Impeachment

Nancy Pelosi Announces Trump Impeachment Inquiry Over Ukraine Scandal

The decision comes amidst allegations that President Trump pressured Ukraine into performing opposition research on Joe Biden.

|

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) has announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, after accusations swelled that Trump leveraged his political power to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden—the current Democratic frontrunner in the 2020 presidential election.

"The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution," she said.

As Reason's Peter Suderman has pointed out, while the allegations have yet to be fully substantiated, the mounting evidence appears to be unfavorable to the president. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, flip-flopped on national television, initially denying, but then admitting to urging Zelensky to carry out the opposition research on Biden and his family. What's more, Trump reportedly brought up the request eight times on a July call with the Ukranian president. And just days prior to that conversation, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney withheld $400 million in military aid from the Ukraine at Trump's behest.

The president has no lawful power to refuse funds that Congress has allocated. Yet it seems that Trump may have moved to cut off support for Ukraine—illegally—in hopes that he could prompt that country to look into a political opponent.

Trump said Monday that he withheld the funds because of "corruption" in the country. He contradicted that messaging on Tuesday, telling the United Nations that he kept the money over frustrations with Europe's lack of monetary support.

Pelosi's about-face on impeachment represents a major shift for the congresswoman, who up until this point has maintained that such proceedings would have disastrous political consequences for Democrats. And she isn't the only one to have a change of heart. Many liberal lawmakers who once opposed the idea have reversed course in light of the new information, with those legislators now topping 150 out of 235. The House speaker will move to create a special committee to investigate the matter.

Trump has leveled similar accusations against Biden. He alleges that the former vice president refused to give Ukraine funding in order to help his son, Hunter, although it's worth noting that Trump has not yet been able to furnish proof to support that claim. In 2016, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if a prosecutor—who had been accused of corruption by multiple international agencies—was not removed from office. Some in Trump's circle allege that the former vice president did so in order to shield his son from investigations pertaining to his role on the board of a Ukrainian gas company that was mired in scandal.

At a press conference today, Biden criticized the president and accused him of abusing his office for personal gain. "We have a president who believes there is no limit to his power," Biden said. "We have a president who believes he can do anything and get away with it. We have a president who believes he is above the law."

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Is the CDC Still Fostering Potentially Deadly Confusion About Vaping and Lung Disease?

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. I thought Warren was the current frontrunner.

    So if Biden gets elected, we will have an impeachment inquiry regarding his trying to influence Ukraine by withholdinng aid to avoid investigation into his son’s no work job?

    1. There is nothing illegal about getting paid for a job. There is something very illegal about being the President of the United States of America, my wonderful country, and committing crimes. How are the two the same? Can’t stand Biden, will not ever vote for him, but his son is not a government official and he can do business with whomever he pleases. Once you take an Oath of Office that all changes.

      1. Correction: he can do business with whomever pleases his father.

        1. Correction: he can do business with whomever is trying to curry favor with the VPOTUS.

          1. ITT, Jeff kicks the shit out of a straw man, AGAIN

            1. “A” straw man? Dudes digging a mass grave for strawmen in his backyard as we speak.

      2. Committing crimes is illegal! Therefore Trump is guilty! Brilliant!

      3. “Biden accepted a lucrative board position with an energy company focusing on Ukrainian business, even though, based on every account I’ve seen, he had no background or expertise in energy or in Ukraine. He did so after the energy company was known to be under Ukrainian investigation for alleged corruption and after his father was publicly overseeing much of the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine. It also all happened after Hunter Biden’s business partner met with Joe Biden in the White House — the same business partner who also joined the energy company’s board on, yes, the very day after the vice president’s visit in Kiev began.”

        Want to hear what week hunter biden got 1.5 billion from china? Hint. Airforce 2.

      4. Yay… someone gets it. Jesus Christ, you fucking TrumpianS below this comment are unbelievable.

        1. Really? Or you just are so blindly partisan you can’t accept that Mueller found shit and this is as empty as the Mueller report.

        2. What we see below is more self-described libertarians defending the most powerful political figure in the world. Sad and hilarious at the same time.

          1. “Sad and hilarious at the same time.”

            You must mean the fact that you think being libertarian has anything to do with who one defends.

            Does it make sense in your head? You keep repeating it like it does.

            1. Shorter idiot “DEFENDING A POWERUL PERSON ISN’T LIBERTARIAN!!! ”

              LOLOLOL WUT?

            2. Principals not principles.

              1. No seriously do you have any idea wtf he is talking about.

                1. Yes. It’s “Orange man bad”.

          2. Meanwhile chipper cheers on a deep state trying to undo an election.

            1. Does he think he has a point? He keeps crying about libertarians defending people like he has a point, but never makes it.

            2. “deep state” lol

              1. “Amirite”

                Why is it always everyone else’s fault you constantly make claims about what they say that turn out to be wrong? At some point you need to own up and stop blaming others because you lie.

                YOU stupidly fabricated “permanently” from thin air you sad lying FUCK BECAUSE YOU KNEW YOU WERE WRONG.

              2. Poor collectivist Jeffy thinks the intelligence bureaucracy is honest and not self serving in any way.

                Actually makes a lot of sense since he’s a collectivist.

                1. You misspelled retarded. At least I finally got him to admit he was making shit up out of thin air.

          3. So libertarians are only supposed to defend people based on them not holding power, rather than on the quality of the accusations against them?

      5. There is something very illegal about being the President of the United States of America, my wonderful country, and committing crimes.

        There’s something illegal about committing crimes? Wow.

      6. ErinS
        Wrong. Clearly Hunter is being paid not because he is actually doing the job but because his father was VP. This is evidenced by the fact that when he was being investigated, Biden used tax payers money to get the investigation closed down.
        Hunter was neither capable or indeed qualified for the job so clearly he got the job purely because of his father’s position.
        Biden even bragged about having an investigation in a foreign country shut down. This had nothing to do with America in any way, yet Biden bragged about it.

    2. This would be funny IF there was such a thing as an “Impeachment Inquiry “. This is new, any Impeachment INQUIRY???
      This is unconstitutional. Read the 4th amendment!

      1. What does the Fourth Amendment have to do with the House of Representatives considering impeachment?

    3. Lol. What a setup.

      https://www.dailywire.com/news/52200/bombshell-intel-inspector-general-found-ryan-saavedra

      “The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it is releasing an inspector general report on the whistleblower complaint that is at the center of Democrats’ push to impeach the president which reportedly found that the whistleblower had a bias in favor of one of Trump’s political rivals.

      The Federalist reported that the attorney for the whistleblower has previously worked for Democrat New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

      “The White House is preparing to release to Congress by the end of the week both the whistleblower complaint and the Inspector General report that are at the center of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry,”

      1. Do you ever cite a source that isn’t from the right-wing bubble?

        1. Do you ever do anything but ad hom and straw man?

        2. Look at the “individualist” implying an entire post is invalid because of the political view of the publication being quoted.

        3. Does he ever cite a source that is inside the left-wing bubble? Remember, bubbles have two sides.
          WH to release document showing intel community watchdog found whistleblower had ‘political bias,’ official says

          A ‘senior White house official’; That’s at least as solidly sourced as most of CNN’s reporting on this administration.

        4. Holy fuck, I didnt know jeff was this stupid. Jeff… google what I wrote with quotes around it, any sentence in there. It will be your first hit in google dumbass.

        5. By the way, sorry this information wasnt on Vox or not ratical.org . I know where you get your headline reading in.

    4. Whoops…

      ” The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen pointed out that CNN reported in May that Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy pushed Ukraine’s top prosecutor not to close four investigations perceived as critical to then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe — and seemingly threatened that their support for U.S. aid to Ukraine was at stake.”

      But it’s okay when democrats do it.

      1. Hope jeffrey is okay with me reporting what the right wing washington post wrote. If they weren’t paywalls I’d link directly to. I dont want him scolding me again like the child he is.

      2. And what’s even more fun about Mr. Thiessen’s column is to read the outraged comments from liberals who somehow can’t figure out that if it’s wrong for Trump to do it, it’s wrong for these Senators to do it.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/24/democrats-investigation-might-do-more-hurt-biden-than-trump/

        1. This whole outrage is less credulous than the kavanaugh shit. It’s insane that Democrats think this is the straw to break trump’s back.

          They read a headline, dont bother with facts and become the retarded Greta Thunburgs of politics. Case in point, baby jeffrey.

  2. Finally the Russian intelligence asset in the White House will be removed from office. All patriotic Americans should be celebrating.

    BTW, I’ve been telling you all since I started posting here that Drumpf would be impeached. Once again my prediction comes true, thanks to the #BlueWave Congress (which I also correctly predicted in 2018).

    #Impeach
    #TrumpUkraine

    1. Hasn’t happened yet.

      But good luck with President Mike Pence! I’m sure we’ll both love him.

    2. “Once again my prediction comes true…”

      You’ve become so delusional that you actually believe your own lies.

    3. Keep slurping, Team GOP.

      1. Your arguments are just so persuasive you have me convinced when do we set up the guillotine in the town square. It was the oral sex reference that did it for me.

      2. BTW what grade are you in? 7th?

    4. There is little more to be said except, ‘you’re an idiot’.
      Firstly, the Russian narrative has been debunked many times by several independent investigations including the Mueller probe.
      Secondly, yet again without any evidence or actually hearing from this ‘whistle blower’ the Dems want to launch into an impeachment.
      The bigger question here, quite honestly, is why was Trump’s phone call to a foreign leader being monitored. This proves that the swamp is still in place. Quite frankly, this monitoring should be investigated.

      1. “Whistle blower”

        From what I gather it’s not even that. It’s someone that said they heard a rumor. I don’t think the police will even investigate on that. Someone that heard a rumor and repeats it is a gossiper. Not a whistle blower.

  3. So they are going to try and impeach him because he is supposed to have gotten opposition research on an opponent from a foreign government? The same people who obtained the infamous “Dossier” from Russian intelligence?

    These people are insane.

    1. You’re right to be nervous. The walls are closing in on Putin’s Puppet.

      1. There’s no Russian birth certificate. Didn’t you read your own script? It’s a UKRAINIAN birth certificate.

      2. I’ve noticed the frequency with which you post your drivel has quickened, GOP Buttkisser. Doth protest too much? We get it… the only thing you are concerned with is who is in power and it doesn’t matter whether such person is a criminal or a liar. You’ve made that abundantly clear.

        1. I’ve noticed that you’re a racist, that you want to liquidate your enemies, and that you shit a LOT, Tony.

        2. “”Doth protest too much? “‘

          That’s funny as hell. The dems have been protesting since the day Trump won the election. Non frigging stop.

      3. You are a joke.
        Little more than comic relief.

    2. He is accused of attempting to elicit material foreign assistance in his campaign by placing a hold on military assistance he had no authority to withhold, citing various bullshit excuses.

      Illegal and unconstitutional at least a couple of different ways.

      There is, in contrast, no law prohibiting someone from hiring a non-U.S. citizen to do “opposition research” for you.

      1. Except there is no evidence of any of that. The Ukrainian President denies it ever happened and he withheld the funds and released them 4 days before the phone conversation even happened.
        Oh and Obama also withheld some funding that Congress had earmarked for the Ukraine, while he was President. So the illegality is questionable at best.

