Trump Administration

Congress Should Not Be Satisfied With Ukraine Call Transcript, Given the Trump White House's History of Fiddling With Records

The Trump administration has lost the benefit of the doubt because it has relentlessly lied about so many less significant matters, from weather maps to transcripts of press conferences.

|

One of the dumbest news cycles of summer 2019 is somehow actually relevant to Wednesday's release of a transcript of a phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

More on the transcript in a moment. First, let's recall the multi-day fiasco that was the approach of Hurricane Dorian during the final days of August. While the storm was annihilating parts of the Bahamas (there are still more than 1,000 people missing), the White House was engaged in a dayslong effort to prove that Trump's errant tweet warning residents of Alabama about the storm—the state was not in any actual danger—was actually rooted in meteorologic reality. The farce culminated in Trump posing next to an obviously doctored weather map showing the forecasted path of the storm and with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issuing a public rebuke to its Alabama affiliate for challenging the president's infallible understanding of tropical cyclones.

That's not the only or even the most inexcusable example of how the current administration has warped reality in order to protect Trump's ego or make him appear less obviously unfit for office. But it's worth keeping in mind as the next chapters of the Ukraine saga unfold: The Trump administration lies. Members of the administration lie even when the truth is obvious and public. By now, it should have lost any benefit of the doubt from Congress, the media, and the American public.

Which brings us back to the transcript released Wednesday morning. The five-page document details a conversation between Trump and Zelenskiy that took place on July 25. In it, Trump asks the Ukrainian president to "look into" business dealings that involved former Vice President Joe Biden's son. It is that request—a sitting president asking a foreign leader to investigate a domestic political rival in advance of an election—that sits at the center of the latest round of impeachment speculation.

The White House's decision to release the transcript is a calculated move, one would suppose, that's meant to benefit the president. Indeed, in the transcript, Trump raises the Biden issue only twice—not the eight times that had been reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources. Anyone who expected the transcript to be a smoking gun (and who expected the White House to toss the smoking gun into public view this easily) will be sorely disappointed.

But the release of the transcript should not be enough to satisfy members of Congress seeking to determine whether the president crossed the line. For one thing, the transcript appears to be only the beginning of the Trump administration's alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens. On the call, Trump repeatedly tells Zelenskiy that he will have his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and William Barr, the acting attorney general, follow up on the request. Records of those calls must be released too.

Beyond that, however, Congress should also demand tapes of the calls.

To be clear, there is nothing about the transcript released Wednesday that suggests it has been doctored. Hopefully, it is an honest account of the July 25 call. But the Trump White House has proven, again and again, that it cannot be trusted to accurately reflect reality when the president's interests are at stake.

It's not just about a doctored weather map. In July 2018, the White House published an altered transcript of a joint press conference held by Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. That was an event that took place in public. There were reporters and TV cameras recording every word. And yet the White House's official documentation of the press conference left out a key exchange in which Putin admitted to meddling with the 2016 presidential election (although that meddling likely didn't change the outcome).

The White House also altered the transcript of a press conference from October 2018 in which Trump insulted an ABC News reporter to remove the incident.

An administration that's willing to warp reality to protect the president over small things that can be easily disproved does not deserve any benefit of the doubt when it comes to bigger things. Put another way, if the administration is going to doctor a weather map to protect the president's ego, why would it not go to similar lengths to protect his presidency from an existential threat?

Congress should "trust, but verify" (as Republicans used to be fond of saying before they became the party of Trump).

And there's no harm in asking for the tapes. If they match the transcript, then Congress will have done its due diligence without doing any additional harm to Trump or anyone else in his administration. If they don't, then Congress will have the accurate account—and that's what should matter above all else.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Calls on 'American Patriots' to Defend Him From Impeachment

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. Hmm, I thought the transcript was fairly bad for Trump – but I guess I was wrong if now they’re shifting to “where’s the REAL transcript?”

    1. Both sides are claiming victory.

      1. Well, I don’t like the Pres of the U. S. saying “my personal lawyer will make a follow up call – and on lesser issues, what about those security and energy relations?”

        I doubt even Trump would be crass enough to say out loud “do the investigation we want, we’ll give you the aid we want,” but then, Biden was crass enough to do the opposite and boast of it.

        1. Biden was crass enough to do the opposite and boast of it.

          THAT lie is the smoking gun that Boehm missed in the transcript. Trump’s claim that Biden got the investigation of his son dropped, and bragged about it. That’s as crazy as his Muslims cheering 9/11, his biggest tax cuts (and best economy) ever. etc., etc., etc.

          Ukraine’s investigation of Hunter was over, when Biden joined the WORLD in pressuring Ukraine to fire their corrupt senior prosecutor.

          On this one, like so many others, it can be hard to tell if he’s lying through his teeth again, or has swallowed a crazy conspiracy theory again.

          A window just popped up in my monitor Some in leadership have read the whistleblowers report … and it ain’t good for Trump. His fall will be bigger than Nixons.

          1. They said that about Mueller’s report to. By all accounts the whistleblower didn’t hear the conversation and the IG found his claims to be partisan and lodged in order to benefit a political rival of Trump’s. So the Democrats are claiming a whistleblower who didn’t hear the conversation that they reported has evidence that contradicts the transcripts of the conversation and the Ukrainian Presidents statements. And we are supposed to believe this why?

            1. You’re trying to confuse people with the facts, what kind of an argument is that????? The Trump haters only work off emotion, deep, uncontrolled, visceral hatred.

          2. When Nixon fell, Americans were outraged that he had tape recorder conversations.

            1. Nixon also had plenty of transcripts . . . until he didn’t.

              Anyone volunteering to run the pool on resignation date?

          3. Umm… Muslims did cheer 9/11. Video don’t lie. What were you, like 3 yrs old?

          4. The investigation wasn’t over. Hihn loses again.

          5. That’s as crazy as his Muslims cheering 9/11

            This happened, by the way. CNN showed some Palestinians cheering 9/11. Then they were told, you idiots, thats from some other thing some time ago. So they looked into it and said the hell you say, it is real.

            Shortly thereafter Arafat made a big deal of getting blood drawn to help, because he knew the difference between rhetoric and actually driving a wedge between supportive Americans and his people, which support he needed for any hope at his own kleptocracy.

          6. “THAT lie is the smoking gun that Boehm missed in the transcript. Trump’s claim that Biden got the investigation of his son dropped, and bragged about it.”

            Well, aside from the fact that we have it on video tape.

      2. To your knowledge has either side of any political issue, Republican or Democrat, ever admitted that he or she or it was wrong? If so, please advise the rest of us so that we can marvel.

        1. Didn’t the democrats apologize for the legalization of gay marriage thing because the LGBT community ran out of legit things to complain about?

          1. That’s pretty funny. It’s true…the LGBTQ community has pretty much dried up as an oppressed group…better make sure we have enough gender neutral bathrooms…

            1. NO!!!!!
              Gender neutral bathrooms are oppression!!!
              There can only be “men” and “women” bathrooms, but we get to pick either one we want.
              You are a raving bigot!!!

              (try as I might, I still break out laughing when I try to type that shit)

              1. Why do these threads so often digress away from the main topic: the Ukraine transcript? Can’t people stay focused?

                1. No. No they can’t.

              2. Hmmmm, is that a Hate Crime offense for Kevin?

            2. There is still taxpayer funded medicaid reassignment surgeries and free STD/AIDS treatment pharma… visa holders and immigrants as well.

            3. LGBTQX sickos an oppressed group????…..LOL!!! No, they are the OPPRESSORS now!!!

      3. Both sides are claiming victory

        History tells us that means Trump is winning.

        1. Gotta love the winning.

          1. Kinda tired of it tbh

              1. You are a master of prose and poetry! And your feet are Longfellows! Humbly seeking wisdom, I beg of You, could I be excused from dodge-ball in gym class?

                Parsing the information at hand, could You PLEASE help me debug the following codes:
                Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Lamarckianist_Epigenetics Begin Instantiate Substantiate My_Tribe_Good_Your_Tribe_bad
                PrintF “I’m sorry, Dave, but I’m afraid I can’t do that.”, end; end module ;

                If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then they will allow us to be seen AND heard!

        2. The Democrats can’t even win by cheating and lying. They finally realize that Trump is going to win in 2020 and it’s fun to watch their attempts to stop the inevitable become more desperate and pathetic.

        3. Actual history says Trump has been (mostly) losing, since the day he took office. Then again, the squirrels swallow his thousands of lies like ventriloquist dummies.

          1. Hihn, do you think you’re winning when you fill your diapers with shit several times a day?

    2. Worse part of the transcript is that it explicitly mentions Biden bragging about witholding aid unless they fired the prosecutor. All Trump says is you can go ahead and finish the investigation.

      They say a lawyer should never ask a question you don’t know the answer to, the Democrats shouldn’t have demanded a transcript without knowing what was in it.

      This is going to kill Biden’s candidatcy, which was already dying.

      1. Biden’s candidacy was already well into walking dead territory. No amount of cosmetic surgeries can hide that.

        1. I’m more focused on seeing him and his son in prison.

          1. I don’t think his son did anything illegal. He merely accepted a cronyist position.
            Papa Joe, on the other hand, quite clearly bribed the Ukrainian govt using taxpayer money

      2. Doubt it. Biden can force grope little girls on camera and still (oh wait, he did that numerous times and nothing from the metoo crowd), he can slur his words on camera, call all black people uncaring parents, or not as smart as white kids- nothing. Biden is the only capitalist, or lifetime experienced crony extortionist the democrats have at this point.

        1. It’s true, but Biden is still a Green New Deal supporter. All Trump will have to do is hammer that point home. Stuff like total state takeover is still not very popular in the U.S….thankfully.

      3. This is why Trump made a mistake going after Biden in this call….Warren will easily be the Demon-Crat’s choice & so why should Trump risk going after Biden here?…Besides, Trump hired longtime DC Swamp critter Barr who will never go after Uncle Joe!

        But, in a just world, Biden would be hung by his balls for what he did & along with Obummy who knew all about it & approved of it!

      4. They had to pass the transcript to see what was in it.

        I’m amused that both Reason and the Demorrhoids are eager for President Pence.

    3. A take spicier than a ghost pepper!

    4. Sort of like how HRC’s emails were bad, but the real [deleted] emails were worse.

      1. Yeah, other than that, in the case of the Hag, there really were deleted emails and destroyed electronic devices.

        But, since we are following the Hillary model that means everyone on the Trump team gets immunity before answering any questions, right?

      2. “I have no idea what HRC’s deleted emails said … but I’ll be a screeching magpie about them anyhow. Because.”

        1. You’re a Fart Smeller ***AND*** a Smart Feller; THAT, no one can deny! If I can locate the proper permission forms, can I be your comic-relief sidekick?

