged are true. In fact, if they did do the Bone Age hand X-ray, it should be really easy to see that the growth plates are no longer active, indicating that this is not an elementary school kid.

    2. Story is insanely creepy.

  34. We just went through a three year fever dream of an Obama administration FBI investigating a rival presidential candidate with fisa warrants for what amounts to a bar conversation about a low level staffer talking to a paid fbi informant about possibly finding Hilary’s deleted emails.

    1. and this is what is going to due trump in? that horse left the barn.

      1. There is the Apple thing, too. Apple has agreed to build their MacBook Pro in Austin, Texas – but only after Trump corruptly and coercively imposed tariffs on China specifically to make production in China more expensive and get companies to move production to the United States. If that’s not criminal, I don’t know what is.

        And don’t get me started on the criminal coercion he’s applying to Iran, he’s even threatening them with armed goons. Definitely an impeachable offense.

        The worst thing is that Trump will no doubt hide behind the First Amendment and claim he has some sort of right to attempt to influence the 2020 election – I fully expect him to issue a number of statements declaring himself a better candidate than whoever the Dems put up and it’s horrifying to think that such clear tampering with the election probably won’t lead to an impeachment either.

        1. I mean every president is a criminal. What I guess I’m asking is what makes this one singularly unique from the others beyond his last name?

        2. “”but only after Trump corruptly and coercively imposed tariffs on China”‘

          Are all tariffs corrupt and coercive? Or just Trumps?

  35. Some interesting omissions in the Biden/Ukraine story
    On the narrow question of whether Joe Biden used his position as vice president to push for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Hunter Biden lots of money—there’s no credible evidence of that,” notes Vennoch”.
    So what’s this?
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biden+admits+to+firing+of+ukraine+prosecutor&&view=detail&mid=D028B587C0404AB35A77D028B587C0404AB35A77&&FORM=VRDGAR

    1. He saying that even though it happened we can’t prove Biden’s intent. Which somehow all the sudden matters when a democrat is involved but doesn’t matter when trump is involved.

    2. What? I can’t see anything!
      Oh, and look over there!

    3. Biden isn’t credible, is what I took from it. Can’t argue that.

  36. The Redskins are so bad, it makes me want to cry.

    I grew about halfway between Baltimore and DC, and I’m old enough to remember (pre-salary cap) when Irsay Sr. let the team languish and wouldn’t spend a penny on the team. At the bottom of the reason the city of Baltimore wouldn’t spend money on a stadium was the fact that Irsay Sr. wouldn’t spend any money on the team.

    I’ve been a big defender of Snyder, probably for the reason. He was never stingy about spending every penny he could on the team. He defended the team name. The next time the team is sold, the other NFL owners will probably require the new owner to change the name as a condition of approval for the sale. Sooner or later things will turn around, and he really wants to win. There are plenty of owners who don’t care enough about whether their team wins to do what’s necessary to win, but Snyder isn’t one of those.

    The problem isn’t the players or the coaches. Putting Haskins on the field isn’t about to help.

    We could have finagled a first round draft pick out of the Texans for Trent Williams.

    We could have had a franchise quarterback in Kirk Cousins. A top 5 quarterback? Maybe not. But we haven’t had a franchise quarterback in 20 years. Putting a franchise tag on him–three years in a row–because you wouldn’t sign him up to longer term deal . . . and then you let him go?

    That’s just incompetence at the top.

    Either Snyder fires Bruce Allen, or I’m giving up on Snyder.

    1. “We could have had a franchise quarterback in Kirk Cousins”

      You saw what he signed for. He isn’t worth that, nor anything close to it, and his production can be replaced. He topped out. Losing sucks, but you need to step back and get some perspective.

      1. He’s highly accurate, and he throws three times as many TDs as interceptions.

        I’d say he’s ranked in the top 18 starting quarterbacks for 2018.

        He’s good enough to win a superbowl in a team with a good defense.

        And we haven’t had a franchise quarterback in 20 years.

        “You saw what he signed for. He isn’t worth that”

        Did I mention that we put the franchise tag on him three years in a row?

        We didn’t have to sign him for that. We could have locked him up three years before that for a fraction of the amount he signed for in Minnesota.

        Alex Smith wasn’t even outperforming him before he got hurt.

        Cousins would have cost us less than Alex Smith.

        1. “He’s highly accurate, and he throws three times as many TDs as interceptions”

          He’s very slightly more accurate than Keenum. So as I said, easily replaced.

          “I’d say he’s ranked in the top 18 starting quarterbacks for 2018.”