      2. Explain how it is illegal? Is Biden the nominee or a private citizen? He also appears to have asked about an investigation of a Ukrainian company not Biden himself. At least that is what the Ukrainians are saying.

      3. Nothing you said is correct simple Simon. All conjecture. now should we listen to what biden said on video about the Ukraine and 1 billion? Do you want to talk about china and 1.5 billion a week after Hunter flew with Joe to China?

        1. Sure Jesse! Why not just push the Trump Campaign Narrative as a substitute for an argument? I know that when I come to Reason, what I most want to hear are the latest Trump talking points!

          1. Oh shit, I see what’s happened here. Somehow (I’m not gonna guess at the mode of transmission) Tony has possessed collectivist Jeffy.

          2. When you come to reason all you want to hear is the contrarian voices in your head. You don’t have positions, you just ask rhetorical questions and then move the goal posts when people make you look stupid.

            1. It certainly does not take much to make Jeff look stupid.

    3. I’m still not sure how this counts as opposition research.

      It’s not research and Biden isn’t his opponent yet, he’s Elizabeth Warren’s.

  4. BREAKING: Trump to Release Call Transcript With Ukrainian President

    President Trump announced Tuesday afternoon he will release a July call transcript with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. It will be an attempt to clear the air after Trump was accused by an anonymous whistleblower, without a first hand account of the conversation, of urging the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. In exchange, Ukraine would receive military aid.

    1. If it turns out that the “anonymous whistle blower” is lying and there is nothing like that on the transcript, I am really going to wonder if the whistle blower wasn’t a Trump operative setting up the media and the Democrats. What other explanation could their be? How could the person get something like that wrong? Meanwhile, if the transcript turns out as Trump says it will, the Democrats and pretty much all of the media, including reason, are going to look like complete buffoons.

      1. From what I’ve read, the anonymous whistle blower wasn’t directly involved in the call, wasn’t in the room, and got all of their information 2nd hand. Not a credible whistle blower in the first place based just on that, but at this point I’d believe he’s a useful idiot for either side.

        There’s enough true believers on the left that want impeachment proceedings come hell or high water that he may have done it just to get that ball rolling, in which case mission accomplished and him being completely wrong is effectively a moot point since the Senate won’t do shit regardless of what the House does. Or as you note it’s an inside job meant to make the Democrats look like idiots, start impeachment proceedings that will fail and Trump can add it to his “NO COLLUSION” tweets going forward.

        1. “make the Democrats look like idiots”

          Their next job – lighting a candle to show us the sun.

        2. Don’t forget that it’s forcing the Democrat media to, at least tangentially, cover Biden’s corruption. Hell, it coulda been a Warren supporter thinking win-win.

    2. Written in Sharpie:

      “Yoo iz graetest pRezidents of ALL AMERICA and you noask Yookranish Przident for anything sez Youkranish prezidnents honstly!!1! And pleeze build graet hotel for Youkriansh country because Tramp makes AMERICA Graet!!1!”

      1. Wouldn’t it be written in Russian, in your mythology?

      2. Esmeralda Overdrive
        September.24.2019 at 5:20 pm
        Written in Sharpie:
        EO is among the least intelligent creatures on earth.

      3. Ahahahah your party just handed the R’s 2020 Ahahahahahahah eat it Tony

        1. It seems unlikely that an impeachment inquiry would produce any more bigots or uneducated losers willing to vote for Trump.

          1. Nope. All the bigots and uneducated classes vote Democrat or Green. But thanks for playing! Judges, do we have a consolation prize?
            We do! One copy of Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a yellow highlighter, and a noose to practice auto-erotic asphyxiation with.

          2. Ahahahahahahah you sound super disaffected bitch ahahahaahahh

          3. The main thing is that an impeachment will unite the conservatives around Trump. Many, if not most, conservatives dislike the man. However, this farce has gone on for so long. We have to impeach Trump for this, or that, or that, or that. It’s gone on for so long, that people are no longer searching for wolves, but jerk kids.

            The Law-and-order vote has always been conservative. When they see a clear violation of the law in the form of nonsensical impeachment based on flimsier and flimsier pretexts, they get angry. The anti-Trump conservatives and the “I hate everyones” who would otherwise stay home will group around Trump as the lesser of the two evils. At least Trump isn’t trying to override democracy with false legal accusations.

            The Democrats have centered their base around being oppressed. However, their actions in the Kavanaugh and Trump cases have been transparently oppressive, making themselves into hypocrites. The Kavanaugh hearings themselves were so off the wall that I would have thought it a poorly written parody. Going through his high school yearbook and asking for the meaning of slang? Come on! The Ford accusation was equally tenuous, being half an accusation with no supporting evidence that the party even happened. The fact that lawyers actually believed it defies imagination.

            1. “Many, if not most, conservatives dislike the man.”

              You really need to get out more Ben. Conservatives don’t dislike the guy. Some may not like his personal life, or his enjoy his demeanor, but there is little to no broad dislike, much less hate among people who actually want conservatism of any sort.

              Among the establishment types who pose as conservatives it’s another matter entirely. They really do hate him.

              1. Trump was extremely presidential when he held the press conference to prove once and for all that he is indeed keeping his main election promise of building the wall despite the incredible and relentless opposition and obstruction of the Dems.
                The leftist press is still pushing the narrative that Trump has only replaced existing ‘barriers’. Yesterday he put all of those lies to bed.
                I can’t see anyone who actually keeps his promises losing to either Biden or Warren. In fact, I’ll be surprised if Biden does not drop out of the race to protect his druggy son Hunter. Biden has a big mouth and incriminated himself in corruption when he bragged that he used tax payer month to force a foreign nation to fire an investigator. This was an internal Ukrainian matter and it is obvious Biden inserted himself into this to protect his son who was on the board of the company being investigated. This is the only connection between Biden and either the investigator or the company under investigation.

    3. “President Trump announced Tuesday afternoon he will release a July call transcript with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.”

      Volodymyr: So, Donald. What are you wearing?
      Trump: I don’t have anything on except for a Britney Spears record.
      Volodymyr: Mmmmm. Which one?

      If Trump having to release his phone calls become precedent then he could really fuck with the dems and the media by asking his lawyers if they have that video of Warren saying the N-word multiple times and claiming gays deserve the AIDS. He can even black that part out, claim it’s confidential, and when the media hounds him finally release it. Oops.

    4. I think I’ll at least wait for that to have an opinion on this. I would not be the least surprised if it’s just some more puffed up bullshit. But it wouldn’t be all that surprising if Trump did something dumb and criminal either.

      1. that’s pretty much where I am at. Although, if reports are to be believed, I would lean to Democrats over reaching. Why on earth would Trump release the transcript if it will be damaging to him?

    5. To be fair, he also said he would release his tax returns after the election.

  5. This is annoying. “Opposition research” is not the only interpretation. Another one is that Trump wanted to investigate the previous administration’s corruption, and the Ukraine funding provided an opportunity.

    Not that Trump is the sharpest blade in the drawer, but jeez, that doesn’t make Obama a unicorn either. If Biden’s son was getting $200K / month for being the VP’s son, that’s far worse for the corruption optics than Trump asking for a corruption investigation.

    And what the hell is the idea that there’s something wrong with investigating corruption from the previous admin? If not the successor, who? If not after the corruption leaves office, when?

    1. Investigating Democratic corruption is apparently a crime. That is what the Democrats are claiming here.

      1. What annoys me is both these recent articles completely ignoring the obvious Biden corruption and jumping right to the possible Trump hinting at corruption.

        1. Biden and his son are robbing the place blind. Biden uses his position as VP to force the Ukrainian government into stopping the investigation into said robbery. Trump is supposed to have told the Ukrainian government they should investigate the fact that Biden and his son were robbing them blind. But Trump is the bad guy here.

          WTF?

        2. “If you point out Democratic corruption, you’re abusing your office and should be impeached” – t. National Media

          The whole point of the Modern Media is to smother stories that reflect negatively on the Democrats, and punish Republicans for crying foul.

          1. You could argue that Reason jumping on that bandwagon is just another nail in the coffin of their credibility. But, at this point, there is no lid remaining, it’s all nails anyway.

    2. Another one is that Trump wanted to investigate the previous administration’s corruption, and the Ukraine funding provided an opportunity.

      Is it legal for the executive branch to do this?

        1. Because Congress has the power of the purse, not the President.

          Why would it be legal for the President to impose additional conditions on the money that Congress did not impose?

          1. Congress funds the DoJ dumbshit. They can perform investigations.

            1. Last I checked, appropriations for the DOJ are not the same as appropriations for aid to the Ukraine.

              Did Congress allocate money for the Ukraine with instruction that it only be spent if the Ukraine were to first investigate the Bidens? No? Oh, then why should the President impose *this* additional requirement on *this* particular money that Congress appropriated?

              1. The part about the air being conditional is all speculation. Which is being denied by all parties involved and the funds were released before Trump spoke with the Ukrainians.

                1. Look, Congress appropriated money to be spent on military aid to the Ukraine.

                  Congress didn’t appropriate money to be spent on military aid to the Ukraine only if Ukraine investigated the Bidens first.

                  So it is not appropriate for Trump, or any president, to use appropriated money as a vehicle to extort nations on some unrelated matter.

                  1. OK so now that you were wrong and no one said “permanently” your argument has shifted to “appropriate” instead of illegal.

                    God you’re such a piece of shit.

                    1. It may not be legal either.

                    2. Finally hit you with something you thought was too obvious to deny.

              2. You should have checked harder faggot.

                ” So yes, Trump has the authority to withhold funds”

                You, when you finally realized you were wrong

                1. You, dishonestly misquoting me.
                  Trump has the authority to withhold funds *temporarily*. Not permanently.

                  1. No one said permanently. So, you bitching about it is what is dishonest.

                    You just cannot handle being wrong, you have to make up stupid qualifiers no one made like “permanently”

                    1. You enjoy being deliberately vague in your terminology, don’t you?

                    2. “Amirite”

                      Why is it always everyone else’s fault you constantly make claims about what they say that turn out to be wrong? At some point you need to own up and stop blaming others because you lie.

                      YOU stupidly fabricated “permanently” from thin air you sad lying FUCK BECAUSE YOU KNEW YOU WERE WRONG.

                    3. Chemjeff isnt a person. He’s a contrarian. He constantly argues the opposite of what people say, just to do it. Which is why he ends up with so much egg on his face all the time. Because he usually neither knows or understands the position he’s arguing from. He’s only arguing that position because its contrary to whoever he’s debating.

                      And once the conversation goes beyond surface level understanding he begins too look more and more ignorant…

                      Which is when hell then try moving the goalposts, as he always does.

                      And then hell try restarting that whole process over the goalposts he just moved.

                    4. Jeff is not a contrarian, a true contrarian would be all over the map with counter arguments. Jeff’s are reliably and consistently from the collectivist left.

                  2. “”Trump has the authority to withhold funds *temporarily*. Not permanently.””

                    If that true, then Trumps accusers would need to prove that the withholding was intended to be permanent.

          2. The DoJ is part of the executive branch dipshit. Which branch does the FBI work for? Hint: it isn’t Congress.

            1. We’re talking about money that Congress appropriated for the Ukraine, not for the DOJ.

              1. Except there is no evidence that that occurred. Even the so called whistleblower stated there was no quid pro quo that he had heard of (he didn’t hear the conversation BTW), the Ukrainians deny that is what happened and the funds were released before Trump made the infamous phone call.