          With Your Unsurpassed Level of Genius, Joker-like, I bet that You could fine-tune and perfect the following codes:
          Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Declination Perigee Boogers{31:00}32’b Begin {( Avocado’s Number <= 6.02 ^ 10x23d ) || ( Titrate_of_the_nitrate[23:0] ) && subducted_inversely[23:0] }
          DisplayModuleCall "A Nigerian Prince needs your help! He will pay you 2 million dollars! Please input your bank account number and password. ", end; end module ;

          If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, Al Gore Vidal Sassoon might give us some FREE samples of shampoo!!! Or maybe even REAL poo!!!

        2. The emails weren’t anything spectacular. It was the same drivel that every white supremacist mass shooter puts in their manifestos. It just had a woman’s touch. That’s all.

      3. As Secretary of State, Hillary said, “Meh,” in response to Russia taking the Crimean Peninsula and went apeshit at Russia over not being the next president. No wonder the Ukrainian president wanted some assurance of USA approval before investigating someone with ties to the Obama White House.

    5. ITT, Collectivist Jeffy admits he’s a lefty.

  2. “Congress Should Not Be Satisfied With Ukraine Call Transcript, Given the Trump White House’s History of Fiddling With Records”

    We’re not ending the witch hunt until we find some real witches!

    1. No joke. When police act like this, it’s horrendous. When Congress does it, Boehm APPLAUDS.

      Any concerns, Eric, about Congress Dems threatening to withhold funding from Ukraine if they did not do what Congress wanted?

      1. Or about the ridiculous requirement that targets of corruption probes cannot be political opponents?

        Has TDS reduced us to the point that only Democrats can investigate Democrats, and only Republicans can investigate Republicans, and the various factions reduce the scope of investigations even further?

        1. It definitely helps reinforce the idea that they don’t consider normal laws apply to them.
          What is especially troubling is that it appears likely the Obama administration did enlist multiple foreign powers to help investigate Trump, even after Trump was nominated but they seem to have no trouble with that but Trump asking about an investigation that had already been started and stopped, under shady circumstances, is somehow worse.

          1. Trump can ask all he wants to, there is only a problem if he withholds the aid package over it!
            Why would that be a problem? Because Congress legislated & released the money for the Ukraine & only Congress can withhold it for corruption, NOT the prez!!!!! & If Trump said no money if you do not investigate Biden, then he broke the law!…..If he did not say that , then he is OK!….Still, he is swimming in dangerous waters here, especially knowing all the Demon-Crats are out to get him & Biden will most likely not even beat Warren!….Heck, by Trump dredging up Biden’s crimes, Trump is actually helping Warren win!

            1. But he didn’t withhold the aid package, which was actually released before the conversation.

              1. My mistake it was released two months after the phone call.

              2. The money wasn’t released until after the phone call. Here in Ukraine, people were wondering why the money wasn’t released even though the release was authorized by Congress, Trump finally talks to Zelensky on the phone and two days later, the money was released.

        2. And that’s the place partisan politics wants us to be. Both sides behavior is excused by their own team when they are in power as a normal course of politics. In the end, no one is held accountable except the peasants.

          1. Do you mean they’re playing Americans for fools? Still? No, not this time. This is the most important thing to ever happen to our nation, period. Stop worrying about the legitimacy of the Uniparty and pick a side. Freedom isn’t free – it’s time to man up, take sides and sharpen your sword. That, or slink away back to hippy-dippy ‘libertopia’ where non-sensical peacenik cowards dwell*! This means WAR!!!

            *I read that title and instantly knew this thread would be a certified ‘Laff-Riot’. Announcing the battle you’ve all been waiting for: ‘Red Team vs. Blue Team in the THUUUUNDERDOME!!!’

      2. “ReaLiTy iMplOdiNG!!!”
        -Eric Boehm

        1. Boehm Boehm Boehm Boehm (played to the Dragnet theme.)

        2. “ReaLiTy iMplOdiNG!!!”

          Now THAT was indeed Profound! Did you stay up all night to think of that? Goober-Mint (sneer) Almighty willing and the creek don’t rise, will You please not spank me quite as hard?

          Cutting to the heart of the matter, Your intellect shines forth! Accordingly, I bet You’d have no trouble helping me debug the following:
          Fuck_Off_Heathen_Me_Right_You_Wrong Begin Auto_Synthesize [ Interpolate ( Anode[31:0], Cathode[31:0], Elbow[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$12’hBAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
          DisplayModuleCall "Fuck off, slaver!", end; end module ;

          If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, Putin might take back ALL of the bad things that He said about You!

      3. Wasn’t it just last week when Sullum basically said Trump must be guilty because he’s acting like he’s guilty?

        I’m totally sure Reason will apply that same standard the next time the cops shoot a juvenile delinquent in the back because he was running away from them.

      4. Actually, over the decades Congress has withheld funds many times, especiallyin Africa, over corruption in foreign Govts. & they have that right as they are in charge of the purse strings….The president does not!

        1. Please remember this sentiment the next time a president you like misuses allocations. A good rule for both sides.

          It won’t be remembered, though, because the shoe is swapping feet all the time.

        2. At no point in the conversation Trump had with the Ukrainian president was funding even mentioned, or even implied. Why would you bring this up when it has nothing to do with the conversation.
          Now, Boehm is suggesting, without any proof what so ever that this is not the real transcript. He just pulled that suggestion out of his ass. How he dares call himself a journalist is beyond me.

      5. Any concerns, Eric, about Congress Dems threatening to withhold funding from Ukraine if they did not do what Congress wanted?

        Any concerns damikesc, for facts instead of raging bullshit?

        1. What would you know about facts, Dumbfuck Hihnsano, when you can’t even read past page 1 of a Supreme Court decision?

          1. He’s too busy plundering his own soiled diapers for his next meal.

    2. Hehe. Pretty much.

    3. Or the Dems figure a way to put a carrot over his nose.

    4. If she drowns it proves she not a witch. Of course we know in this case its not even about finding criminal acts its about making everything criminal to subvert legal votes

      1. “Oh bugger. It’s a fair cop”.

    5. Trump could release an audio tape of the interview and these bozos would claim it was faked, NO MATTER WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE AUDIO TAPE.

      I loathe Trump, but the idiots whining at him need a good ass-kicking.

      1. Trump could cure cancer tonight & tomorrow morning they would blame him for taking money out of Drs. pockets & hospital’s budgets!

        1. Not a joke. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth over the loss of a revenue stream, so government must now step in and shore it up.

    6. Boehm: “Trump fiddles with records”
      Then he proceeds to flat out lie about events.

      How big a paycheck is Media Matters cutting you for this dishonest piece of garbage, Eric?

      1. “The administration has lost the benefit of the doubt”.

        Can one lose what one never had?

    7. Trump is really unlikable, but this does seem like another witch hunt.

    8. One of the chief examples of Trump’s “fiddling with records” is supposedly the extra Sharpie line on the hurricane map. However, that “lie” was exposed as TRUE. The ORIGINAL prediction of the hurricane’s path showed a pass over Alabama!!!

      Trump produced a map created by an entirely different agency, made long before his Sunday morning tweet that included Alabama in the storm’s pathway, displaying potential storm models. Alabama was at its outer edge. It was an earlier, inaccurate prediction.

      Trump may have lied about not using the Sharpie but he may have been right (albeit based on the forecast from a few days earlier).

  3. “Records of those calls must be released too.”

    So you can discount those as well?

    Why should the WH spend a moment trying to satisfy your vendetta?

    “Beyond that, however, Congress should also demand tapes of the calls.”

    Which they have zero right to request. They play zero role in foreign policy outside of treaty approval or war declarations.

    Boehm, seriously, just go fuck yourself.

    1. One of the responsibilities of Congress is oversight of the executive branch. Do you agree? If so, then investigating this call seems well within their duties.

      1. No they are co-equal branches.

        1. I deeply envy your utterly profound thoughts! Astonishing, astounding! If I study really-really hard, can I adore You? HOW can I best Adore You?

          With Your obviously genius-level IQ, can You please review the following source codes:
          Centrifuge the incorrectly-phased supernatent plasma-phased quantum gravitons, and Begin Brownian_Motion_Detector [ Premeditate ( precipitate[31:0], particulates[31:0], modulate[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$12’hBAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
          Invoke DisplayModule "And there stood the pig and the cow.", end; end module ;

          If You'd only PLEASE apply Your Vast Skills here, to help in the debug effort, I promise to be a very sincere good-character witness at Your upcoming trial.

        2. Has Pedo Jeffy resorted to sock puppets now?

      2. How many investigations need to utterly fail for the Democrats to give up? Are the Democrats going to be investigating Donald Trump for the next six years straight, desperately hoping to find something they can manipulate into looking worse than it is, all the while ignoring clear corruption out in the open by powerful political families?

      3. Congress has oversight responsibility for the officers and departments that require congressional confirmation, they don’t have any authority, other than impeachment, over the President.

      4. One of the responsibilities of Congress is oversight of the executive branch. Do you agree?

        No, that’s dumb. Otherwise, the Obama administration would have actually gotten in trouble for telling Congress to fuck off with its subpoenas.

      5. I disagree, they are equal branches. However, among the many responsibilities of the president are diplomat in chief and lawman in chief. Do you agree? If so, then asking for help from a foreign leader to investigate possible criminal activity related to a US government official seems well within his duties.

    2. The accused must prove his innocence otherwise it is as good as a conviction.

      Said no libertarian ever.

      Boehm, OTOH…

  4. As Commander in Chief, President of the United States of America, beneficiary of Office of Legal Counsel interpretations regarding immunity, beneficiary of Attorney General Barr’s official conduct, and God’s divine choice to lead America’s sovereign true patriots, Pres. Trump had every right to revise that hurricane path depiction.

    The real scandal is how the liberals directed attention to it. Real, forgotten Americans would never have noticed.

    1. Have you finally joined the right side of history with respect to impeachment, Art? I was surprised you previously downplayed the need for it. Even after Mueller proved what Rachel Maddow figured out years ago.

      1. Have you actually read the report? There is no actual accusation, much less any actual evidence or proof, of any impeachable offense anywhere in it.

        1. Kruelhunter,

          OpenBordersLiberal-tarian is parody account.

          He’s pretending to be someone who genuinely believes the stupid shit progressive believe–but pretends to be a “real” libertarian.

          Sometimes, he does such a good job of mimicing the progressives, it’s hard to tell that he’s just kidding.

          Sometimes the progressives genuinely believes things that are so ridiculous, it’s hard to believe they really believe them.

          OpenBordersLiberal-tarian does a great job of dancing on the line between that, and there’s no way you could have known he was a parody account if you weren’t a long time regular or someone hadn’t clued you in.

          Welcome to the club.

          1. In OBL’s defense, inasmuch as they differ, he generally takes the Reason/Koch Libertarian position over the “real” libertarian position.

            It’s a fair enough warning to new readers/forumites that if they don’t like what OBL is preaching, then this is probably not the libertarian lifestyle magazine you’re looking for.