          I don’t disagree, but so what? 18 on that list is only good. Good isn’t a franchise quarterback. This has always been the argument around Cousins.

          “He’s good enough to win a superbowl in a team with a good defense”

          Another consistent claim about him that was put to the test, and found to be… Unconfirmed. Minnesota had plenty of defense to win it all.

          “Did I mention that we put the franchise tag on him three years in a row?

          We didn’t have to sign him for that. We could have locked him up three years before”

          Nope. You can’t do that. Three years before he was untested and unproven. You franchised him based on him developing, and he didn’t. Saying you could have locked him up three years before is like saying you could have drafted Brady in the 5th round.

          “Cousins would have cost us less than Alex Smith”

          No, he wouldn’t have. Unless we’re still playing “we could have had Brady in the 5th” in which case have nice day.

          He’s a good quarterback. He PROBABLY could have won a Super Bowl on the right team (Iean Dilfer did) but all I’m hearing from you is the same not useful speculation about what he might be that marked his time is Washington.

          Well, he got out. And nothing changed. He is who we thought he was.

          1. We could have paid Cousins less than we did for the three years he played under the franchise tag–and have him still under that contract. Meanwhile, the suggestion that we would have had to pay Cousins what three years before we moved him what Minnesota paid him as a free agent is just plain stupid.

            Meanwhile, there isn’t a team in the league who would pick Keenum over Cousins.

            We’re in a worse position than we would have been if we’d just signed Cousins up for a reasonable contract instead of putting the franchise tag on him the first time, and every time we put the franchise tag on him again, the deal just got worse and worse. Is there anyone else in the league who’s ever had the franchise tag put on them three years in a row. That’s demonstrably stupid.

            Allen should have been fired for that reason alone.

            “Unless we’re still playing “we could have had Brady in the 5th”

            If you think we couldn’t have locked Cousins up instead of a putting the franchise tag on him, then you’re a fucking idiot.

      2. He had a chance to lead the Vikes past the Packers and he wet the bed.

        1. Cousins good for fantasy stats not Ws.

          1. He’s only been on a decent team for one year (2018), and he went 8-7-1, barely missing the playoffs.

            Like I said, he’s probably in the top half of quarterbacks in the NFL, which is a hell of a lot better than what the Redskins have going right now–and have had going since he left. Meanwhile, we’re paying more for our quarterbacks now than we would have if we’d just signed Cousins. Meanwhile, putting the franchise tag on a player for three years in a row is incredibly stupid.

            I’d say he’s the only QB in the history of the NFL to have the franchise tag put on him twice in consecutive years, but it’s more like the Redskins’ front office is the only team in the history of the NFL to be so stupid.

            https://www.businessinsider.com/kirk-cousins-franchise-washington-redskins-2017-2

            Point being, there are only a handful of top 5 quarterbacks, but that doesn’t mean Cousins wasn’t a serviceable one or wasn’t good enough to win the Superbowl with a good enough team around him. In fact, Tom Brady is more of an exception to the rule. Generally speaking, Dan Marino and Dan Fouts never won a superbowl–and they were clearly among the top 5 QBs in their day. It’s much more common to have a team with a great defense, a good running game, and a competent quarterback–who doesn’t turn the ball over much. We’ve been looking for a quarterback like that for 20 years.

            Kirk Cousins was that quarterback. Allen’s job was to go find him, which he did. And then we he found him, he refused to sign him to a long term deal–and put the franchise tag on him not just once bu twice!

    2. Dan Snyder has never done anything but the bare minimum of spending the salary cap. The fan experience at FedEx field is atrocious and easily the worst in the league. The location sucks but the bathrooms are always without fail disgusting. The food is onpar with any food you get from a highschool concession fan. The fan engagement is one that encourages belligerent drinking and fights. He nickel and dimes any chance he gets and he has a fucking napolean complex. He’s tried to win his way which is constantly undermining his coaches with personnel decisions that fit no underlying scheme beyond he would sell jersey’s and give you better marketing numbers. He’s garbage and actively does all he can to undermine his teams success and eliminate what’s left of his fanbase.

      1. “Dan Snyder has never done anything but the bare minimum of spending the salary cap.”

        There isn’t anyone in the league more famous for front-loading contracts with signing bonuses for supposedly hot talent than Dan Snyder.

        No one in the NFL has made worse free agent mistakes more frequently than Dan Snyder over a longer period of time–and he’s been willing to pay through the nose like no other owner.