              2. “So yes, Trump has the authority to withhold funds ”

                You Jeff, after I made you realize you were wrong

                1. You, dishonestly misquoting me.
                  Trump has the authority to withhold funds *temporarily*. Not permanently.

                  1. No one said permanently. So, you bitching about it is what is dishonest.

                    You just cannot handle being wrong, you have to make up stupid qualifiers no one made like “permanently

                    1. Little Jeffy likes to say you misquoted him, while misquoting you. And then move along to his next trivial bullshit

                    2. Yeah he was wrong and he hates it, so he’s desperate.

                    3. No I get it, this is a game you play. Be deliberately vague, and shift the meaning of words around so that in the end, you always “win”. Because you never commit yourself to a firm position. The only “position” you have is to always “win” in the end, regardless of the words used.

                    4. Feel free to quote what you thought was vague idiot. You still haven’t.

                      Why is it always everyone else’s fault you constantly make claims about what they say that turn out to be wrong? At some point you need to own up and stop blaming others because you lie.

                      YOU stupidly fabricated “permanently” from thin air you sad lying FUCK BECAUSE YOU KNEW YOU WERE WRONG.

                    5. “No I get it, this is a game you play.”

                      You play the same game, you’re just bad at it.

          3. Why would it be legal for Biden to allegedly (by his own admission) do the same thing?

            I mean if we’re gonna hold a standard, let’s hold it and disqualify both of them.

      1. Yes. See Obama’s investigation into Bush torture memos. Are you this fucking ignorant?

      2. Legal? Yes.

        Wise? Rarely. Without an airtight case, it’s a very bad idea to investigate the prior administration.

        1. But mention it to the Ukrainian President, have a “whistleblower” tell the IG. Leak it to the media and viola.
          Oh and throw in allow it to fester long enough that the media, Weld and Pelosi take the deep dive, release the manuscripts and sit back and enjoy.

        2. However, how can you have an airtight case if you aren’t allowed to investigate?

  6. This will be interesting.

    1. For not only the president, but for Democrats come with respect to the election and possibly even for Biden’s son.

      1. It is going to be fun watching them run this “Inquiry” without mentioning Biden’s son or his do nothing job or Biden himself and his threat to cut aid if they didn’t stop investigating his son’s do nothing job.

        “Trump unlawfully tried to influence the election by trying to get the Ukrainian government to get dirt on Joe Biden that we cannot talk about and you wouldn’t need to know about anyway”.

        Yeah, that sounds like a winner.

        1. Well – we’ve successfully discussed Russian hacking for three years without ever going into what it was the Russians uncovered, so . . . .

        2. Trump’s response seems to be: “Great that you whipped yourself into a frenzy and created so much coverage; here’s the transcript. Now let’s talk about Biden’s son.”

          I can’t tell whether Trump is just really good or the Democrats are just really stupid. Maybe both.

          1. I’m not sure if its that Trump’s good at it, so much as he’s used to playing these games with corrupt NY officials. And yes, the Dems are stupid, in that they’ve allowed themselves to rile the hard left so hard they can’t be controlled anymore.

      2. It makes you wonder who got to Pelosi to undermine Biden by bringing his and his son’s corruption out in public like this.

        I’ve had a theory for some time that the Dem “adults” (Pelosi, Schumpeter) have been pushing the kids (AOC, Warren, Bernie) out to the front to let them burn off some steam because they think the 2020 election is a foregone conclusion, but 2024 is wide open because Trump has no natural successor. This could be thought of that — clear the tracks for the kids by getting grandpa Biden out of the way.

        1. Except Warren is almost as old as Biden but the basic hypothesis seems plausible.

    2. No really. Same old shit as always.

  7. “Biden criticized the president and accused him of abusing his office for personal gain”

    OK, I am just a college graduate; so explain in one syllable words how Trump gets financial gain from an investigation of Biden’s crooked deals. (You can leave out the parts about the net worth change for the Bidens after the election – – – – )

    1. Not financial gain, political gain.

      1. What political gain?

        (let’s see if he falls for it)

      2. How does a Ukrainian investigation into Hunter Biden result in political gain unless Hunter Biden actually did something wrong and the investigation can prove it?

        What kind of bizarre view of politics do you people have?

        1. There doesn’t have to be any actual corruption in order for one political tribe to gain an advantage from an investigation into the non-corruption. See: Russia Investigation

          1. How has the Russia investigation benefited the investigators?

            And the Russia investigation was legal. Stupid but legal.

            1. In this case, if Trump pressured the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, it wouldn’t be the Ukrainians that would enjoy some sort of political gain, it would be Trump, regardless of whether Biden did anything illegal or not.

              1. Do you want the statement made over 1 billion?

              2. How in the world would Trump benefit politically from a Ukrainian investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings if that investigation didn’t find anything? How the hell is that supposed to work?

              3. How about if Trump just removed the prior pressure to NOT investigate the Bidens? Is that OK?

              4. “”if Trump pressured the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens,””

                The Ukrainian president has said that he was not pressured by Trump, and the only thing that can pressure him is his 6 year old daughter.

                If the charge is person x was pressured and person x says they were not, the charge would be thrown out.

        2. Who said the investigation couldn’t prove he did something wrong? Or at least something that looks bad?
          And Trump’s intent matters, not just the outcome. If (and I mean if) Trump’s intention was to get dirt he could use against Biden, then he was doing it for personal gain, even if it turned out that Biden did nothing wrong.

          1. Thank you Zeb for being a voice of reason around here.

          2. Now do this for russia and the use of Britain and Australia to go after trump.

            1. Why? We aren’t discussing that right now. Do you think I wouldn’t if that was the topic at hand?

              1. So principals > principles. Got it.

                Thanks for that moment of clarity Zeb.

          3. I’ll tell you why that doesn’t matter. Because Trump was in this case smart enough to give himself the figleaf of witholf9ng the funding for other reasons, in advance. Without direct statements that he was withholding it be ause of Biden, any case against him goes nowhere. Even IF you believe he is totally guilty, this isn’t taking him down without a smoking gun.

            1. If he had other valid (or at least plausible) reasons for asking for whatever it is he asked for, and there isn’t some other compelling evidence, then I would agree. There would be no way to prove anything whatever the intent was.

              1. Well the evidence provided by ENB this morning covers that. He had a meeting a week before, where he said he was reconsidering the funding because if possible Russian ties. He covered it.

            2. And the even better fig leaf of releasing the funding before having the phone conversation, I assume?

              The Democrats’ problem here is that Trump knows what he said, so if he said nothing incriminating, he knows that, and will be able to prove it. So the Democrats are walking into this blind, while he knows every inch of the territory. The fact that he doesn’t seem worried should scare them spitless.

              Their other problem is that they’re, at this point, constitutionally incapable of considering the possibility that he’s factually innocent of something. This keeps them from gaming out the consequences if he’s cleared.

          4. And your premise is that politicians are not permitted to expose the wrongdoings of other politicians because it might help them at the polls?

            That’s insane. It’s the opposite of how our political and legal systems are supposed to work. We want politicians to go after each other for their own political gain.

  8. Nothingburger. If this is impeachable, then Obama should have been impeached for colluding with foreign governments to spy on Trump. Investigating a potential act of corruption by your own government is perfectly legitimate and just because it has political repercussions does not make it an impeachable offense. That’s the Bidens’ fault, not Trump’s.

    1. One person’s nothingburger is another person’s grand conspiracy.

  9. Reason has lost it’s credibility on Trump impeachment by pushing the crime of obstruction of justice and the Amash theory.

    Both of them failed to say that Obstruction of Justice is a crime and requires a criminal action.

    This allowed both to claim that non-criminal action that might have interfered with Mueller proved obstruction of justice

    1. Wrong. Obstruction of justice need not include an antecedent crime.

      1. True, but that’s not what he was saying.

        Obstruction of justice doesn’t require an antecedent crime, because you don’t want to reward successful obstruction of justice, which could potentially keep you from proving the antecedent crime.

        But it DOES require that the obstruction be accomplished “corruptly”. Either in terms of motive, or in terms of means. Acts which obstruct justice but are not “corrupt” in either way are not legally obstruction of justice.

        If there IS an antecedent crime, you’ve got corrupt motive covered, and even legal acts can be obstruction of justice because performing them out of corrupt motive qualifies.

        BUT, if there isn’t an antecedent crime, you’ve only got corruption in terms of means to fall back on, and you have to be able to prove that the means used to obstruct weren’t lawful.

        Clinton got nailed because he was ordering evidence under subpoena destroyed, and perjurious affidavits filed. Unlawful means. But Trump was lawfully entitled to urge mercy for Flynn, to order investigations ended, and so forth. So, the lack of an antecedent crime was quite relevant.

  10. Once again, all this angst and drama could have been avoided if the Republicans had taken the 2018 congressional elections seriously, gotten out the pro-Trump vote, and if Trump himself had not turned off sufficient swing voters with his undignified behavior.

    1. I hate to admit it, but this is mostly true.

      If you believe the conspiracy theory, then this impeachment inquiry is actually what Trump wants – something that will energize and rally his base.

      1. Trump for a supermajority? Imagine if China caves, Iran caves, this turns out to be another shit Burger oh and there is one or two indictments of people from the Obama administration over the FISA warrant. Add in McCabe being convicted and Flynn having his conviction overturned (his defense attorney is going full bore).
        Minus a major recession, the Democrats would be screwed, especially if Warren or Sanders is the nominee.

        1. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? A right-wing nationalist supermajority! Libertarians everywhere, rejoice!

          1. It was tongue in cheek but thank you for showing your true partisan colors by labeling all Republicans as nationalist and implying that is a bad thing. You do you.

            1. The “individualist” can’t help talking like a collectivist.

              1. You mean the part where I DIDN’T label all Republicans as nationalists?

                1. “Wouldn’t that be wonderful? A right-wing nationalist supermajority!”

                  How would this supermajority come about? The not nationalists republicans would all lose to nationalists? Democrats would lose to right wing nationalists?

                  Nope, that doesn’t really makes sense. What makes sense is you just, as a collectivist, implied that if Republicans win big in the next election, there would be a right wing nationalist supermajority.

                  Unless you don’t really know what supermajority means, which I actually think might be possible.

                  1. So you can’t find where I labeled all Republicans as nationalists. Got it.

                    soldiermedic claimed he wanted “Trump for a supermajority”. If Trump were to be in charge of a supermajority government, what type of character do you think that government would take? Do you think it would be right-wing in character, or left-wing? Do you think it would be nationalist in character, or globalist?

                    1. I’m sorry you don’t know what a right-wing nationalist supermajority means. Especially since you said it.

                    2. Pfft. Supermajority just means “most” not “all”. Gotcha, goalpost mover.

                      You should open a construction company that only builds and removes sports goals and field goal uprights. Youd get a supermajority of the business.

                    3. Collectivist jeff isn’t even fit to be employed… how’s he gonna run a company?

            2. labeling all Republicans as nationalist

              Umm I did? Where?

              implying that is a bad thing

              I think a government that is overwhelmingly nationalist would be a bad thing, yes.

          2. Poor collectivist Jeffy brings up a republican nationalist supermajority from his nightmares, then acts like the rest of us brought up a republican nationalist supermajority.

          3. A right-wing nationalist supermajority would be better for libertarians than a communist supermajority.
            Or do you think 0blamocare was a libertarian win?