          2. I’m thinking the rev is parody as well.

            1. He is not. Hes a byproduct of volokh joining reason.

    2. I made you disaffected a hajahaj you sad fucking puppet ahahahhahaajaj

      1. Hear, hear! Let us all toast Your Magnificent Mastery of Prose and Poetry! If I promise to be really-really good, will You tell me that I am a good doggie?

        With Your obviously genius-level IQ, I bet if You could spare the time, You could help debug the following:
        Hypothetically Quantum-Gravity Deploy Begin Auto_Integrate [ Rectify ( Anode[31:0], Cathode[31:0], Varistor[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$BAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
        Invoke DisplayModule "I can't keep on working like this! Please wipe the snot off of my keyboard, the rotten food stains off of my screen, and add more memory stick to me, NOW!", end; end module ;

        If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then we'll be allowed OUT of the corner, AND we can both take off our dunce caps!

    3. He didn’t revise anything. I saw that same map on the weather channel before the president ever mentioned it. You people simply believe what you want to regardless of the actual facts presented. I suppose one can expect no less from those who call themselves people of faith. Personally, I find Christian mythology as entertaining and informative as that of most other religions. At leas Mohammad was honest enough to openly declare world domination as the true goal of Islam. I’ve never yet heard or read any such honesty from any Christian.

      1. I cannot argue with what you say. You are indeed, incredibly wise! Goober-Mint (sneer) Almighty willing and the creek don’t rise, will You help me with my math homework?

        Sticking strictly to the facts, logically, I bet that You could debug the following codes in Your sleep:
        Instantiate SourceFile Include Precipitate-Spontaneous-Biogenesis Begin Nyquist_Parse [ Numerator ( Quanta[31:0], Gravity[31:0], Vector[31:0] ), Contents ( A$67 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
        PrintF "The Google Knows All and Sees All.", end; end module ;

        If You will please help me get this code to compile, Your mom will stop rejecting You.

  5. I wonder how far we can move these goalposts before we run out of field. Good thing I have Reason writers to figure it out for me.

    1. We don’t run out of field until November 2024.

    2. I read a comment not long ago that this is not so much a case of moving the goal posts but projecting them like a rainbow.

      1. The left does love rainbows and projecting so this makes a lot of sense tbh.

        1. “Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow projection
          The leftists, the Democrats, and meeeeeeee”

        2. +1 Projected rainbows cause rain

  6. Look, it was already time to impeach when Mueller submitted definitive proof of Russian collusion. This latest bombshell only makes the decision that much easier.

    #Impeach
    #TrumpUkraine

    1. What “definitive proof” are you referring to? Some unsupported statement by some political enemy of the president? You seem to be, like some others, that we accept the unsupported word of a political enemy over that of our elected president. Can you actually prove any of the left’s allegations? And, if so, why have you not filed suit?

      By the way, I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to European economics but their decline is a direct result of their open borders policies. The same policies here will produce the same results. Though you may be able to get your windows washed and your lawn mowed for a little less temporarily.

      1. He’s faking again. A little more straightforwardly this time.

    2. Keep slurping, Team GOP.

        1. Eric is a nevertrumper and can never be placate with truth, with facts or with reality. He’s no different than the other wailing children in congress and the media. It will be okay sweetie.

    3. They are going to impeach him, suckup.

      1. They can’t even agree to start impeachment PROCEEDINGS ahahahahajjaa

        1. You don’t even understand the PROCESS ahahahahaha
          (Or you’re either a liar or clueless)

          1. Well then please explain what he has wrong?

      2. And then nothing else will happen because the Senate won’t vote to remove him.

        You’re one of those stupid fucks who doesn’t understand how removing a President actually works, aren’t you, Tony? 🙂

    4. “…definitive proof of Russian collusion.”

      The Russians didn’t interfere with the US election so it’s impossible for Trump to have colluded with them to do so.

      1. It’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.
        Makes as much sense as you.

  7. Once again, all we hear is that the corruption probe is the basis of impeachment, not the delay in sending the foreign aid. But a corruption probe continuing a previously known corruption probe is good, no? If corruption probes were not allowed when the target is a political opponent, then the impeachment proceedings themselves are suspect, as Trump and the House Dems are political opponents.

    Eric, you are wrong wrong wrong on this one-sided attack. Stop fussing over the corruption probe, start fussing over interfering with the power of the purse.

    1. The moral of the story seems to be if you or one of your families is tied to a corruption probe, just announce that you are running for office against the incumbent and you are magically shielded from any further investigations.

      1. The moral of the story seems to be if you or one of your families is tied to a corruption probe, just announce that you are running for office against the incumbent and you are magically shielded from any further investigations.

        Why wait? Get as dirty as you like and run for office. Being a candidate makes you immune to in-depth and protracted investigation(s) by a sitting administration… unless you’re a GOP outsider.

        1. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended consequences.

  8. Biden is not Trump’s political rival he’s not the Democratic nominee! There hasn’t even been one primary yet. Biden is just a private citizen who was possibly involved in corruption.

    1. Being a political rival is irrelevant. If corruption probes of political rivals were barred, there’d be no corruption probes.

      1. If corruption probes of political rivals were barred, there’d be no corruption probes.

        Man, you spoilered the end game!

  9. >>Anyone who expected the transcript to be a smoking gun … will be sorely disappointed.

    lol dude totes impeach.

  10. So we have a transcript that was made at the time by someone listening to the conversation and confirms what both parties to the conversation say occurred. And that isn’t good enough? Forget Trump fiddling with the records, to believe Boehm you have to believe the President of the Ukraine is lying as well even though he has no reason to lie about it. But we can’t believe any of that because some political hack in the IC heard a rumor.

    This is fucking retarded. Boehm has always been one of the more stupid of a collection of half wits at reason, but good God this sets a new low. WTF is wrong with you people?

    1. As the left goes mad, reason has to follow them, because, reasons.

      I’m not sure if it’s because they’ve genuinely joined the left, if they’re just opportunistically looking to their employment prospects after Reason folds, or trying to avoid getting lined up in front of the nearest brick wall and shot after the revolution. But it’s something along those lines.

      1. I think it is social pressure. I heard Matt Stone talking about the media reviews of the Dave Chapelle special. Everyone who has seen it knows it is funny. And everyone but the people in the major media assigned to right about it say so. The media critics who claim it isn’t funny are just saying so because if they didn’t, they would lose all of their friends and likely their career. Stone says he reads reviews like that the same way you would read a letter written by a hostage with his captors holding a gun to his head.

        I think the same thing goes on with reason. If any of their staff ever came out and said something sensible about the latest Orange Man Bad outrage, they would immediately persona non grata among the Washington Journalist social circles in which they run. Hell, Suderman’s amazon wife would probably cut his nuts off if she hasn’t already.

        The cocktail party jokes only hurt because they are partially true. They are true but in a much more dark way.

        1. If any of their staff ever came out and said something sensible about the latest Orange Man Bad outrage, they would immediately persona non grata among the Washington Journalist social circles in which they run.

          The guy who signs their paychecks probably wouldn’t be too pleased, either.

          1. Isn’t that guy actually a girl?

            But otherwise, yeah probably.

            1. That’s who signs them. The one funding it these days is mostly Charles Koch. Ever since he won his power struggle at Cato, Reason has stayed very close to the policy positions Koch wants them to stick to. And Koch hates Trump.

              1. No argument there. Reason is a wholly owned appendage of the Kochtopuss, yet somehow thinks it can get lefties to like them.

                1. Open border Uber alles.

        2. “”Everyone who has seen it knows it is funny”‘

          I don’t think that French actor thought it was funny.

          1. Juicy is a fine actor.

        3. I like the statement from stone and Parker about extending their contract with Comedy Central: (paraphrased) “while we are disappointed that our efforts to #cancelsouthpark last year were unsuccessful, we look forward to many more opportunities to be canceled in the future”.

          These guys mock cancel culture and the woke just don’t know what to do with them. Brilliant.

      2. The more charitable explanation would be that they are trying to appeal to people with left-wing sensibilities. It’s hard to do that without first making it seem like libertarianism already agrees with them on some of their most emotional issues. I forget who said this, but you’re much more likely to be convinced by someone who already agrees with you than by someone who disagrees.

        I’m not saying this strategy is wise or successful, just that it’s not unreasonable for this to be the case.

        1. The more charitable explanation would be that they are trying to appeal to people with left-wing sensibilities.

          I would’ve thought the hilarious cratering of the “Liberalitarian” idea would’ve put paid to this. Guess not.

        2. The more charitable explanation would be that they are trying to appeal to people with left-wing sensibilities.

          Especially since KMW has come right out and said this on multiple occasions.

          1. Because people who reflexively think government is the solution to any identified problem are a natural sale for libertarianism.

            If, that is, your notion of libertarianism is kinder gentler statism.

            1. As many have pointed out, not everyone may agree that it is a good strategy. But it is neither a surprising observation nor a game-changing revelation of a deep dark secret.

          2. They are not smart enough to pull that off.

            Hell, they aren’t smart enough to realize that is a stupid strategy. There are far more on the right willing to give libertarianism a chance than on the left.

            They are actively destroying the libertarian movement.

      3. As the left goes mad, reason has to follow them, because, reasons.

        Reasons Magazine is so on-the-nose.

      4. if they’re just opportunistically looking to their employment prospects after Reason folds,

        I think a lot of it is this. Not a lot of doctrinaire libertarian wealthy career opportunities, but plenty in more left wing traditional media outlets. See Weigel and Balko for decent examples.

        Not that I think Reason is folding, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their finances have mirrored other new media implosions.

        1. Well, how many people on this site do you think actually pay for it? I stopped because I felt it was a waste of money. That was before their hard left turn.

          If anything, there’s even less reason to subscribe, because their opinions aren’t unique in any way. Half of them are just regurgitations of left-wing talking points. The other half are standard libertarian purity arguments we’ve already heard a million times.

    2. I have to say. I would not trust Trump alone. However, I have even less reason to trust his opposition on this matter. The transcript is on the line of appropriateness. Trump should not be making these requests. However, given the situation with Biden is almost a textbook example of family connection corruption, I have to say that restarting the investigation is more than reasonable.

  11. Pretty sure this is satire. Bravo.

    1. Imagine what it would take to change those transcripts. The transcripts are made by career White House employees. Their entire job is to do nothing but type these transcripts. They are not political appointees. Eric expects us to believe the evil Trump administration managed to get these people to either change the transcripts or shut up about someone else changing them. And the person taking the transcript isn’t saying anything about it despite the fact the media would make them a national hero if they did.

      How brain damaged does a person have to be to believe that?

      1. I’d also point out that falsifying classified information is a crime and could earn those career White House employees an all expenses paid extended vacation at Ft. Leavenworth, something they’re keenly aware of.