        “The allure for some of BearNation was Snyder’s apparent willingness to spend money. The phrase “false god” comes to mind, however, with Snyder missteps having ripple effects in the salary-cap era that the Bears have mercifully avoided.

        Snyder signed Deion Sanders in 2000 for $55 million and got one season and four interceptions out of Prime Time, who then retired. Not stopping there, Snyder then signed Jeff George for $19 million over years, which shortened to two after George went 1-7 in his Washington starts.

        Continuing in 2000 to binge on big-name, near-the-end veterans, Snyder gave defensive end Bruce Smith a five-year deal topping out at $23 million. Smith, well past his Buffalo Bills prime, was gone in three years.

        Snyder’s big strike (in more ways than one) was defensive lineman Albert Haynesworth, signed in 2009 to a seven-year, $100 million contract, with Snyder guaranteeing $41 million. Washington got two years, 20 games, 53 tackles and 6.5 sacks from Haynesworth for the money.”

        NBC Sports, September 18, 2019

        https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/remember-when-folks-wanted-free-spending-owner-dan-snyder-bears-no-really-they-did

  37. I suppose the thing that makes me feel nauseated about the Biden story is that the person who benefits the most from this story is Elizabeth Warren.

    The operating media strategy these days is that while you can’t control what the media says about a topic, you can push that topic to the front page.

    This is why PETA sues the California Dairy Board for false advertising for an ad that says, “Great milk comes from happy cows, and happy cows come from California”. The media reports on the story because PETA’s lawsuit suing the CDB for false advertising because they can’t prove that California’s cows are happy may seem to make PETA look stupid, but 1) it gets people talking about the welfare of cows and 2) it gets PETA’s name all over the media for free.

    By the same logic, this impeachment talk over Biden’s kid and Ukraine may well sink Biden’s candidacy. Whether Trump did something impeachable is beside the point. Whether Biden or his kid actually did anything illegal is also beside the point. The point is that the media is talking about Biden’s kid doing shady deals in China and the Ukraine–and the further this impeachment talk goes and the more they talk about it, the worse it’s going to be for the Biden campaign. Democrat primary voters won’t care about the specifics. They’ll just see Biden’s brand name tarnished.

    It was Bush Sr. in the primaries who smeared Reagan’s economic policy as voodoo economics.

    It was Hillary Clinton in the primaries who smeared Barack Obama with the Birther controversy.

    If Warren doesn’t exploit this story to hurt Biden, she’s an idiot.

    1. I have to disagree – at this point it should be obvious that Joe Biden doesn’t need any help falling down the elevator shaft and Warren would risk looking like she’s piling on and risk taking a hit to her Piety score if she attacks Biden.

      Warren only needs to keep differentiating herself from Bernie – he’s an angry, bitter old man wildly threatening to fuck some shit up and she’s an angry, bitter old woman with some carefully thought-out plans to fuck some shit up – and the nomination is hers for the taking.

      1. She doesn’t need to be ugly about it, but there’s no reason why she shouldn’t bring it up.

        Going negative in the primaries can might have some cost associated with it, but I’d expect a lot of Biden’s support to drift to Warren when he’s gone. There’s no good reason why she shouldn’t help that process along.

  38. Black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times higher than their white peers. And those who do find themselves kicked out of school for a discretionary violation are about three times more likely to enter the confines of the juvenile justice system by the following year.

    Serious question: What is the message?

    1. don’t goto school –> don’t get kicked out –> don’t enter the confines.

  39. Are we going to pretend that hundreds of years of diplomacy didn’t require quid pro quo between foreign governments? Churchill wouldn’t give up rights to foreign air bases on Empire soil until Roosevelt agreed to throw in 50 destroyers (1940). Is whomever is president going to be prohibited from putting strings on U.S. foreign aid or just when the strings have some attachment to political rivals? It looks to me that political rivals are now getting the green light to be corrupt because they will be protected by the media.

  40. I don’t get the tweet under the Pelosi/impeachment section. Is it there because it has a blue checkmark?

    1. reason got trolled…again.

  41. How about the Biden’s dealings with the Ukraine?
    Or Hitlary’s dealings with the Ukraine?
    Oh, wait.
    That’s different.
    The Bidens and Hitlary are as pure as the driven snow.
    Just ask the New York Times or CNN.
    They’ll set you straight.

  42. “Indiana mother who adopted 6-year-old Ukrainian girl with dwarfism has been charged with abandonment but claims her ‘daughter’ was found to be a 22-year old ‘sociopath’ masquerading as a child”

    I rememeber seeing this movie when it came out

Please to post comments