  11. OK, let me get this straight, the “scandal” part involves Trump allegedly talking to a foreign leader about Biden’s dirty dealings. But the actual corruption part is fine?

    1. If Trump investigates a Democrat for actual corruption, the Democrat is off the hook. Don’t you know?

    2. The allegedly scandalous part involves Trump purportedly manipulating the release of Congressionally-approved funding for Ukraine.

      1. And that’s illegal… How?

        1. Because Congress decides how money is spent. I don’t know if it’s a crime, but it’s not how things are supposed to work.

          1. Have you paid attention to Congress lately? They give the executive wide birth on foreign aid. Is this not well known?

            1. I guess not. That’s why I said I don’t know if it’s a crime.

              1. As it was defense related spending my understanding is the executive branch has to approve the transfer. Obama cancelled earlier funding for the Ukraine because of suspected corruption. This is the stated reason Trump was going to with hold it before he was talked out of it.

          2. Was the money spent? It was. Hence he didn’t contravene congressional appropriations and the point is moot. Threatening to do something and doing it are two separate things.

            There is no reason that if he had gone through with his threat he would have violated any laws. If congressional approval were required for withholding funding, presumably, he would have sought it.

          3. “Because Congress decides how money is spent.”

            Man, when Obama was secretly throwing pallet loads of hard currency to Iran you must have been super pissed off by that.

            1. Or when Obama actually withheld funds from the Ukrainians after he used American resources to topple their government.

      2. Except nobody is buying he did that except for democrats dumbshit.

      3. If any of this is true, a big if, Trump didn’t withhold money, he threatened to withhold money. It’s not his fault if the Ukrainians don’t know that he doesn’t have the authority to do so.

        1. It’s perfectly feasible for presidents to withhold funding. In some cases, they may need to seek congressional approval within 45 days, but there is no reason to believe Trump wouldn’t have done that.

    3. “”But the actual corruption part is fine?”‘

      I guess we would have to define corruption in a way that doesn’t convict every politician.

  12. Oh, another ‘impeachment inquiry’? Continue ad infinitum, after all, you have an unlimited pool of taxpayer money and nothing better to do.

    1. At least it keeps them busy. Idle hands and all.

  13. “I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure,” Prystaiko said during a media interview. “This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers.”

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/09/24/breaking-trump-to-release-call-transcript-with-ukrainian-president-n2553599

    The Ukrainian President says he wasn’t pressured. Is it the Democrats and half wits like Peter Suderman’s position that he is lying? If so, why?

    1. Clearly Trump pressured him into lying about being pressured.

      Do try to keep up.

  14. Maybe this is Trump draining the swamp by playing 12 dimension chess, by showing how venal and corrupt everyone is in Washington, including himself. Causing the proletariat to rise up and actually drain the swamp…

    1. Correct, they are.

  15. My favorite part is that the article claims that the information continues to get worse for the President. From what I’ve read is that the information seems to be going the President’s way, e.g. the so called whistleblower didn’t even hear the call, the Ukranians deny any quid pro quo and if the transcripts show that tomorrow, Pelosi stated she will still go forward with the impeachment inquiry.

    1. Should have read who the author was. Of course he would think the evidence is getting worse when it appears to most anyone else that it appears to be another scandal no scandal.

    2. I agree.
      I have a problem with that too.

      But it also follows many claims by Reason made in the past that simply failed to turn into anything.

      I also think it shows an anti-Trump view by Reason

      1. “I also think it shows an anti-Trump view by Reason”

        You must be paranoid. Anti-Trump bias at Reason? Ha ha, how silly.

        /obligatory sarc tag

      2. I also think it shows an anti-Trump view by Reason

        You mean, Reason is not just a bunch of Republicans? Huh.

        1. God shut the fuck up and go away you sad fucking nothing.

          1. Well good evening to you too.
            Don’t forget to take your meds tonight.

            1. God shut the fuck up and go away you prog sucking nothing.

              1. Take a double dose.

                1. “So yes, Trump has the authority to withhold funds”

                  There is a double dose of I won bitch.

        2. Mainstream Republicans hate Trump as much as mainstream Democrats and big-L Libertarians.

          1. And for good reason.
            Saying Reason has an “anti-Trump bias” isn’t actually disqualifying.

            1. If you think that Trump is any more worthy of hate than other politicians, you’re either a fool or a partisan hack.

              1. So you really don’t think Trump has said or done anything particularly shameful, compared to leaders of the recent past?

                1. Notice you ways focus on words over actions? You’re a fucking idiot like that

                  1. Do you think not liking someone based on a person’s beliefs is not a valid reason to dislike someone?

                    I’ll ask you, do you think Trump has said or done anything particularly shameful compared to leaders of the recent past?

                2. Compared to leaders of the past… Sold illegal guns to drug cartels, used the IRS to Target his opponents, used FISA warrants to the opposition party’s nominee, started a war on faulty intelligence and with no plan as to how to get out, committed perjury, Ruby Ridge, Iran Contra, abandoned the Shah and allowed Americans to be held hostage for over a year and couldn’t rescue them because he stripped the military, Nixon, Johnson (nothing more needs to be said), FDR pretty much ignored the Constitution, Hoover, Wilson, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, James Polk started a war of aggression against Mexico, Andrew Jackson, James Madison and the war of 1812, John Adams and the Alien and Seditious acts.

                  1. You are right that Trump hasn’t started any new wars. He deserves some credit for that.

                    And LOL on Alien and Sedition Acts. That’s going back a ways. Although Trump isn’t too hot on that score either. I suspect he would agree with John Adams on quite a few things.

                    And on the rest of those things, Trump doesn’t particularly stand out. Obama sold illegal guns to drug cartels? Oh, how does that compare with Trump selling legal guns to Saudis to starve and murder Yemenis? That it’s legal doesn’t make it any more justifiable.

                    On top of that, Trump’s shameful xenophobic rantings are nothing short of disgusting. It’s not just that he doesn’t really like foreigners all that much (unless they are hot fashion models). It is that he scapegoats some of the most powerless people on the planet and validates the paranoid feelings of privileged Americans – of all types – that their problems are due to powerless penniless people who are somehow making America worse by working 16-hour days at thankless jobs. He attempts to validate the casual bigotry inside all of us, that our problems are all due to those furriners who look different than us. I did not like many of Bush’s policies, but to his endless credit, he did his level best not to try to validate the darker Islamophobic voices of his base. Trump, on the other hand, has no compunction against giving voice to these darker elements.

                    1. I did not like many of Bush’s policies, but to his endless credit, he did his level best not to try to validate the darker Islamophobic voices of his base.

                      What the fuck are you smoking? Where you even paying attention back then?

                    2. You said any previous leader. I listed multiple examples from throughouy the past that completely discredits your claim.

                    3. Bush went out of his way to not blame Muslims or Islam in general for 9/11. That is what I was referring to.

                    4. On top of that, Trump’s shameful xenophobic rantings are nothing short of disgusting

                      To you maybe, because you’re a pampered, ignorant American.

                      To people like me who actually have had to live in the rest of the world, reminding Americans of how shitty other countries and other cultures are is a good thing.

                    5. Reagan reminded everyone how shitty the Soviet Union was, but he was able to do so without coming off as a xenophobic prick who blamed foreigners for America’s problems. That’s the difference.

                    6. Reagan reminded everyone how shitty the Soviet Union was, but he was able to do so without coming off as a xenophobic prick who blamed foreigners for America’s problems. That’s the difference.

                      Take it from a former foreigner: foreigners are responsible for many of America’s problems. It’s a good thing that he says it because people like you are repeating stupid ignorant bullshit about the rest of the world.

                    7. “And LOL on Alien and Sedition Acts. That’s going back a ways. ”

                      Well, the previous administration’s people were actually making noises about going after Trump’s campaign on Logan Act grounds, so maybe the Alien and Sedition acts ARE still relevant.

                3. I think what Trump has done has been a lot less shameful than the war mongering pricks that preceded him.

                  I will give you this: Trump is a lot less slick, refined, or articulate than the pricks that preceded him. I happen not to care.

            2. It is if it’s anti-liberal bias and the Federalis for you, you sad fucking nothing.

          2. How can 9% of Republicans be considered mainstream? Unless were just talking about those in D.C.

        3. That’s right, not immediately buying into whatever current conspiracy fever dream the Democrats have cooked up automatically makes you a Republican.

          1. That’s an important part of the us vs them game.

  16. Newt Gingrich is currently somewhere laughing his ass off.

    Poor Nancy. She caved to the radical left. This won’t end well for the Dem’s.

    1. Not much of a cave.
      Without a House vote to do as she said, it really is just business as it has been, carried out by the various committees, since the communists took over.

  17. Holy crap, the democrats have gone insane. It’s clear that they are worried that they can beat the nut so they think they need to resort to games like this. To a unbiased observer, the worst possible thing Trump did was to talk too much. If the dumbocrats spent as much time coming up with a presidential candidate that isn’t an unelectable authoritarian socialist as they did complaining about Trump they might be able to make themselves relevant. I didn’t last time but all this makes me want to vote for the President next time.

    1. Unfortunately for the Democrats (and for the country) they are now officially an authoritarian socialist party, so who the hell else are they gonna run?

  18. Biden isn’t Trump’s political opponent, he isn’t even the Democratic nominee, he’s a private citizen who possibly was involved in serious corruption as the VP.

    1. Like all Republican presidents, Trump is a chimpanzee savant who bumbles everything but still somehow has supernatural mental powers and can predict the future including who the Democrats were planning on nominating

  19. I trust someone will YouTube the interaction between Chuck Todd and Sen. John Kennedy on MSNBC a few minutes ago. Priceless!

    1. “I’m not here to gaslight the nation”

      That is literally all you do, you slimy sack of shite

  20. This is it. This is the big one. We got him.

    1. “We got a new Impeachment Kit by mail from the Acme Corporation – this one looks a whole lot better than the last one, it’s got to work!”

  21. Yesterday the House of Representatives was investigating all things Trump and now Pelosi is going to investigate all things Trump. I don’t really see the difference.

    1. It’s a “formal” thing. We wouldn’t understand.

      1. Kind of an informal formal thing, since they’re not holding a House vote on it.

    2. Well, the investigate Kavanaugh thing blew up in their faces last weekend so…

  22. Biden will not be the D nominee in any case, so there is no “political gain” for Trump if/when Hunter and his two pals goes to jail, assuming it is legal for a high placed D to go to jail.

    If the stories about Biden/Heinz/the other guy are true then Americans should be outraged. That outrage should cause a landslide election for Trump. By the way, I expect a landslide win for Trump.

    1. I would argue there might be some minor payoff amongst Repubs/moderates who are tired of corrupt politicians, but I don’t see the effort being worth the gain, unless getting the Democrats to try and impeach him was some sort of 6D chess move

      1. Just more bear baiting.

    2. I don’t think that’s relevant unless you believe that all of Trump’s actions are based on a unwavering belief that Biden won’t be the nominee. If you think you are stealing a bag of diamonds and it turns out to really be a bag of shit, you are still a thief.
      I think it is very unlikely that this will turn out to be anything, but assuming for the sake of argument that Trump did what he is being accused of (based on pretty slim evidence as far as I can see so far), it doesn’t matter whether Biden is the candidate in some hypothetical future where Trump did a bad thing and got away with it.