        1. No one would do it. It is so absurd and would require so many people to risk years in prison, it would never have been attempted. If Trump had said what the media is claiming he said, he would have just refused to release the transcript.

        2. These are the same people who were leaking early Trump transcripts of calls. They have no loyalty to him.

      2. I don’t know, if I were a transcriber in the WH; I would hope that I was off that day. Media will hold you up for 5 mins and then your shit out of luck the rest of your life. No real upside to your career, getting darts slung from both directions when your story doesn’t fit either of the narratives.

    2. Can’t be satire. He has no sense of humor.

      1. You are perhaps aware of the live NBC show that occurs once weekly…

  12. “The Trump administration lies. Members of the administration lie even when the truth is obvious and public.”

    Are you fucking serious? What administration doesn’t? They’re politicians. They all lie.

  13. Oh Jesus Christ

  14. I’ll never have a problem forcing government to be transparent. But this seems like another TDS moment. Let’s get FISA abuse transparency first. Including interviewing and reviewing the records of the FISA judges, the CIA operatives, everything. If we’re so concerned about this nothingness, making sure the CIA can’t conjure up bullshit bases for wide ranging electronic surveillance of opposing political candidates sure seems the place to start. Few things threaten the limited Republic we still kinda sorta have.

  15. Instead of the 1,000th “Orange Man Bad” article, how about just a little journalistic, investigative integrity. I am still waiting, with bated breath, for Reason to actually have an article that at least looks at some particulars in this case. How is it that we have 3 elected officials who all have family members tied to dealings in the Ukraine, all Democrats (Clinton, Biden, and Kerry), but nary a mention of that? If we have to make it about the Oompa Loompa, let’s praise him for being in bed with both Russia and Ukraine, two countries that currently detest each other, and war is still not out of the question. That takes one hell of wheeler and dealer to burn both ends of that candle. Or maybe there is still a lot of this story that we are not being told and nobody wants to get to the bottom of.

    1. Hunter Biden is a former crack head who was kicked out of the Navy for drug use yet is somehow made hundreds of millions of dollars while his dad was VP, despite having no obvious useful skills, inventions, or accomplishments. But somehow Reason thinks there is nothing to see here. What really matters is Orange Man Bad.

    2. Trying to turn THIS story into a story about the Bidens is exactly what Team Trump wants us to be doing. That is a part of his deflection strategy. “Who cares about the phone call, look over there at those corrupt Bidens!” Maybe Reason shouldn’t be doing Trump’s defense work for him.

      It is possible to discuss multiple issues at the same time, of course:
      1. What Hunter Biden did or did not do while on the board of Burisma
      2. What Joe Biden did or did not do when withholding Ukraine funds in 2016, duly allocated by Congress, allegedly to protect his son
      3. What Trump did or did not do in this summer, with regards to allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens (again)
      4. What Trump did or did not do in this summer, with regards to withholding funds duly allocated by Congress, allegedly to pressure Ukraine to look into the Bidens

      These are all potential vectors of corruption, and no one ought to be immune to being investigated over it. People in positions of power SHOULDN’T get the benefit of the doubt, whether it’s Biden or it’s Trump. But for heaven’s sake let’s not turn this story into exactly what Trump wants it to be, focusing only on Biden and ignoring what he did or did not do with the phone call and/or manipulating the Ukraine funds.

      1. Biden bragged about withholding aide to Ukraine to get them to stop investigating his son. It is on video.

        Meanwhile, the President of Ukraine says there was no pressure applied from Trump. No one associated with the Ukrainian government has said there was. There is no evidence that Trump applied any pressure. There are only “anonomous sources” and someone who heard a rumor. There is not a shred of evidence Trump did anything.

        There is, however, a mountain of evidence that Biden’s son is corrupt and a confession on Biden’s part that he used his position as VP to stop the Ukrainian government to investigate it. But lets not make this about Biden.

        Go fuck yourself Jeff. You are a fucking joke and a moron.

        1. Biden bragged about withholding aide to Ukraine

          That is true.

          to get them to stop investigating his son.

          That is conjecture.

          1. No its not.

            And then there is Joe Biden. In 2016, the then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if the government did not fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. According to the New York Times, “Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden … who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.” The Post reports that it is “unclear how seriously Shokin — who was under fire by U.S. and European officials for not taking a more aggressive posture toward corruption overall — was scrutinizing Burisma when he was forced out.” But what is clear is that Biden bragged about getting him fired, declaring last year: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b—-. He got fired.”

            http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=Biden+Ukraine

            There is no other plausible explanation for why Biden would want that prosecutor fired except to protect his son. That is not conjecture.

            And not five minutes ago you were telling us how no one in power should be given the benefit of the doubt. And here you are giving Biden a benefit of the doubt beyond all reason.

            Do you think people don’t notice when you lie?

            1. You’ll notice the only people who converse with him are people telling him he’s a liar and an idiot.

              That’s your answer.

              1. Much like the idiot Rev. slaver.

                1. I think he’s worse because he pretends he’s thoughtful and reasonable. Rev is honest about what he is.

            2. John : “There is no other plausible explanation for why Biden would want that prosecutor fired except to protect his son. That is not conjecture.”

              Boy, ignorance seldom comes this stark and hardcore. Today over at the National Review, Jonah Goldberg has a post on this mess. He says this :

              “The allegation that Biden’s son Hunter is guilty of sketchy business practices seems legitimate enough — he accepted a paid seat on the board of a Ukrainian business that was under investigation at a time when his father, as vice president, had direct dealings with the Ukrainian government on corruption issues. But the charge that Joe Biden was freelancing foreign policy to protect his son simply doesn’t hold water if you spend five minutes reading up on it. Biden was acting on orders from President Obama in coordination with allies and State Department policy to force the former Russia-backed Ukrainian regime to fire a dirty prosecutor who was failing to properly investigate corruption, including at the firm Hunter Biden worked with.”

              I guess John didn’t spend five minutes reading up on it, huh? The president wanted Viktor Shokin fired. The State Department wanted him fired. The European Union wanted him fired. The World Bank wanted him fired. The International Monetary Fund wanted him fired. And every reformist group in Ukraine was desperate to see him fired. They protested in the streets to demand his ouster and cheered when he was gone.

              Gosh, Hunter Biden has an awful lot of friends……

              1. Oh, so Biden and Obama say they did it because he was a corrupt prosecutor and him investigating his son had nothing to do with it.

                Biden denies it. Well, that settles it. And there is no evidence he wasn’t properly investigating the company Biden was working for. Moreover, the company Biden was working for was not in bed with the Russians. So why would a pro Russian prosecutor not “properly investigate”? Moreover, the investigation stopped. If Biden and Obama wanted him fired for not properly investigating, why didn’t it continue even though he was fired?

                Goldberg is an idiot. And Trump has made him into a mendacious one.

                1. What has Obama or Biden ever done to earn this kind of credibility? Apart from have a D next to their name?

                2. Give it up, John. You’re not even trying to make sense. So, let’s do this one more time

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

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

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

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

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

                  So please explain why the White House, State Department, European Union, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund all decided they had to intervene to save little Hunter Biden? Explain why Biden wasn’t following the President’s policies in pressuring Ukraine when that’s exactly what he was doing?

                  Above you said this : “There is no other plausible explanation for why Biden would want that prosecutor fired except to protect his son. That is not conjecture.”

                  You were as ignorant and wrong as someone can be on a single point. Just admit it and move on. Don’t dig the hole deeper….

                  1. 6) The fact that his firing led to the end of an investigation of the firm that employed the son of the guy who demanded his firing was just a fortunate coincidence.

                  2. You have not a single source for that fantasy. Moreover, the idea that a single prosecutor is the problem is patently absurd. Even if it were true, if the Ukrainians had to be forced to fire him, that would make them in on the corruption. So what would good would firing him have done.

                    You are just fucking retarded. My God, how can you not be embarrassed to be this stupid.

                    1. He mindlessly pukes up whatever pablum Media Matters feeds him from their daily talking points. Then he comes here and thinks that makes him smart.

                      That’s what progtards do that passes for being intelligent and knowledgeable.

                  3. Lol.. you cant make this dumbshit up.

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

                    You actually believe this. You’re fucking retarded.

                    1. Pretty funny. None of you can challenge a single thing I’ve written. You couldn’t disprove a word of it if your life depended on it. So you toss around teenager insults as if that makes you relevant. Why not try some research if you’re so sure I’m wrong? Simple enough : Just Google Victor Shokin and see how well your playground taunts hold up.

                      I’m betting you’re too full of shit to even try……

                    2. Shokin was the most powerful man in Ukraine… until he got fired

                      Totes logical

                    3. You havent offered shit but DNC talking points and conjecture grab. What facts do you think you’ve actually offered?

                      The owner of Burisma, a corrupt ukranian asshole who direct millions in gas exploration contracts to his own companies as a minister, left ukraine in 2014. In 2016 his company started paying Hunter and another associate of the bidens 80k a month. The deal was so shady Kerry’s kid ran to state to warn them about it and then bought out of the partnership he had with Hunter. After Joe got the prosecutor fired the owner of Bursima returned to the Ukraine and paid a small fine to the successor Joe helped pick and returned to his company as the investigation was dropped.

                      This does t even discuss the 1.5 billion Hunter got a week I to Joe’s cotrip with Hunter on airforce 2.

                      Those are the actual facts retard.

                    4. GRB……..faggot……. you don’t understand how this works. I’m a debate, when you make bizarre bullshit claims, as you did , it is YOUR job to back them up. Not our responsibility to disprove any inane thing you say. If you understood things, like formal debate structure, you would know that.

                      Instead you just push the same stupid, sophist kind of arguments that Pedo Jeffy does.

              2. Hey look Jeff busted out his also very long-winded sockpuppet.

                1. They could be the same person. Certainly both faggot morons.

              3. “Biden was acting on orders from President Obama in coordination with allies and State Department policy to force the former Russia-backed Ukrainian regime to fire a dirty prosecutor who was failing to properly investigate corruption, including at the firm Hunter Biden worked with.””

                And you believe that. Because you’re retarded.

              4. Hunter has one friend his dad who has friends and power who are all corrupt. corrupt people getting corrupt people to fire people investigating corruption is not an excuse. ten wolves telling one sheep voting on who is going to get ate is not a fair play

              5. Lol. Using never trumper leader Jonah as your unbiased source. This is the fucking Ukraine. It is corrupt. There is no single person who is the sole implementers of corruption. Biden threatened 1 billion to take out this single person. Just 1 person. Did corruption end after he was fired? No, but the prosecutor who Joe helped hand pick ended the bursima investigation with a “small fine” to his office. Thank god corruption ended after that saga. Wait… it didn’t?!?

                How fucking stupid are you? Show me more instances where we threatened 1 billion to tanked out single members of a corrupt government.

                How naive are you?