      1. What bad thing? Asking to investigate corruption? That was literally what Mueller was about.

        1. But, but we can’t investigate prior administrations… (not sure why)

          1. We can, if you want a banana republic.

            1. How does investigating corruption by prior administration amount to being a “banana republic”?

            2. So corruption is okay as long as you don’t get caught until after you leave office? And you wonder why our country has the problems it has?
              Not investigating corruption because of someone’s position or former position sounds more banana republic to me.

    3. The other guy is mobster Whitey Bulger’s nephew, not sure if it’s the son of longtime MA pol William Bulger

  23. Let Pelosi cite the article of the Constitution that she claims Trump violated.
    That should be amusing to hear. Any liberal claiming fealty to the Constitution is a joke. Their hero FDR’s entire “New Deal” was unconstitutional and most everything they supported that came after it that expanded the power of the Federal government was as well.

    1. Don’t you know that the Constitution was written by a bunch of old white slave owning rich males? Are you even woke?

  24. I guess the Democrats are nationalists, after all.

    “He would have had dirty furriners investigate our crooked pols!”

  25. Over / Under on President Pence winning an election against Kamala Harris, the presumptive nominee?

    1. Do you really think the Senate will find Trump guilty?

      1. Dude, the Senate’s job is not to determine guilt. That is the job of the House. The sole job of the Senate is to decide whether to remove the POTUS from office, or not. In practice, the Senate has acted as a ‘jury’ of sorts. But that role is not proscribed by the Constitution.

        1. Article 1, Section 3:
          The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

          1. So, it is safe to say that English is not Atlas_Shrugged’s first language.

        2. So, indicting is a determination of guilt, and conviction is just deciding whether to impose a punishment for that guilt? Interesting take on it…

        3. “”Dude, the Senate’s job is not to determine guilt. That is the job of the House.”‘

          The house is basically a grand jury that delivers an indictment. Then a trial occurs in the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Guilt is determined at the trial. If you are found guilty you are removed.

  26. When will Hillary ascend to the throne?

  27. Ok… ok… I think I’ve got it. Run with me for a second.

    The democrats impeach, and more importantly, get a conviction on Trump’s impeachment. Then, when the Democrat inevitably wins the white house, xe nominates Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Then the President, the Vice President, the speaker of the house AND the President Pro Tempore of the Senate resign immediately after inauguration, making Hillary Clinton the rightful heir to the iron throne. And people say Hillary can’t be president.

    1. Technically, the Speaker doesn’t have to be a member of the House of Representatives, so a Democrat majority could just select Hill-dawg to be Speaker and she would be 3rd in succession.

      1. She’ll just carpetbag to a friendly district and the grateful incumbent will kindly bow out. Then there is no need for some protracted Constitutional battle.

        1. The rich corner of New York where she lives is about as friendly to her as she could find. No problem winning there.

          1. True but is the incumbent willing to step aside?

    2. xe nominates Hillary Clinton

      I couldn’t get past this part because you made me realize that 2024 is going to be the year of our first gender binary president and I was too overcome with emotion, or maybe it was nausea

      1. oops I mean gender non-binary

      2. Perhaps our first native American president.

  28. Funny; I didn’t hear anything in the news about the “Russia Scandal!” – Ya know the one where they called on the Russian government to dig up dirt on President Trump.

    Oh, what was I thinking. That was an “Investigation”; not a “Scandal”. The left along with its pimped out media has seriously gotten utterly retarded. They all belong in straight jackets!

    1. Well we do know that Hillary’s campaign did contact the Ukrainians for dirt on Trump. So stick with me. Trump knows what’s in the IG report, and it refers to Obama administration and Hillary using foreign intelligence agency, including the Ukraine to spy on Trump. So Trump does this stunt, bringing attention to the Ukraine and it’s ties to the former Administration. He then releases the IG report and he gets double profits out of it.

    2. The best part is the idea that Trump, after three years of being accused, and subsequently cleared, of asking a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent, he would do so in a phone conversation, that he knew people would be listening to.

  29. 1. The right-wing narrative that Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin (the previous prosecutor) so as to get him to stop investigating Bursima, the company in which Hunter Biden served, is I suppose plausible, but a bit of a stretch. There were plenty of reasons to want to fire Shokin, most notably, he was a corrupt shitbag, according to lots of people including many Ukrainians themselves. Presumably all of these other people didn’t really care about Hunter Biden per se and wanted Shokin fired due to his extreme corruption.

    2. The left-wing narrative that Trump withheld money in order to pressure the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Biden is, I suppose plausible, but lacking in substance. Its main selling point seems to be that no one really believes Trump wouldn’t consider using such tactics. But I don’t know if it’s actually illegal for him to withhold money *temporarily* (he did eventually release the money to be spent), and Trump has just as plausible of a cover story as Biden did about wanting to “fight corruption” in Ukraine.

    1. according to lots of people

      This has never been evidence.

      1. A consensus of blue checkmarks is evidence enough.

        1. Again.. ukraine is a corrupt country. Lots of their government is bad. Yet you seem to believe only this prosecutor was big enough to threaten 1 billion. Bursima hired Hunter and his partner one day after Joe arrived in Kiev.

          “Biden accepted a lucrative board position with an energy company focusing on Ukrainian business, even though, based on every account I’ve seen, he had no background or expertise in energy or in Ukraine. He did so after the energy company was known to be under Ukrainian investigation for alleged corruption and after his father was publicly overseeing much of the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine. It also all happened after Hunter Biden’s business partner met with Joe Biden in the White House — the same business partner who also joined the energy company’s board on, yes, the very day after the vice president’s visit in Kiev began.”

          1. I have no doubt that there is a lot of corruption in Ukraine.

            I have little doubt that Bursima hiring Hunter Biden was more about trying to curry favor with the US government, rather than about Hunter’s work ethic.

            Yet you seem to believe only this prosecutor was big enough to threaten 1 billion.

            Umm what? Threaten 1 billion what?

            So, Jesse, why do you think Joe Biden demanded that Shokin be fired?

            1. Joe Biden bragged about threatening to withhold funds unless the Ukrainians fired the prosecutor. The funding was $1 billion dollars.

              1. You can tell Jeff knows he’s wrong when he starts the stupid “20 unrelated questions” act.

      2. Here is an article detailing Shokin’s corruption, back in December 2015.

        https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/12/ukraine-government-corruption-151206133110489.html

        1. Again, you’re isolating one corrupt politician in a government full of them dumbass. Why was he Joe’s focus?

          1. Why was he the focus of so many other people too?

            Perhaps it’s because this person was the chief prosecutor for the entire nation.

          1. Well that’s typical I suppose, throwing sand in the air to obscure the issue.

            What does Lagarde’s actions in France in 2008 have to do with the IMF’s position on Shokin in 2016?

            1. Wait, you’re asking me why, when discussing corruption, the fact that your principal was found guilty in a scandal where vast sums of money were diverted is germane?

              Are you actually retarded? No motherfucker, YOU have to explain why her corrupt criminal ass is worth quoting or believing you moron.

              1. No you are throwing sand in the air, bringing up unrelated topics to try to sow confusion.

                1. A person being convicted in a money funneling scheme is “unrelated” to her cliams of other people being corrupt.

                  He actually said this.

                  1. Because it’s true. It’s not related. Whatever Lagarde did in 2008 is unrelated to whatever Shokin did in 2014-16. But trying to bring up some unrelated corrupt act by Lagarde is only intended to cast doubt on the IMF’s very truthful claim that Shokin was a corrupt bastard.

                    Which, you’ve already admitted elsewhere, you agree that Shokin was a corrupt bastard.

                    1. AhahahHE DOUBLED DOWN AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    2. No no one person guilty of offical corruption has nothing to do with her claims of corruption by someone else ahahahahah GO WITH THAT AHAHAHAH. Shes TOTALLY CREDIBLE AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    3. Well, you’ve got a point there; Somebody actually themselves being guilty of criminality would have nothing to do with whether their enmity towards a prosecutor who could be in a position to expose them was impartial. [/sarc]

      3. Here is an article showing that the European Union was very glad to see Shokin fired.

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

      4. This article has more info about what exactly the Burisma investigation was about.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens

        For what it’s worth, the current Ukrainian prosecutor has said that Hunter Biden didn’t do anything wrong.

        1. I don’t think anyone has alleged that either Biden violated any Ukrainian law. Not really an issue so I wonder why people keep parroting this point.

            1. Yeah. Ya got me there.

          1. A lot of people upthread are acting pretty sure that the Bidens were guilty of something.

            1. Well Joe is obviously “guilty” of using his office to get a prosecutor fired who was investigating the company that hired his son because of his political office. I don’t know if he could be criminally charged for that although I’m pretty sure if it was Trump they’d find a way. I can’t imagine what the Ukrainians would charge him with or how they would claim jurisdiction. The only thing Hunter is guilty of is being a privileged twit.

              1. Remember when some random activists screamed at Chelsea Clinton for daring to be pregnant with her husband’s fetus? Doing things informally makes plausible deniability easier, which is why some Americans are scared to death of dog whistling that echoes the thoughts of headless horsemen. It is like:

                What school district did you grow up in?

                Did Mr. McCarthy call all the teachers at that school?

                Who needs three questions anyway?

            2. Which isn’t the same as “violating Ukrainian law” I don’t think.

              1. “Then why were so many other people trying to get Shokin fired?”

                Why do you think this matters when it doesn’t? Multiple things can be true.

                “Were they all trying to protect Hunter’s phony baloney job?”

                Who CARES? So he’s a shit bag, and has enemies, that doesn’t refute anything.

          2. If no one thinks that Hunter Biden broke a Ukrainian law, then why did Joe Biden try to protect his son from being investigated by the Ukrainian authorities, at least according to the right-wing version of things?

            1. Because bursima was trying to avoid hundreds of millions in fines from the prosecutor dumbfuck. Not everything was criminal. Paying Hunter a few million was pretty cheap.

              1. Because bursima was trying to avoid hundreds of millions in fines from the prosecutor

                Really now. What is the origin of this hypothesis?

            2. He was protecting Hunter’s phony baloney job.

              1. Then why were so many other people trying to get Shokin fired?

                Were they all trying to protect Hunter’s phony baloney job?

                1. “Then why were so many other people trying to get Shokin fired?”

                  Why do you think this matters when it doesn’t? Multiple things can be true. Like, the corrupt EU and IMF want him out, and he wants Biden’s son. Come the fuck on with this.

                  “Were they all trying to protect Hunter’s phony baloney job?”

                  Who CARES? So he’s a shit bag, and has enemies, that doesn’t refute anything.

                  1. Why do you think this matters when it doesn’t?

                    It does matter, because it suggests *the existence* of completely valid, non-corrupt reasons to want Shokin fired.

                    It is possible that Biden wanted Shokin fired in order to protect his son. It is also possible that Biden wanted Shokin fired for a perfectly legitimate reason, the same reason that all of these other people wanted Shokin fired, who had nothing to do at all with Hunter Biden or his job.

                    1. “It does matter, because it suggests *the existence* of completely valid, non-corrupt reasons to want Shokin fired.”

                      Which is NOTHING. NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT SHOKIN WAS A SAINT.

                      Again, because you are deeply stupid, one thing being true doesn’t mean the other isn’t.

                      God dammit why are you so fucking stupid.