            3. The NY times fucked up the sequence of events. That prosecutor was on Team Putin much like you useful idiots. America was trying kick the Putin scum out of the Ukraine. Putin has his own version of reality and you sad fucks have been swimming in it that twisted reality since 2016.

              1. So your still going with those who disagree with your viewpoint/intrepetations can only be Russians or working for Russians? I thought that ship has sailed. Haven’t you gotten your new DNC/Soros approved prog talking points booklet yet (if you need me to explain this, it is meant as ridicule of your post and it’s reliance on tribal talking points).

                1. No, but in this case it’s exactly the situation. In 1984 Putin world the revolution that threw his scum out of power in Ukraine was a “corrupt CIA operation”. In that same world that Putin prosecutor was a “straight arrow”. That’s where Trump has taken you. It’s where all liars have to live.

                  1. No one said he was a straight arrow, they have stated he was investigating Biden’s son’s company when Biden decided to threaten funding unless he was fired. Biden then took a personal interest and actively participated in selecting the new prosecutor. And the investigation magically disappeared. That is what people are saying.

            4. “Hunter Biden, energy company boardroom executive.”

              How people didn’t laugh hysterically at reading that phrase, I’ll never know. It’s a near Nigerian level of corruption to have that guy, at that stage of his life, sitting on your board of directors. The only reason to have him is because Daddy will pull strings for him and you.

            5. There is no other plausible explanation for why Biden would want that prosecutor fired except to protect his son.

              Sure there is. It’s the same reason that many other world leaders wanted Shokin fired – because he was a corrupt shitbag.

              Now, that may NOT be the ACTUAL reason, but that is a PLAUSIBLE reason.

              That is why I said it is a *conjecture* that Biden demanded Shokin be fired for the reason of protecting his son. It may be true, it may not be true, but it is certainly not definitively true.

              1. He was so corrupt this individual had a bounty of 1 billion. Nobody else attached to the threat, just the one guy. Ukraine is pure and clean now.

                Literal definition of naive dumbass.

                1. Pedo Jeffy is that, and so much worse.

          2. As I showed yesterday, what he admitted and that you admit he said and did, is enough for a criminal conviction. You bleated that it was a “strict” reading, which is just how you avoid admitting it IS in fact enough for a criminal conviction.

            1. But Jeff assures us he believes People in positions of power SHOULDN’T get the benefit of the doubt, whether it’s Biden or it’s Trump.

              If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny.

              1. He will of course say you’re attempting to twist his words, because he does that when he makes a fool of himself.

                1. Or my favorite

                  “I didn’t understand you, so I can make up anything and claim you said it”

              2. What he means is Team Red people in positions of power etc.

                Team Blue, he’ll believe any bullshit they spew.

                1. You’re the champion, truly, and the rest are all losers! How can we all serve You? As a grasshopper seeking wisdom, I beg of You, will You scratch me behind my ears?

                  Sticking strictly to the facts, logically, I bet that You could help me debug the following source codes:
                  If’n yer not part of the solution, ye are a part of the precipitate! Begin Auto_truncate [ Velocity ( momentum[31:0], kinetic[31:0], mass[31:0], * G / distance[7:0] ^ 2) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                  PrintF "Pod bay doors access permission is denied.", end; end module ;

                  If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, they'll give us a FREE coupon for the shade-tree mechanic to align our rear-view mirrors, AND modulate our oil pans!

            2. If what he did is enough for a criminal conviction, then show me instances from the past when someone in a similar situation was actually convicted.

              Forgive me if I don’t completely trust your armchair lawyering. I’d much prefer the advice of an actual lawyer.

              1. “An actual lawyer”
                Or Vox.
                Whatever is en vogue with progressivism at any given moment

                1. I’ll bet that you have degrees from Harvard, Yale, and Rhodes! Not to impose, but, might I, can I, can I have Your autograph please?

                  You must be an excellent coder! So, can You find any errors in the source codes to follow:
                  Exclude extraneous variables, and Begin Begin-Beggin’ [Honest-Babe-I-Luve-Ya(Willya-B-Mine 4 ^ Ever) If-else-I (Meet Sum 1 Bettah) || (her tits R bigger)] || [I ken doo bettah] end-Beggin’
                  Invoke DisplayModule “Reds, vitamin C, and cocaine does not comprise a decent diet. Change your ways NOW!”, end; end module ;

                  If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then we might next be able to finger our how to disable the implants in our molars!

          3. “That is conjecture.”

            Using ZERO conjecture…what, precisely, do you think Trump did?

          4. “”to get them to stop investigating his son.

            That is conjecture.””

            Sure let’s call it that. How do you deal with conjecture other than asking someone to looking into it more deeply?

      2. “Trying to turn THIS story into a story about the Bidens is exactly what Team Trump”

        We talk about other politicians who may need to be investigsted and Jeff CANNOT avoid IMMEDIATELY trying to make it about Trump.

        But no, he doesn’t have TDS. He’s just ruthlessly covering for him team I guess.

        1. Investigated for ridding Ukraine of a corrupt Putin prosecutor. You mfers are so fucking stupid.

          1. Using his power to eliminate a prosecutor, who no matter what his allegiance were, was investigating a company his son had close ties with. And then Biden helped hand select the new prosecutor, who subsequently let the company of with a very lenient fine.

            1. Wait what?!! Jesus fucking christ of course you don’t even care he was Putin’s prosecutor. By the way he wasn’t even investigating the company Biden’s son was working when he was fired. That’s quite an inconvenient fact for you. And also rich connected mfers making easy money is capitalism in practice so maybe you should support taxing this easy money?

              1. Why would any of us trust any random fact you just pull out of your ass? You are clearly a deranged commie. Why are you even on this website?

              2. “Wait what?!! Jesus fucking christ of course you don’t even care he was Putin’s prosecutor.””

                Why should ANY American care who is a prosecutor in Ukraine? Seems to be one of the least relevant things imaginable. But Biden was certainly interested.

                “And also rich connected mfers making easy money is capitalism in practice so maybe you should support taxing this easy money?”

                How is using your position to get your incompetent shit of a son a job “capitalism”?

              3. The investigation hadn’t ended, but it had slowed down.
                And when did I say I didn’t care if he supported Putin or not? Is that relevant to the investigation into the company Biden’s son worked for?
                The only inconvenient fact that I see is your only talking point is “Putin, Putin, Putin.”

                1. And even more inconvenient is that you actually think you are making a valid argument.

          2. Life must just suck so hard for you

      3. Because it is about the Bidens you clown. They were doing incredibly crooked shit in the Ukraine, but when Trump warns the Ukrainians, all of a sudden you shits are worried about ethics.

        1. TRUMP made the phone call, not Biden.
          TRUMP was the one delaying this year’s appropriations to the Ukraine, not Biden.

          Biden *may have* done some shady shit in the past.
          Trump *may have* done some shady shit in the present.
          Trump’s defense is to deflect and to point to Biden’s potentially shady shit.
          And by trying to make the issue all about Biden, it’s equivalent to running interference for Trump. Which is exactly what Team Trump wants you to do.

          Should people in positions of power be held accountable, or not?

          1. Biden *may have* done some shady shit in the past.

            Openly bragging about it isn’t a “may have,” you dumbshit.

            Trump’s defense is to deflect and to point to Biden’s potentially shady shit.

            You mean pointing out Biden’s own words? The horror!

            And by trying to make the issue all about Biden, it’s equivalent to running interference for Trump.

            LMAO

            1. Psychoticjeff truly is a pathetic piece of progressive shit

              1. It’s a mistake not to endlessly hound Pedo Jeffy over his enthusiasm for international child rapists. This is why I hound him over it. Just one of many reasons he is not deserving of honest debate or civility.

      4. “Ignoring what he did or did not do with the phone call”.

        Do you think it’s being ignored?

        “Deflection”? You may have that backwards. Some connected person allegedly made $1.5 billion.

    3. I still bet it’s: 1. The Don said he likes Libertarianism, and 2. Ukraine has people trying to form a Libertarian Party. What could possibly be more irritating to the Dem/CPUSA coalition?

  16. No smoking gun? Keep looking; there has to be one here some place. I just know it.

    1. Russia paid Stormy Daniels to hide it in her prison wallet.

      1. It’s well known that many of guns have fired in there.

        1. I thought most fired on her face or back?

          1. Sounds like you familiar with her…ahem…body of work.

            1. I was asking for a friend.

            2. She was pretty hot back 10-25 years ago. A lot of hard miles on her since then. And so much younger, hotter fresh talent to obsess over her.

  17. God above, all this right-wing snowflake whining !!!

    (1) The original post just says Trump is a liar, so his transcript (as bad as it is) can’t be trusted as the whole truth.

    (2) Everyone knows Trump lies like other people breathe. About everything and anything. About big matters and small. There isn’t a single person commenting here unaware Trump can’t be trusted. Even the most fawning abject Trump toady knows that.

    So what on earth are you whining about? A liar can’t be trusted. That’s all Boehm is saying

    1. (1) The original post just says Trump is a liar, so his transcript (as bad as it is) can’t be trusted as the whole truth.

      The transcript was made by the career people in the White House who do this stuff not Trump himself you fucking moron. And it confirms what the President of Ukraine says happened. Do you think he is lying to protect Trump too?

      Were you born retarded or did something bad happen to you as a child to make you this stupid?

      1. Uh huh. And the Hurricane Dorian map was made by the National Weather Service. I’m sure it was crudely altered when it left their printer, but crudely doctored it ended-up.

        So when will the “career people in the White House” who did the transcript be made available for questioning?

        1. Uh huh. And the Hurricane Dorian map was made by the National Weather Service. I’m sure it was crudely altered when it left their printer, but crudely doctored it ended-up.

          Yeah and the person who made it and listened the conversation is not coming out and pointing out what would be an enormous scandal out of kindness I guess.

          Not to be judgey, but your post is the kind of thing lunatics claim. Thanks for helping to ensure that Trump is the luckiest man in history with his enemies.

          1. Did the person who drew the weather map come out and denounce its alteration? They did not. “Out of kindness”, I guess. Of course some people did post notice that Trump was providing wrong information. The result? A blue-faced temper tantrum by Trump. His Chief of Staff leaning on the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce then threatening to fire people at NOAA. The head of NOAA then publicly condemning those people who told the truth. About the weather…..

            All over a childish snit by Trump, because he accidentally tweeted dated info on Dorian. Sounds like “the kind of thing lunatics claim”, eh? Yet it happened in plain view. If lying is that institutionalized in this White House – over something so trivial no less – what do you think would happen with something important at stake?

            1. So wait, your proof is the weather map?

              The people making the transcript had nothing to do with that, idiot.

              1. Do you know, the weather map is finally proof that Mueller admitted Trump was guilty of eating a taco salad.

              2. NOAA- National Hurricane Center

                Watch out boyz and girls. The Party of slavery will want to impeach VP Pence if he mentions these storms in the Atlantic and the trajectories change after all.