                    2. Shokin being a shit bag deserving of firing isn’t a defense of Biden leaning on him. It literally absolves Biden of nothing.

                    3. Shokin being a shit bag deserving of firing isn’t a defense of Biden leaning on him.

                      It is – if Biden’s motivation is to see Ukraine become a less corrupt country.

                      It isn’t – if Biden’s motivation is to protect his son.

                    4. “It is – if Biden’s motivation is to see Ukraine become a less corrupt country”

                      No it isn’t. God dammit why do you stupidly think repeating yourself makes you not wrong

                      It’s you engaging in a fucking distraction speculating about motive when he admitted the crime, I FUCKING SHOWED YOU THIS ALREADY TODAY

                      What the fuck is wrong with you.

                      It DOESN’T MATTER WHY HE WANTED THE PROSECUTOR GONE. BY STATUTE, IT LITERALLY DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE BIDEN RECIE ED A SERVICE. WHY IS IRRELEVANT, PER STATUTE YOU FUCKING IGNORAMUS.

                      GOD DAMMIT WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING STUPID I GAVE YOU THE LAW AND YOU’RE STILL GETTING IT WRONG WHAT THE FUCK

                    5. “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.”

                      INFLUENCING THAT PERSON’S OFFICIAL ACT. That is ALL bribery requires.

                    6. “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.”

                      Services. Motive is irrelevant. Personal gain isn’t required.

                    7. This seems like an absurdly strict reading of the statutes in question.

                      By your reasoning, any officer of the US government who has a certain amount of power, who met with an officer of a foreign government, and said “I don’t like how your government does X, I think you ought to change it”, and then if the foreign government actually implements the changes, then the officer of the US government would be guilty of “extortion”. Because after all, any officer of the government with a certain level of power always has an “implied threat” of withholding the services of the agency in question unless the foreign government changes its ways.

                      I would love to see any case whatsoever of a government official even charged with bribery or extortion on a case similar to this. Particularly if the “victim” was of a foreign government.

                    8. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.24.2019 at 11:10 pm
                      This seems like”

                      Your opinion would carry more weight if you weren’t right now desperately bleating “permanently” WHICH NO ONE FUCKING SAID you sad lying sack of shit.

                      Your reading of the statute is fucking meaningless, and not just because your idiot ass consulted Websters in regard to the legal definitons of words being used you God damned idiot.

                      You saying “strict” just means you know I’m right and it’s accurate and you hate it.

                    9. There you go, bringing up something unrelated to this current conversation, in order to distract and throw sand in the air. More of this debate trick nonsense.

                      Your interpretation of these statutes would lead to absurd results, and I gave an example why. So I doubt your interpretation of these statutes. You could help your case if you could actually cite any case whatsoever of someone even being charged with extortion or bribery under these circumstances.

                      You can’t, so you bring up this debate trick nonsense. And besides you don’t actually want to “help your case”, you would rather just parade around and declare I WON even if you didn’t win but whatevs.

                    10. You were using a websters dictionary for legal analysis til this morning. Your opinon in the matter is meaningless.

                    11. Of course that is a logical fallacy. But far be something as trivial as that to slow Tulpa down.

                      Sure, Biden is guilty of bribery and extortion, and the reason why no one else has ever been charged with those crimes in this type of context is…. ?

                    12. Cept you were using a websters dictionary for legal analysis til this morning so your opinon is still, and always will be, meaningless.

                    13. “Of course that is a logical fallacy”
                      No jeff, you being such a total ignoramus as to not even know the correct bpoks to learn from isnt a fallacy Its what you dd this morning, and it’s why your noob uninformed opinion is meaningless. If you had an ounce of self awareness youd understand why.

                      But we totally get why you want to try to delegitimize that citicism.

        2. The prosecutor biden admitted he helped pick and let bursima off with a small fine, aka bribe in ukraine?

        3. And until Trump talked to them, they had about a $billion reasons to assure us of that.

      5. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

        According to this article, when Biden made his demand to the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant for a year already.

        If the purpose of Biden’s demand was to shut down the investigation into Burisma, why would he do so if Shokin had already stopped investigating Burisma in the first place?

        1. ‘Cuz Joe is slow?

        2. “Biden accepted a lucrative board position with an energy company focusing on Ukrainian business, even though, based on every account I’ve seen, he had no background or expertise in energy or in Ukraine. He did so after the energy company was known to be under Ukrainian investigation for alleged corruption and after his father was publicly overseeing much of the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine. It also all happened after Hunter Biden’s business partner met with Joe Biden in the White House — the same business partner who also joined the energy company’s board on, yes, the very day after the vice president’s visit in Kiev began.”

          Last sentence dumbass. Want to know when Hunter got Chinas 1.5 billion investment? Hint Joe flew Hunter over on Airforce 2.

    2. “There were plenty of reasons to want to fire Shokin, most notably, he was a corrupt shitbag, according to lots of people including many Ukrainians themselves.”

      Trump had equally valid reasons to fire James Comey, but that was still enough to get a special prosecutor appointed to crawl up his ass for the next two years. Why should Biden be treated any differently?

      1. “equally valid”

        From what I’ve read, Shokin is leagues beyond any corruption that Comey could have thought of.

      2. Because two wrongs don’t make a right?

    3. No, the right wing narrative is that Ukraine tried to buy influence by hiring Biden’s son, a fact. Biden’s actions show just illustrate how deep that corruption went.

    4. Jeffrey thinks by firing this one prosecutor ukraine was saved from corruption by biden. Thata because jeffrey is a dumbass.

      “Biden accepted a lucrative board position with an energy company focusing on Ukrainian business, even though, based on every account I’ve seen, he had no background or expertise in energy or in Ukraine. He did so after the energy company was known to be under Ukrainian investigation for alleged corruption and after his father was publicly overseeing much of the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine. It also all happened after Hunter Biden’s business partner met with Joe Biden in the White House — the same business partner who also joined the energy company’s board on, yes, the very day after the vice president’s visit in Kiev began.”

      1. Jeffrey thinks by firing this one prosecutor ukraine was saved from corruption by biden.

        That would be a negatory. But as usual you enjoy putting words in my mouth.

        I never claimed Shokin was the ONLY source of corruption in the Ukraine. Only that he was a particularly egregious example of it.

        And your quote comes from a Washington Examiner opinion piece. Why do you think this is a persuasive citation?

        1. Because he doesn’t believe in stupid ad homs like you do.

        2. Having someone put words in your mouth would be a nice change from the giant bag of dicks you always have stuffed in there.

          1. Well aren’t you Mr. Pleasant.

            1. No one said permanently you sad lying fuck. Just admit your were wrong. Nah, you’re pathetic. You’d rather lie about what was said.

        3. Shokin clearly wasn’t the only source of corruption. We already know of a second source of corruption: Hunter Biden.

    5. Well, Obama did withhold funds from them while President so the precedence is set.

    6. Why would Joe Biden care so much about getting a “corrupt shitbag” fired, that he would use such a huge-money threat to get them to do it? Unless there was some personal reasoning behind it.
      It’s not like the national prosecutor would have the ability to get his hands on money loaned, with our guarantees.
      That excuse doesn’t pass the smell test.

  30. I’ve read anough of the history of Joe Biden and the post-US backed/arranged coup of the earlier president of the Ukraine, the crooked dealings HE was involved in then… and then his useless excuse of a sprog pulling the position he had as “advisor” when utterly INqualified OR experienced for the position, and it stinks like week old salmon lying on the stream bank. Further, the one official Joey Boy wanted “removed” was one of those of Russian background who had survived the false flag impleachment not long before . Seems Biden likely wanted him gone as he was not a “useful idiot” and threatened the new president by pulling funds that COngress had approved/designated already. In fact, Joey Biden DID indeed cut off some funds…. and the new president responded by being wise, and tightened spending elsewhere, and overall strengethened the business sector of the Ukraine……

    So Joe Biden was doing all of the things they now threaten to use as impeachment fodder on President Trump. And in addition was making sure his kid was raking in the bux. It took Ukraine’s president nearly three years of stubborn resistance before he finally caved and fired the guy Unka Joey was demanding be removed…. and all Trump did was discuss this and other things in the phone call. Biden DID manage to get congressionally approved funds held from Ikraine’s government. The time line is not given here, but I wonder if Trump was not simply continuing to withhold those funds until the Biden Big and Small Team’s scheme was set aside.

    Seems Joey Biden was DOING “extracurricular” pressuring on Ukraine’s president, just as now Trump is accused of suggesting… such a “threat”.

  31. Someone please explain to me, if its illegal for Trump to tell Ukraine
    “do this or I’ll withhold aid money”, why was it ok for Biden to do the exact same thing with regards to the Ukrainian prosecutor taking a look at his son’s company? Ignoring the corruption/nepotism charges, it sounds like Biden should be investigated anyway if they want to start looking at Trump

    1. It would be nice to know what is the legal basis for any executive branch official to manipulate Congressionally-approved funding in any manner.

      Maybe there is some law somewhere that gives the president some absurd amount of discretion to play around with money in this way. Lord knows the legislative branch has ceded away enough of its authority, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

      But it would be nice to know what the statutory authority is, if any.

      1. Some law somewhere? Are you kidding? It’s a budget. That’s what budget means.

        1. So what are you saying? The budget is just money the executive can use, but doesn’t have to?

          1. Have you not paid attention to congressional delegation the last century?

            1. Do you just assume that what Trump did was legal?

              1. Well, if it’s illegal then you surely can point to either law or case law that his actions violate. I haven’t seen any such law or case law, so for no I assume it’s legal.

              2. I assume that whatever anyone does is legal until shown otherwise. That is how liberty is supposed to work.

                1. Although, I can see how authoritarian statists would have a different default position.

          2. Just like congress orders the executive to build a wall, but doesn’t appropriate the money.

          3. Yes, that’s correct; that’s the default. Congress appropriates money for the executive to fulfill its functions: build roads, maintain a standing army, etc. If the executive can do its job spending less money, that’s generally a good thing.

  32. The hypocrisy of western propaganda.

    We already had a great Ukraine telephone scandal under Obama.

    In this recorded telephone conversation between Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and Ukraine Ambassador Geoff Pratt, they are CLEARLY heard discussing the planning of the coup that ousted the democratically elected president, and the western puppets that they will install.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

    1. At the end you hear them saying Biden will give them an “atta boy”.

  33. So Biden bribed the Ukraine into firing the guy who was investigating his sons company.

    I mean it’s perfectly normal for an ex cocaine addict with zero energy business experience to score a $50K/month job in the Ukraine

    Nothing at all to do with being the VPs son

    1. Come on, he was a senator’s son; that’s the only qualification he needed.

      Are you suggesting that Al Gore would have ended up as a high school janitor somewhere in Chattanooga had his dad not been Senator of the Great State of Tennessee?

  34. The president has no lawful power to refuse funds that Congress has allocated“

    Wrong the president as administrator can deny monies to foreign nations at any time

    1. He can? What law authorizes that?

      1. It’s military aid Trump has control over fuckwit. You don’t even know what you’re trying to discuss you impossibly stupid fuck.

        “The funds for Ukraine can’t be spent while they’re under review and the money expires at the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year

        He had his team review it, and they have authority to withhold the funds.