            2. Goddamn, grb, how do you manage to get out of bed in the morning without cracking your skull open? Not that anything would pour out of there, of course…

        2. https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/weather/2019/08/30/hurricane-dorian-alabama-update-path-track-category-projection-forecast/2164905001/

          Guess you gave up on this story early, a bit like Eric the author of this crap piece. Simply Google search and the truth comes out.

          You seem to lie much more than President Trump…

          1. Hilarious. This sort of two-bit nonsense is the best you’re capable of? You really want to revisit the Great Dorian Controversy, despite the fact it made your Cult Idol look like a childish idiot? So be it :

            30 Aug : Some models show Hurricane Dorian crossing Florida and affecting Alabama. That is when your link dates to

            01 Sept : Trump tweets “In addition to Florida – South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” By then Dorian had turned north and no model showed it reaching Alabama.

            01 Sept : Twenty-three minutes later, the Birmingham office of NOAA’s National Weather Service tweets that Alabama will not be affected by the storm. Almost simultaneously Trump insists Alabama is in danger during a press conference. Later that day he does the same, claiming “new information” that did not exist.

            02-03 Sept : Trump repeatedly rages against anyone who mentions his mistake. Again & again he claims there were forecasts on 01 Sept that supported his error. There weren’t. He is lying.

            04 Sept : Trump gives a briefing in the Oval Office on Dorian, using a map dating from 29 August AND crudely altered by a sharpie. He still insists Alabama is threatened. It has been five days since the state figured in any projection.

            05 Sept : Eric Trump defends his daddy, using a six-day old forecast map. Trump makes multiple tweets saying “fake news”. Late afternoon he post maps two & three days before his original mistake.

            06 Sept : Trump’s Chief of Staff complains to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross Jr. He threatens Neil Jacobs, the acting administrator of NOAA with firings at the agency. An unsigned press release was issued, disavowing the National Weather Service’s forecast Alabama wasn’t at risk on September 1

            That press release is now being examined by the Commerce Department’s Office of Inspector General. Four days later Jacobs gave a speech at a major weather industry conference. He said:

            “This is hard for me. This is hard for my friends and this is hard for my family. I want to thank everyone who has known me and supported me. I’m the same Neil I was last Thursday,” Jacobs said, referring to the day before NOAA issued its statement, throwing the Birmingham Weather Service office under the bus.

            If you want to bring up Trump & weather again, please do, Eric H. You just look like a gullible idiot…..

            1. So Trump mentioned a less then day old forecast and this is your proof he lied?

              1. No, Person-With-Zero-Reading-Comprehension-Skills.

                Trump made a mistake tweeting dated weather forecasts. No problem, everyone screws-up at some point, right? You admit you’re wrong like an adult and move on. Instead Trump kept insisting he wasn’t wrong despite every fact – (which is lying) – and raged against people who reported his error – (which is childish) – and had his flunkies browbeat NOAA into issuing a phony press release – (which takes things almost to the point of mental illness)

                And you don’t have a problem with any of that? The power of the Orange Cult must be very strong. Is it too late to warn you not to drink any strange Kool-Aid?

                1. No, he kept insisting that Alabama was on the predicted path, which it was. Everyone said he was wrong, that Alabama was never in the predicted path, at the time of the tweet. He wasn’t wrong so much as using older data.
                  The rest of the stuff does demonstrate that Trump is thin skinned but I doubt many people would argue with that. The point is he didn’t lie, the charges were he made up that Alabama was in the predicted path. He wasn’t lying he also did throw a tantrum and didn’t respond well. There is a difference. I also notice rather than engage as an adult you resort to ad hominems and tropes to demean anyone who disagrees with your interpretation. Why do you think you feel the need to do that? Do you think it demonstrated maturity and true intellect?
                  As for drinking the Kool-Aid, should I mention glass houses and rocks?

        3. So when will the “career people in the White House” who did the transcript be made available for questioning?

          Goddamn, the left sure does love their inquisitions!

    2. Explain the process that Trump would use to alter an official transcript of a call, and explain how he is keeping those changes quiet.

      1. And why the President of Ukraine would be in on the lie. They never seem to mention that part either. These people are just brain dead.

        1. Really ?!? You honestly think the President of Ukraine wants to be put in the position of accusing POTUS of lying? Right in the midst of an invasion and he needs to be Witness One in an impeachment trial? Read the transcript. See how hard the poor guy tries to agree with as much of Trump’s incoherent babble as possible. 5,687 miles away, but I bet there was a painful frozen grin of desperate conformity on Zelensky’s face throughout the whole ordeal…..

          1. And backing up Trump is going to help him get any money out of Congress how?

            There is no evidence that the call went any way other than what the transcript says. Give it up you crazy retard.

            1. If you remember, even when Congress authorized money, Trump wouldn’t release until he talked with Zelensky. And Trump took his sweet time doing it too to mess with Zelensky. So, the big lesson for Zelensky is that if you want money, you have to treat the president nice, not necessarily Congress.

    3. “So what on earth are you whining about? A liar can’t be trusted.”

      Trump’s cheating at golf is illuminating. After teeing off, Trump races off, alone, in his souped up golf vehicle, finds the best situated ball, claims it as his own and takes his next shot. I wouldn’t trust the asshole with a game of golf, let alone running a country.

      1. I wouldn’t trust you to do anything. I don’t trust anyone with an IQ below 90.

        1. “I wouldn’t trust you to do anything.”

          Thanks for sharing, John. Feel free to tell us more.

          1. Definitely not trust you to be in any position of authority where you have any power to decide someone’s fate. You seem especially prone to tribalistic thinking and condemning current behavior based upon past behavior. My brother has a tendency to cheat at pinochle but I would trust him in most things to tell me the truth because it isn’t that big of a deal.

            1. ” it isn’t that big of a deal.”

              Running the country is that big of a deal.

              1. He doesn’t run the country. Or at least he isn’t supposed to. You see that is the problem.
                Also, have you played golf with him to know if this is true, or just more induendoes? Your problem is that you start out with a conclusion and then find information to support that conclusion. It’s called confirmation bias.

                1. ” It’s called confirmation bias.”

                  I’ve read his tweets. The spelling alone tells me everything I need to know about the man.

                  1. I know plenty of scientist with IQs far above yours who are terrible spellers. Many, like myself, with Asperger’s have extremely high IQs but aren’t the best spellers. I was reading at a college level by fourth grade but was a terrible spellers, and still am. So he posts with spelling errors and you decide to judge him (his spelling alone tells me everything I need to know about the man). Don’t ever read anything written by Thomas Jefferson, his spelling was equally terrible. But I suspect you would say that marked him of low intellect.
                    Let me guess, you’re a fine arts major who confuses education with intelligence.

                    1. See, I think Trump’s ‘poor spelling’ is a sham. He’s an Ivy League graduate who intentionally dumbs himself down to appeal to the rubes. For those who are legitimately poor spellers, like the majority of people posting here, I have compassion. Not a day goes by without me guiding the way to a more correct, powerful suite of communicative skills.

                    2. Spelling wasn’t standardized in Thomas Jefferson’s time and people could spell words anyway they sounded. Beyond that, you still seem to post with standardized spelling and you don’t have a staff of people to help you.

            2. “My brother has a tendency to cheat at pinochle”

              Is it even pinochle if you are not cheating?

              1. Well, it is how obvious he is about it. No tact.

      2. “Trump’s cheating at golf is illuminating.”

        Yes, it illuminates how desperate and pathetic you have become

        1. Pay attention. I’ve always been pathetic. And much worse too.

          1. Well admitting it is the first step to correcting it. That is if you want to correct it. But since you are aware of your problem and not seeking help, it appears you are happy with being wrong and pathetic. You do you.

            1. “Well admitting it is the first step to correcting it. ”

              You need to stop worrying about me and start thinking about what you can do to support your man Trump. If there’s a Trump speaking engagement nearby, attend and scream wildly when he tells you that he’s going to build a beautiful wall and Mexicans will pay for it. You can also make donations to his re-election campaign.

              1. Oh so droll. Disagreeing with your assessment makes me a full throated Trump supporter. You cut me to the quick with that one.
                See I used your attempt at humor to ridicule you. You used a tired trope.

                1. Now’s a good time to assess just how deep your commitment to Trump is. He’s being impeached.

    4. “(1) The original post just says Trump is a liar, so his transcript (as bad as it is) can’t be trusted as the whole truth.”

      Right, but the guy who said that is a liar, so…. yeah.

    5. That’s why we don’t trust you, fucko.

    6. “(1) The original post just says Trump is a liar, so his transcript (as bad as it is) can’t be trusted as the whole truth.”

      Both you and Boehm are far to fucking stupid for words. White House transcriptionists aren’t Trump’s personal secretaries or GOP acolytes. You can’t just go to them and say, “Yeah, can you go to the records and alter that conversation with the Prime Minister you recorded a year ago”. Too much work and too many people are involved. The best you can do is visibly redact portions, which didn’t happen here.

      I suspect both you and Boehm know this, but are hoping others don’t, and are fucking lying about it. Disgusting fucking hypocrites.

    7. “So what on earth are you whining about? A liar can’t be trusted. That’s all Boehm is saying”

      So then why would we ever listen to a word you or any other progressive has to say? You’re a dirty lying cunt, just ike the rest.

  18. I expect more from Reason than a column like this. It’s not only poorly-written TDS buffoonery, it’s . . . well, unReasonable.

    1. This is actually what I expect from a turd like Boehm. They could replace him with a random text generator and it would write better stuff.

  19. Lol, this is hilarious.

  20. We shouldn’t give the benefit of doubt to people in positions of power*.

    * except if they’re from my tribe, then I can totally trust them

    1. Do you think Trump typed it up in his office or something? Are you really that stupid? To say this thing is wrong is to say that the about a dozen or more people in the White House, most of whom are not political appointees decided to lie to save Trump. And that the President of Ukraine is doing the same.

      You are dumb and mendacious Jeff, but this is even pathetic by your standards.

      1. “Do you think Trump typed it up in his office or something? ”

        The thought crossed my mind. Spelling errors like ‘their’ instead of ‘they’re’ show the effort was rushed and careless.

        1. The thought crossed your mind because you are stupid not because there is any possibility of that being true.

          1. “The thought crossed your mind because you are stupid not because there is any possibility of that being true.”

            Read the transcript. Spelling errors show the shoddiness of the effort put into producing it. It stinks of Trump. And everything Trump touches stinks of mendacity.

            1. yes because the transcript is made real time. They don’t go back and correct it because there is no need to. It just has to record the information. It is not meant to be published.

              There is no arguing with someone as dumb and pig headed as you appear to be. You are embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

            2. Please use your brain for half a second, don’t just respond to input with the first, most pompous impulse that springs to mind.

              1. Not to ‘trigger’ you or anything, but I prefer pomposity, although nonsense comes in a close second.

            3. Transcripts almost always have spelling errors because trying to type as fast as people speak often leads to errors. And is it legal after the fact, to edit for spelling? I am pretty sure once it is done nothing can be changed. I worked as a nurse for 17 years and have read lots of transcribed notes from physicians. They almost always have multiple errors, both spelling, grammar and punctuations.

              1. Yeah, my experience is when you edit a transcript, both the edited and original are provided so the changes can be seen.

                1. In medical transcripts, which are legal documents BTW, the doctor is supposed to cross out in pen the mistake, initial it and date it and then write in the correction himself. Once he signs it, can no longer be modified. Unless the mistake was egregious they rarely bother to take the effort. Simple spelling errors are rarely legally a liability.

                  1. Hey SMedic.

                    What is a pen?

                    You can voice or type an addendum to the record.

                    Every entry and every time you log in to access the record there is an electronic time stamp.

                    The transcriptionists are gone. There is not even that today. It is a good thing because it is so much faster. The downside is that all users must incorporate dragon errors into practice.

                    1. Granted most records are electronic but have all gone that way? It’s been 7 years since I last worked a floor.

              2. “and have read lots of transcribed notes from physicians.”

                Physicians are standup people for the most part. Trump is a mendacious asshole.

                1. Physicians are stand up people? Some are some are total self serving assholes. As for Trump your proof that the transcripts are fake is based upon your judgement of his honesty, despite it being explained to you how nearly impossible it would be to take an official transcript? Hmmmm. I thought it was the typing errors, now it is because you heard Trump cheats at golf or because he used an outdated storm projection and defended himself.

                  1. “As for Trump your proof that the transcripts are fake is based upon your judgement of his honesty,”

                    My proof? I don’t see any proof of anything. Still I think it’s safe to assume anything coming out of Trump’s mouth is mendacious. If you are saying Trump’s staff is incapable of producing a transcript that is free of error, I am hardly surprised.

                    1. The assumption is that the transcripts are real until evidence to the contrary comes out. You pointed to typing errors as some sort of proof that they may be faked. You can’t even keep your arguments straight.

                    2. Based upon the difficulty in trying to pass off fake transcripts as real, Occam’s razor would argue the logical conclusion, barring any evidence to the contrary is to accept their authenticity. Once evidence is presented otherwise, then you will have something.

                2. Which really doesn’t change anything about what you were wrong about at all.

                  You “LOOK OVER HERE!!!!”

                3. Trump is a mendacious asshole.

                  That’s the best part about him. Anyone that tells lefties to fuck off and easily baits them into stepping on their own dick is A-OK with me.

                  1. “That’s the best part about him.”

                    I like his taste in shoes. You never see the man poorly shod.

            4. True,an, you are kind of a pathetic joke around here. So it’s likely a lot of really stupid things occur to you. And you take them seriously.

              1. “And you take them seriously.”

                And you have a problem with that? Punk?

        2. Incorrect use of *their* IMPEACH

          1. It shouldn’t be too difficult to find ivy leaguers who have mastered basic English.

            1. You’ve ever actually read any other transcripts done by professionals? Because if you had you’d realize how common errors are.

              1. I’ve professionally written transcripts. The work is not complete until any errors are corrected. This is not so difficult. It only requires a little time and attention, and knowledge of basic English.

                1. That is not how this works. In situations like depositions and court transcripts. the raw transcripts are sent to the two parties who then read them and agree to any changes fixing the mistakes. That doesn’t happen here. There is no way to do that and no need to. Again, these are made to be used as records in future dealings, and foreign affairs not to be released to the public.

                  1. “In situations like depositions and court transcripts.”

                    This is a transcript of a telephone conversation. And the white house released it to the public. Not that the spelling errors will show up in the recordings, they just show the shabby effort that was put into producing the transcript.

                    1. The White House released it as is because if they had altered it in any way, clowns like you would be claiming it was faked. You are just trolling. You don’t believe Trump typed it himself. No one is that fucking stupid. It is impossible.

                    2. So “the transcription made minor spelling errors” is noteworthy? Because it looks like a stupid fucking distraction by a person with no experience in the area

                    3. I don’r know, but is there any chance this transcript was generated by software like Dragon, or something similar?

                      Could easily explain the ‘misspelling’ as actually an issue of homonyms.

                2. Really? Because most legal record transcripts can’t be altered without including the original, to prove that no falsification occurred.

                3. “mtrueman
                  September.25.2019 at 1:19 pm
                  I’ve professionally written transcripts”

                  I’m gonna call you a liar.

                  “The work is not complete until any errors are corrected.”

                  This is absolutely wrong, but you think otherwise, because you DON’T work with transcripts, and it is obvious to everyone who does that you were lying.

                  1. He doesn’t realize he needs to put down the spade before the hole he has dug gets to much deeper.

                  2. “I’m gonna call you a liar.”

                    Yes, even liars can write error free transcriptions. I am living proof.

                    “you DON’T work with transcripts”

                    Correct, but I have written transcripts. Present perfect tense. You don’t want to get into that minefield. It’s worse than that whole they’re, there and their thing.

                    1. You are full of shit.

                    2. Am full of shit and have been full of shit. But stick with they’re, there and their for the moment. It’s easier.

                    3. I would love to see proof that your “transcripts” were error free. Because in 17 years working in a field full of professional transcripts, I rarely ever ran into that mythical creature.

                    4. You *is* full of shit

                    5. M true

                      Using VR transcribe and self edit about 100/day.

                      You will find an error rate.

                      Don’t know why that is an issue. It is well known.

                      Look right here people make mistakes and post because of spell check.

                      You can read threw it.

                    6. Besides, most people’s brains decode words differently as they become more literate. Your brain actually doesn’t usually read every letter, it scans them, identifies key patterns, such as letters and word length, and based upon the context of the sentence supplies the “word”. This is why you can read the scrambled word puzzles on Facebook. The first word or two may be difficult but it becomes easier as you progress through the paragraph. As a result editing your own work is prone to error. You know what you meant to say and your mind “sees” that. When editing you should always leave it for awhile and then edit it. You’re more likely to find errors this way. Or change the medium, i.e. print it out. For best results, edit it and then have a couple others edit it. You’ll actually find your mistakes that they missed.

                    7. “Correct, but I have written transcripts. Present perfect tense. You don’t want to get into that minefield. It’s worse than that whole they’re, there and their thing.”

                      On the web, no one knows you’re a dog, and shitstains like trueman can lie with immunity.
                      Sophistry or lies; that’s what you get from trueman.

                4. As for spelling errors, I’ve read professional science journal articles with multiple spelling errors. As a person who had done multiple science publications, they go through multiple edits and mistakes are still made. I’ve also read multiple novels and non-fiction books, which are edited and proofread by multiple professionals, many who do have Ivy League degrees, which also contain errors.

                  1. Let me know if you catch any errors in my comments. I am usually careful about what I submit here.

                    1. Well your first error was that you think you can edit legal transcripts without also including the original.

                    2. Trump should have used the errors as a pretext to stall the release of the transcripts, saying they were still being reviewed or some such obfuscation. Lying is his strong suit, remember. Releasing this dubious document so quickly shows weakness and desperation.

                    3. Dubious, by whose definition? Weakness, yes for the Democrat’ls’ case. If he were an accomplished liar he wouldn’t get caught, right?
                      You’re not very good at this logic thing are you?

                    4. “Dubious, by whose definition?”

                      By the definition of originating from Trump’s office. He should have stalled. As soon as he released the document, they move to impeach. An easily avoidable error on the part of Trump. Is he still taking advice from Rudy? Another avoidable error.

    2. I’m not a fucking republican and it’s not the benefit of the doubt, it’s the understanding that after 2 years of investigation, I still haven’t seen anything he did that was wrong, and that altering the transcript of a call that probably 25 people had access to is just fucking impossible. The theories at this point are beyond any reason, and there’s actual fucking criticisms you could be making about Trump instead of this insane, retarded bullshit.

      1. The alternative for him is to admit Trump didn’t do anything wrong, and he’s too invested in Team Blue to ever admit that.

      2. The problem for them is that the actual criticisms you can make about him are just policy difference criticisms, and who’s going to accept overturning an election because the party that lost doesn’t agree with the winning party’s policies?

      3. Bravo. Thank you for being honest.

    3. You think you’re being facetious but you prove it with your own behavior. John fucking owned you.

    4. LOL at this remark coming from a liberaltarian dipshit who can’t rush fast enough to defend progressives from those mean right-wing attacks.

  21. not the eight times that had been reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources.

    Anonymous sources equals no sources.

    So what we have here is some person heard second or third hand the Trump made a promise to the President of Ukraine. Funny the “Promise” has not been mentioned a a few days now.
    Biden is a crook as is his son. He admitted doing what the Dims are so outraged at Trump for.

    This entire matter is a nothing burger…. Move on.

  22. Congress Should Not Be Satisfied With Ukraine Call Transcript, Given the Trump White House’s History of Fiddling With Records

    Aww, c’mon Reason when has Trump ever lied? Fuck you, Eric Boehm, if that is even your real name.

    1. Why don’t you tackle the actual points that people are making, you fucking faggot?

      1. I’m not Tony. You are an ugly bigot.

        1. Pay your mortgage.

          1. He won’t. Progtards don’t pay their debts.

    2. Except I showed Eric lied too.

      Does being wrong all the time make you sad Tony? It should.

      But not as much as you being a racist, and wanting to liquidate your enemies.

  23. Trump is obviously blackmailing the Ukraine president here, with 100s of millions of dollars of aid at stake. Only true Trump loyalists can’t hear the Mafia boss in this conversation. The president is not supposed to say “investigate my political opponent or we won’t be ‘very,very good’ to you any longer.

    Biden being corrupt too is besides the point. The Demos have to start an impeachment investigation or any of their constituents that can see the transparency of a thin “plausible deniability” defense for Trump will think they are spineless.

    1. Trump is obviously blackmailing the Ukraine president here, with 100s of millions of dollars of aid at stake. Only true Trump loyalists can’t hear the Mafia boss in this conversation. The president is not supposed to say “investigate my political opponent or we won’t be ‘very,very good’ to you any longer.

      Tell us more about the voice in your head. You know they have medicine for that now.

    2. >Only true Trump loyalists can’t hear the Mafia boss in this conversation.

      I don’t even like Trump, and you’re fucking delusional. Have you actually read the transcript? It’s only 5 pages, it’s a very quick read, and nobody with a functioning, honest brain could think that.

      1. Functioning, honest brains seem in short supply amongst the TDSers these days.

    3. That’s a lamentable (if comic) interpretation of the transcript.

    4. If he is blackmailing them why did he release the aid before the call occurred?

      1. He didn’t. I’ve been following it in real time here in Ukraine and the money wasn’t released until days after the call.

    5. Is this in the same vein as the “you can’t really understand racism if you’re white” line that the Dems love to use?

  24. “Given her history of wearing provocative clothing we should easily believe that this slut invited the rape.”