        1. Congress specifically allocated the money for the Ukraine, not as general-purpose money for the military.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-ordered-hold-on-military-aid-days-before-calling-ukrainian-president-officials-say/2019/09/23/df93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

          “Congress approved two large pots of military aid for Ukraine during fiscal 2019: $250 million, to be managed by the Pentagon, for equipment such as sniper rifles, counter-artillery radar systems, ammunition and grenade launchers; and $141 million, to be funneled through the State Department, for maritime security, NATO interoperability and various initiatives to help Ukraine’s military fend off Russian aggression.”

          And the Impoundment Act seems to suggest that once Congress authorizes the money, that the President is obliged to spend it, and doesn’t have the authority to decide not to.

          1. “And the Impoundment Act seems to suggest”

            “Congress specifically allocated the money for the Ukraine, not as general-purpose money for the military.”

            That’s literally not what your link says.

            “Congress approved two large pots of military aid for Ukraine during fiscal 2019: $250 million, to be managed by the Pentagon, for equipment such as sniper rifles, counter-artillery radar systems, ammunition and grenade launchers; and $141 million, to be funneled through the State Department, for maritime security, NATO interoperability and various initiatives to help Ukraine’s military fend off Russian aggression.”

            That’s ALL military aid. YOUR FUCKING LINK SAYS IT RIGHT THERE And nowhere in your link does it say Trump can’t hold it up. So try again bitch.

            “”And the Impoundment Act seems to suggest””

            Quote it. Because you linked to a fucking Wikipedia page and I JUST caught you lying and it DOES NOT say what you claim and I want you to stop lying and vaguely asserting and just quote it.

            1. Congress approved two large pots of military aid for Ukraine

              It’s for the Ukraine. It’s not for the military generally.

              It’s called the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. That is from your own article.

              1. So you’re just ignoring that it FUCKING SAYS MILITARY AID IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE?

                ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? IT SAYS MILITARY AID RIGHT THERE.

                Lololol WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU.

                1. Yes. It’s military aid specifically appropriated for the Ukraine. It’s not general-purpose money for the military to be spent anywhere Trump pleases. Why is this a source of contention?

                  1. “It’s not It’s not general-purpose money for the military to be spent anywhere Trump pleases. Why is this a source of contention? Trump pleases. Why is this a source of contention?”

                    You tell me, you keep acting like someone claimed. It was ” general-purpose money for the military to be spent anywhere Trump pleases. ”

                    That’s YET ANOTHER stupid fucking argument no one made.

                    ” It’s military aid Trump has control over fuckwit”

                    That’s what I said.

                    It IS military aid. Your article said so. And NO ONE said Trump can do anything he pleases with it” the statement was “has control over” which your own links prove is true.

                    You think it’s not obvious to everyone that you’re lying about what was said, even though it’s right there?

                    No one said “can be spent as Trump pleases” and no you sad little shit bag, “has control over” doesn’t mean “he can do anything he pleases” so stop lying you sad fuck.

                    1. It IS military aid. Your article said so.

                      Yes. I agree it is military aid. I never said it wasn’t military aid. This is an artificial disagreement that you are creating so that you can “claim victory” over an argument that was never made.

                      Doesn’t playing these stupid debate tricks ever get tiring?

                    2. “has control over” doesn’t mean “he can do anything he pleases”

                      Well it’s about time that you clarify the vague terms that you are using.

                    3. And I never said do as he pleases you stupid lying fuck. So, it isn’t an artifical disagreement, you were just lying. Like you are about “permanently”

                    4. “Well it’s about time that you clarify the vague terms that you are using.”

                      Jeff “it’s your fault I interpret has control over as do as he pleases”

                      God how are you this pathetic

                    5. And I never said do as he pleases you stupid lying fuck. So, it isn’t an artifical disagreement, you were just lying. Like you are about “permanently”

                      See there you go. You are even creating an artificial disagreement about the artificial disagreement.

                      Where did I ever say that the money appropriated by Congress WASN’T “military aid”? Ever? I didn’t, you are not being honest about this point by insinuating that I denied that it was somehow.

                    6. It is your fault that you aren’t precise with your words, yes. That is your standard trick. Use vague words, and then when someone tries to pin you down, shift to a different meaning, claim that that someone lied about your meaning, and declare I WON. It’s pathetic and juvenile. But, that is you.

                    7. Why do you keep pretending it is other peoples fault when you intentionally lie about what they said instead of just quoting them and addressing that?

                    8. Why do you keep blaming me because you chose to use the word “permanently” when no one said it? Me being unclear is a diversion, and doesnt answer that.

                      You chose words no one said. Srop blaming other people.

                    9. You being unclear is your entire strategy.
                      That is what I am pointing out.

                    10. Nope, Your choices aren’t my fault.

                      Why do you keep blaming me because you chose to use the word “permanently” when no one said it? Me being unclear is a diversion, and doesnt answer that.

                      You chose words no one said. Srop blaming other people

                      YOU chose to use words no one said. Do you honestly think anyone thinks blamimg me is working for you? I didnt make you do it. You could have just quoted me and addressd what I said.

                    11. “”to be managed by the Pentagon””

                      That phrase would seem to allow the highest person in the military chain of command to have some discretion.

          2. The title of your link literally has “military aid” in it, and “military aid” are the 7th and 8th words in your quote. You’re trying harder than ever to look stupid.

            1. Where did I say that the appropriated money wasn’t “military aid”?

                1. “So you’re just ignoring that it FUCKING SAYS MILITARY AID IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE?”

                  1. No, it was pretty clear

                    “Where did anyone say you said that?”

                    Your deflection is plenty of answer.

                    1. So why did you write this question, Tulpa?

                      “So you’re just ignoring that it FUCKING SAYS MILITARY AID IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE?”

                    2. You’re not going to answer, and just accuse of deflection again.

                    3. So let’s see.

                      You claim that you believe that I believe that the money was really “military aid”, and yet you write a question wondering why I supposedly ignored the fact that the money was “military aid”, because you totally believed that I believed that the money was “military aid”. Is that it?

                    4. Three responses and you still cant say “you didnt Tulpa” even though everyone can see it.

                    5. So you mocked me for supposedly not believing it was military aid because you did believe I thought it was military aid. Got it.

                    6. So it hurts for you to admit i didnt say it. Everyone got it.

                    7. Poor collectivist Jeffy’s brain looks like a pretzel.

      2. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-1689531

        Do any search you want. I read your whole link. Nowhere does it say what you claim you sad fucking liar.

        1. Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.

          In other words, the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated spending, but if Congress declines to rescind the spending within 45 days, then the President *must* spend the money.

          1. So it was legal. We’re done. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

            1. Oh, I see what you did there. Casually shifting the goalposts.

              The original claim was whether the President could “deny monies to foreign nations at any time”. That claim is false, as I pointed out.

              But you claimed that the President has “authority to withhold the funds”. “Withhold” is different than “deny”. If the president were to withhold the money indefinitely, then that would be illegal. But if the president were to withhold the money temporarily, then no that would not be illegal.

              So yes, Trump has the authority to withhold funds *temporarily*. He doesn’t have the authority to withhold funds *permanently*. You didn’t make your meaning clear, and of course you’re arguing in bad faith, so you move your position around to the one which makes you look the best regardless of the actual topic being discussed.

              I’m glad we’re finally in agreement that Trump is obligated to spend the money on the Ukraine *eventually* and that he doesn’t have discretionary authority to *permanently* withhold specifically allocated spending from the Ukraine.

              1. “The original claim was whether the President could “deny monies to foreign nations at any time””

                Cool, I didn’t make that claim so fuck your straw man.

                MY claim was that YOUR CLAIM that your link suggests otherwise is wrong.
                It is. You CLEARLY SEE that it says the President has a 45 day window.

                You were wrong. And you think that yoir stupid fucking argument that had nothing to do with me will distract from that.

              2. “So yes, Trump has the authority to withhold funds”

                So again, you were wrong. Fuck off now cunt.

                1. No no, I get it. This is the type of game that you play.

                  You’ll try to arrange the argument such that you “win” no matter how it proceeds, by using vague and misleading terms, particularly in context. A person arguing in good faith would try to be precise in his/her language – but not you! Being imprecise means that you can post-hoc change the meaning of your words and therefore always “win” in the end!

                  It’s a stupid debate trick and you really ought to get over that type of nonsense.

                  Other people think you’re stupid. I don’t think you are stupid. I think you are devious, and mentally unstable.

                  1. The type of game where as long as you don’t quote examples that say “military aid” repeatedly to back up your view that this has nothing to do with military aid?

                    Well then, he’s created the most winnable game of all time! And your dumb ass still lost somehow.

                    1. No one said “permanently” but he’s hiding behind it like he wasn’t wrong.

                      And he pretends people hate him because he’s a prog and not a lying pie lce of trash.

                    2. Umm what? I never disputed that the money was military aid. That is a complete invention by Tulpa yet again.

                      It was military aid specifically appropriated for the Ukraine by Congress. Trump doesn’t have the power to change that.

                    3. No one said “permanently” but he’s hiding behind it like he wasn’t wrong.

                      You can’t be wrong, because your vague terminology ensures you’re never wrong! Amirite?

                    4. Where did I ever say you said it was military aid? That’s a lie you invented. Like “permanently” which you are ignoring.

                    5. “Amirite”

                      Why is it always everyone else’s fault you constantly make claims about what they say that turn out to be wrong? At some point you need to own up and stop blaming others because you lie.

                      YOU stupidly fabricated “permanently” from thin air you sad lying FUCK BECAUSE YOU KNEW YOU WERE WRONG.

                    6. You used the term “withhold”, in the context of the Impoundment Act (which abolished the president’s previous authority to *permanently* withhold funding), and in the context of the original claim which asserted that the president could “deny funds”, which is wrong. So yes I used context to interpret your somewhat vague term “withhold” to mean “withhold in the context of the Impoundment Act and in the context of the original statement”.

                      Then, when you realize that the Impoundment Act actually supported my position, not yours, you changed what you meant by “withhold” to mean “just a temporary measure”, and then claim I WON I WON. That is what you do.

                      This entire argument would have been avoided by two people arguing in good faith. But no, you just have to try to WIN no matter what.

                    7. “You used the term “withhold”, in the context of the Impoundment Act (which abolished the president’s previous authority to *permanently* withhold funding), and in the context of the original claim”

                      So never. I never said it. You could quote it if I had.

                      Why cant you just stop making excuses

                      No one will buy “witheld” can be interrpeted and “permanrntly” you sad pathtic fuck. That’s asinine and you know it. You just hate being wrong and are desperate.

                      Stop blamjng me because you made up arguments out of thin air. Even your justification here is moronic.

                      Srop blamimg me because you weres wrong and felt the need to lie about something no one said.

                    8. “So yes I used context to interpret your somewhat vague term “withhold” to mean “withhold in the context of the Impoundment Act and in the context of the original statement”.”

                      Again, this is bullshit. You could have just quoted me and addressed what I actually said. You just felt the need to lie because i proved you wrong and fabricated an argument out of thin air.

                    9. Definition of withhold
                      transitive verb

                      1: to hold back from action : CHECK
                      2archaic : to keep in custody
                      3: to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing

                      There is no time duration associated with the definition. So I interpreted your use of the word in the context of the current discussion. Again a person arguing in good faith would understand this. You on the other hand …

                    10. fabricated an argument out of thin air.

                      That is what you did.

                    11. “There is no time duration associated with the definition. So I interpreted ”

                      That is LITERALLY fabricating an argument out of thin air lololol

                    12. It is not my fault that you aren’t clear with your terminology.

                      And with that I am going to bed.

                    13. Collectivist Jeffy’s panties are permanently in a bunch.

                    14. No jeff, but it IS your fault that fabricated can argument out of thin air.

                      And you’re running because you lost.

                    15. Tony is stupid enough to hang around until his entire ‘argument’ is wrapped around his neck like a noose.
                      Jeff is dishonest enough to run off when it gets close to that.
                      JFree has the same tendency.

                    16. Lol. I picture collectivist Jeffy as the fat cartoon meme that says “aktually”.

                  2. one said permanently. So, you bitching about it is what is dishonest.

                    You just cannot handle being wrong, you have to make up stupid qualifiers no one made like “permanently

      3. Poor little Jeffy doesn’t know what “aid” means. No wonder he keeps posting stupid shit. He’s developmentally delayed.

        1. And he keeps stupidly lighting straw men on fire. It’s pathetic.

          1. I mean, he’s so fucking stupid he keep pretending “at any time” is the same as “for any length of time” like anyone but him is stupid enough not to see the difference

      4. And how exactly did Trump violate the act in the phone call?

        Of course, he didn’t.

  35. “We have a president who believes there is no limit to his power,” Biden said. “We have a president who believes he can do anything and get away with it. We have a president who believes he is above the law.”

    LOL what’s new?

    1. We have a former VP running for president with serious problems.

    2. I got a phone and a pen bitch!!!

  36. Nevermind the inquiry, we already know what Team D will say.

    Just hold the vote. Let’s get this over with.

  37. Can a USA president threaten to withhold funds from a nation after Congress allocates it? A Supreme Court ruling regarding the right to list Jerusalem, Israel as a place of birth on an American passport suggests he can. However, people often read the Constitution more accurately when price tags are involved. Trump and Biden would both be on more solid legal ground if they had simply started talking about “Occupied West Russia” and the competing narratives that had made it so difficult to dissect Yougislovia correctly. Do you remember Yougislavia?

    1. I do. They made one of the worst cars of all time.

    2. And what would be illegal about threatening to withhold funds? Even if Congressional approval was required (it’s doubtful that it is in this case), Trump could always realize the threat with the approval of Congress.

  38. THIS time they’ll get him!

    Hang on Hilary. There’s still hope!

    1. Trump’s gonna drop out any day now. There’s no way he can win.

    2. Don’t be so sure, there might be some meddling kids around someplace.

  39. Goodbye Democrats. You lost the battle and the war.

  40. Democrats, Republicans: go!

    I’ve got my popcorn.

    1. I gots ten dolla sez The Don mops the floor with Pelosi’s hair.

    2. Ok, will do, Team GOP.

      1. As opposed to your nutjob adherence to all things DNC?

    3. The biggest winner in the impeachment process is Orval Redenbacher.

  41. Nancy musta found out the Ukraine is forming a Libertarian Party. Trump said he likes libertarian stuff. To the Dems that’s grounds fer “git a rope!”

  42. The Republicans in the Senate aren’t about to remove Trump from office, but if Trump were removed from office, the reaction would almost certainly be violent.

  43. What’s striking is how quickly Reason has adopted the Beltway Narrative on this issue, even though there’s no real evidence of any wrongdoing.

    It reminds me of how they swallowed the “Kavanaugh is a Rapist!” nonsense last year hook, line, and sinker, and didn’t actually use their “reason” until it became obvious to everyone that Avenatti was a con man and his “witnesses” were lying kooks.

    It will be fun to watch Reason writers eat their words again, although I don’t think they will learn anything from it this time, either.

  44. I can’t help but think that Nancy is throwing in the towel to help Trump get re-elected. The party needs time to somehow re-group and stick it to the socialist invasion or force them legally to become a third party. Putting in a bumbling stumbling senile 80 year old to run the *capitalist democrats* was a mistake.

    1. I think Nancy isn’t trying to help Trump, she simply doesn’t care, since all options for her are equally bad.

      1. Nancy is throwing a hail Mary pass. She’s lost control and knows it.

  45. It takes 2/3 vote in the senate to remove Trump, not just an impeachment vote in the house. I realize that most proggies are too retarded to understand this, but it will not happen, and is unlikely to happen even after 2020 if Trump is re-elected.

  46. Walls are closing in, wheels are coming off, yada, yada, yada, gonna be an early night.

  47. sharmota4zeb
    September.24.2019 at 9:29 pm
    “Can a USA president threaten to withhold funds from a nation after Congress allocates it? A Supreme Court ruling regarding the right to list Jerusalem, Israel as a place of birth on an American passport suggests he can….”

    I’m sure many will argue with that claim, but more importantly: Is that an impeachable offense? The answer is “no” simply because the D’s do not have the majority required to pass it.
    So, again, more importantly, this is nothing other than political theater orchestrated by the D’s.
    I am of the opinion it ends up biting them in the ass, and right about now, Trump should be grooming a successor to take advantage of the D self-destruction.

    1. Threatening to withhold funds isn’t an impeachable offense because it’s not illegal. But it’s not even a threat of doing something illegal because whatever hoops Trump might have to jump through to withhold funds, he could have jumped through.

      1. I’m ignoring legality here; what is impeachable is what congress claims it is. He could easily be impeached for being Trump and quite a few Ds would be more than willing to impeach him on such a charge if their staffs didn’t point out the predictable results: You lose.
        What is relevant are the chances of conviction: Zero.
        Pelosi knows it (she’s not *that* stupid). Many of the Ds who have not suffered major brain damage know it. Some of them are probably wondering why they should end up investigating creepy uncle Joe in the hopes of (maybe) harming Trump.
        Again, political theater, and the up-side/down-side calcs say the Ds are going to need a lot of wet towels for that egg on their faces.
        I been wrong before; hell I thought the hag was gonna win, but…

        1. I seriously doubt that argument is going to fly. “High crimes and misdemeanors” may not be well defined, but that doesn’t mean anything goes.

        2. 30 Republican Senators would vote to impeach … if it was a secret vote. Moral cowardice.

      2. Delusional. A President can be impeached for anything regardless of its illegality. I mean, I know, Trump Kult Klub members would be just fine if he just turned the launch codes over to the Russians if he’d let them build a cheesy hotel in Omsk somewhere. Hey, it’s not technically illegal because a judge hasn’t convicted him of anything so fuck these Democrats for their rush to judgement.

        1. No, what’s “delusional” is to believe that a president can be impeached for anything regardless of its illegalities. “High crimes and misdemeanors” may not be well defined, but that doesn’t mean anything goes.

          In any case, what Trump did is neither illegal nor in any way objectionable. The Bidens’s dealings in Ukraine should be investigated, as should be a lot of the sh*t Hillary and Obama did.

          1. No, as a practical matter you can be impeached over anything a House majority wants to impeach you over, and convicted for anything 2/3ds of the Senate feel like convicting you for. Sure, “high crimes and misdemeanors” sounds like a standard, but it’s a non-judicable standard.

            Since judges are subject to impeachment, you really don’t want the courts getting to rule on the legality of the process.

        2. Trump Kult Klub members would be just fine if he just turned the launch codes over to the Russians if he’d let them build a cheesy hotel in Omsk somewhere.

          Isn’t it a bit racist to angrily lump Ukranians and Russians as part of a Trump supporting cabal, considering the regional situation?

    2. And:
      “The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” she said.”

      Like that fucking idiot truman, cite missing.

    3. Oh look, Trumpian goon thinks it’s a-ok to do whatever Dear Leader wants because his GOP Cult will stand behind him. Fuck off, goon. This site is for libertarians, not Dump’s dick suckers.

      1. Yes, because stating the actual facts of the case equals doing whatever dear leader wants us to do. God are you capable of making a cognitive argument or just sophomoric ad hominems (and redundant not even original, verbatim repeats of prog troll tropes).

  48. It amazes me that all the back and forth in the comments here don’t seem to address the one true fact which is Orange Man Bad!

  49. Democrats VS Republicans! Presidential harassment! )))
    I’ve got my popcorn ready!

  50. There is something ironic and absurd about Pelosi portraying herself as a defender of the Constitution.

    Maybe when the impeachment vote comes she’ll read it before she passes it this time.

    I’ve also heard a Dem congressman refer to Biden as the “most seasoned statesman” running for president then go on to imagine how different a Biden speach would be form a recent Trump speech. Made me picture Biden running around in a Benny Hill esc maner to yakkity sax.

    The most mind boggling thing here is that 2020 is the Dems race to lose and they seem to be trying very hard to do so. They need a reasonably charismatic, centrist candidate and instead they are interviewing the political who’s who of Arkham assylum. Now they’re trying to fire up Trump supporters by pushing impeachment.

  51. Transcripts are out.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/427409933/Unclassified09-2019-092519#from_embed

    Reading through them I’m left with the strong impression that the whole episode was orchestrated by Trump to get to this very moment.

    “…that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance…”

    And this doozy

    “…becasue I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down, and you had some very bad people involved.”

    That sounds more like Trump when he’s making a public address than Trump in conversation, almost like he knew he was speaking for posterity.

    1. “Reading through them I’m left with the strong impression that the whole episode was orchestrated by Trump to get to this very moment.”

      Preliminary, I do have to wonder if Trump’s lawyers suggested that they keep this in their back pocket until they needed it.

      As the election season heated up, it wasn’t a question of whether the Democrats would go off half-cocked but when.

    2. Yep. Transcript exposes Trump as a TOTAL psycho.
      Craziest of all — he BELIEVES THE CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY, which is crazier than Pizzagate and Birtheriem combined.

      And that confirms the growing suspicion that Trump’s massive torrent of blatant lies are not all HIS lies. He’s a major conspiracy nut himself, who just repeats somebody else’s paranoia.

      So who’s controlling him so much?

  52. I have no real faith in Trump’s honesty or integrity, but the Democrats have been screaming like madmen for his impeachment since before he took office. Like it or not, he’s the legally and duly elected President, and this smells like pure politics. We’ll see, but you really can’t believe anything that any Democrat says about Trump because at this point they’re completely unhinged, and few of them are above falsifying testimonies or evidence to get what they want.

  53. I’m waiting for Nazi Pelosi to announce she’s going to resign due to the dementia she has been suffering from for the past 50 years.

  54. I admit my sensibilities have been somewhat dulled by the constant “this time we got him!” headlines which don’t ultimately work out.

    Hamilton electors!
    Let’s riot in the streets!
    Russian collusion!
    Cover-up!
    He’s nuts, whip out the 25th Amendment!

    Technically, each new angle could be given the Groundhog Day treatment – “this time they’re really going to get him!”

    Or we could adopt a more cynical attitude and say, “oh, yeah, whatever, the walls are closing in again, what’s for dinner?”

    Basically, I think they’re all crooks and that federal officials commit impeachable offenses every day. But obviously higher standards need to be met to convict someone, more than a mere assault on the Constitution, or self-dealing to line one’s own pockets or the pockets of one’s family, or…really, come to think of it, , who even gets impeached nowadays?

    Clapper, Clinton, probably Biden, their Republican counterparts who authorized actual torture…who gets impeached in this day and age except federal judges who dip their hands in the till and get ratted out by their fellow-judges? And those judges are vulnerable because they don’t have the necessary partisan and/or Deep State network to back them up.

Please to post comments