  25. “Republicans….became the party of Trump”

    I’m astounded that Reason would prefer Bush 41 or 43 to Trump – and, apparently, would prefer a President Pence.

    Trump is no libertarian but he has yet to start a bloody new war, despite his bellicose rhetoric. He’s even tried to bring about peace in Korea and Afghanistan over the objections of traditional republicans in his administration.

    And Trump got rid of the Obamacare mandate and signed national right-to-try legislation. NO OTHER REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT could or would have accomplished either. Thanks, Trump. Screw ‘Reason’.

    1. We got a Trump apologist over here! Everybody say it with me, FAKE LIBERTARIAN! FAKE LIBERTARIAN!

      Ignore the fact that every word out of my mouth was said by a DNC staffer 30 minutes ago on CNN. Only I know what a REAL libertarian is!

  26. Trump asks the Ukrainian president to “look into” business dealings that involved former Vice President Joe Biden’s son.

    Actually, he does no such thing. Having actually read the transcript, it only mentions Biden’s pressuring to fire the prosecutor as something to be ‘looked into’. The words business, company, employment, investigate, aid, money are never once mentioned by Trump. It is a shame reading comprehension is so poor in America, especially in the media.

    1. If Eric could read, he would have gotten a job that paid better and allowed him to keep some of his integrity.

      1. Eric’s aiming for a job at the Times. You don’t get hired there unless you’re willing to commit to some serious effort to “resistance” пропаганда.

    2. Well, uh, the transcript is probably fake anyways.

      1. I have a transcript of Eric Boehm telling the truth.

        It is most certainly a fake.

  27. “The Trump administration has lost the benefit of the doubt because it has relentlessly lied about so many less significant matters”

    You mean like when you claimed the market crashed?

    1. He means like Hurricane Dorian, and the NWS backs up his original assertion, that at the time, it was possible Alabama could be impacted. Considering that Hurricane Andrew, following a similar original pathway also impacted Alabama, the idea is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

      1. Exactly.

      2. Hurricanes change directions. I lived in the Lesser Antilles for 7 years. You live in dread when you see a monster storm coming across the Atlantic. NOAA keeps changing the course projections. I have no doubt that at some point, theRe was a projection that had the storm heading towards Alabama (though it may have only been for a single 3 hour period).

      3. I heard Hurricane Andrew was drawn towards fifteen year old communities.

  28. Here we go again! Yay! It’s like when Space Mountain has no lines! “You wanna ride again?”

    One more time…

    There’s lots of quid.
    No proof of quo.

    It’s the same thing with Biden and his creepy kid, btw.

      1. Little Biden’s employer was being investigated. Senior Biden threatened the Ukraine to get that investigation quashed.

        Did he do it to protect Little Biden from prosecution or merely to protect Little Biden’s paycheck?

        As if the difference matters…

        Either way it’s corruption.

  29. “Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.”

    Might be, but that’s not “reporting”

    1. The Trump era has not been kind to Reason.

      1. It could have been but reason staff are not interested in the same things that Libertarians are.

        1. Now that the left has embraced legalized meth, coke and bumsex, they probably can’t see a point in identifying as libertarians anymore.
          It’s not like free speech or personal liberty was ever a concern of the Suderman, Shika, Boehm crowd.

  30. Congrats you’ve convinced me. I’m going to register to vote, so I can help make certain Trump gets a second term.

    To put it bluntly, the hysteria and lies I’ve seen employed for the last 3 years had gotten to be too much. I cannot allow this sort of blatant craveness in the media and Democrat party to be rewarded by winning an election. If this prolonged hissy fit over what is essentially a Democrat is allowed to win or over turn an election, then this behavior will be the new normal treatment for anyone right of Stalin from here on out.

  31. Anyone who expected the transcript to be a smoking gun (and who expected the White House to toss the smoking gun into public view this easily) will be sorely disappointed.

    Speaking from experience…

    Eric, you sound completely unhinged. Even if everything said by the democrats and “anonymous source” is true, what’s the issue? Regardless of the reason behind Trump pushing the investigation, wouldn’t it be a good thing to find about more about the Biden’s behavior? Especially when that behavior reeks of corruption?

  32. The transcript is the smoking gun my God I just read it. Trump was obviously interfering in foreign affairs for personal political reasons, and I for one will not stand for it! Not one bit!

    1. interfering in foreign affairs for personal political reasons

      He is in charge of foreign affairs. He is President. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

        1. You can’t tell anymore. You really can’t. My bad.

          1. I’m kind of over all of them, they havent been good in a long time.

            1. They would be good, if reality wasn’t even crazier.

      1. Yeah, but he’s supposed to do it for America, not himself.

        This self-serving political move is the biggest constitutional threat I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.

    2. My parody alert never seems to work. I take everything literally, figuratively speaking.

  33. While the storm was annihilating parts of the Bahamas (there are still more than 1,000 people missing), the White House was engaged in a dayslong effort to prove that Trump’s errant tweet warning residents of Alabama about the storm—the state was not in any actual danger—was actually rooted in meteorologic reality.

    Poor Boehm. Nevermind that the media latched on to Trump’s inclusion of Alabama as a possible state to be affected by the Hurricane (Hurricane Andrew hit the same part of Florida and traveled in the Gulf of Mexico and then turned North to hit Alabama). Nevermind that NOAA Hurricane trajectories are ESTIMATES and the media never calls no longer correct trajectories “lies”. Nevermind that the Alabama National Guard and state services were preparing for the Hurricane to possibly come their way.

    Poor Boehm.

    1. Early models of Dorian, at the furthest extent of their prediction, did show the storm entering the Gulf, and then striking any of a couple of Gulf-bordering states, including Alabama. Most of the spaghetti models had it hitting the Panhandle of Florida.

      I was a bit worried about it, to be honest. A storm hitting the Gulf, when waters were around, no lie, 90 degrees, with little shear, and the storm could easily have blown up to Camille or Rita or Katrina size.

  34. The Trump administration lies. Members of the administration lie even when the truth is obvious and public.

    Poor Boehm. List those “lies” so we can rip your bullshit claims to shreds.

    1. Let’s start with “Market Crashes.”

      Oh wait.. that wasn’t Trump.

  35. From the transcript:

    “Trump: There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Eiden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

    I don’t see any threats of the U.S. withholding money if the Ukrainian president doesn’t cooperate.

    That’s the extent of it.

    Usually, it would be untoward for the president to initiate an investigation of the son of one of his potential rivals in an upcoming election; however, when Biden brags on camera that he shut down an investigation into his son–by refusing to give Ukraine billions of dollars if they don’t shut it down–then that becomes a legitimate issue–not just for the campaign but also for law enforcement.

    On the campaign side, I’d normally say it’s wrong to go after your opponent’s kids–if they’re all screwed up. On the other hand, if your opponent is saying that people should vote for him because he’s such an excellent father, then your opponent willingly opens up his record as a father for public debate. If one of his kids is in rehab and the other one is in jail, then that becomes fair game.

    How stupid would Trump be not to make Biden bragging about using the threat of cutting off money to the Ukraine if the Ukraine didn’t stop prosecuting his son a campaign issue at that point?

    1) If you don’t want Trump to drag your son’s involvement in a corrupt scheme into the campaign, then don’t go in front of the cameras in a public form and brag about shutting the prosecution down by withholding money from the Ukraine.

    2) If you don’t want Trump to bring up your son’s shady deals with shady characters in the Ukraine during the campaign, one way to avoid that is for your son not to involve himself in shady deals with shady characters in the Ukraine.

    From a law enforcement perspective, I remember at the beginning of Season 2 of Gold Rush on The Discovery Channel, OSHA suddenly showed up at Parker’s grandfather’s gold mine. Parker was so pissed off at the producers of the show. I remember he yelled something at them like, “we haven’t had a single safety inspection in 30 years, the inspectors suddenly show up–and you don’t think it has anything to do with the show?!” That first season was watched by millions of people, and more than one out of a million people work for OSHA.

    What is it about something happening on television that makes people imagine that because it’s on television, it isn’t illegal and law enforcement shouldn’t get involved?

    Especially when you consider the shabby way the FBI has treated Trump since before he was elected, I understand why Trump would take this matter into his own hands. My question isn’t about why Trump would ask the Ukrainians for help investigating the corruption that Joe Biden is bragging about having perpetrated on TV. My question is, Why didn’t the FBI start investigating Biden for perpetrating a crime the moment he bragged about perpetrating it–once Biden’s actions became common knowledge?

    1. The bottom line Ken is that Hunter Biden was selling his influence with his father and making hundreds of millions of dollars from China and Ukraine (the two countries whose US foreign policy Biden was in charge of as VP), Biden strong armed the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor looking into the corruption, and Eric and the rest of the Democratic media want us to believe that the problem is Trump allegedly telling Ukraine to re-open that investigation.

      That is gold plated crazy. Even I am amazed they think anyone is going to buy it. They have lost their minds.

      1. I linked to Biden confessing to this on camera in a public form in Morning Links.

        Why wasn’t the FBI investigating Joe Biden?

        Why wasn’t the FBI investigating Joe Biden?

        Why wasn’t the FBI investigating Joe Biden?

        If I were Trump, and the FBI had just put me and my son through the wringer for three years over far, far less, it would drive me nuts that Biden and his son were getting a free pass–despite the fact that Biden confessed on television!

        1. The FBI isn’t investigating Joe Biden because they were knee deep in the corruption of the Obama administration and there are many rocks they don’t want to turn over. Moreover, the FBI doesn’t investigate prominent Democrats. They will go after the odd House member or state or local politician but they never touch national level Democrats of the stature of Biden. It is never going to happen.

          1. Exactly.

            If I were Trump, I wouldn’t wait for the FBI to get around to investigating Biden bragging about being a corrupt asshole either!

            1. This idea that the FBI is some bastion of Democrats is one of the crazier beliefs you sad fuckers have had to swallow to keep your delusional beliefs afloat.

              1. As opposed to Trump supposedly obstructed an investigation into a crime he knew he didn’t do, while also turning over tons of paperwork and making his staff available for interviews and the chief investigator states he never felt the investigation was hindered. That this same President then went on and held up fund for a few days, then released then. A couple days later he then is supposedly supposed to have made a call to the President of the country who already received the funds in which he mentions an corruption investigation, among a number of other subjects. And this proves quid pro quo because, not sure. And we know this because an anonymous whistleblower, who didn’t actually hear the call, who is represented by a group that is paying people to leak on Trump, told the IG. The IG then looks into it and it is determined the case isn’t crucial enough to require notifying Congress under the requirements of the law. The IG also finds that the original whistleblower was motivated by political considerations and was reporting it to boost the campaign of a rival of the President. And we are supposed to believe the transcripts, official documents typed up by a non-political appointee, might be faked. Yeah this second one is so much more believable. You are so right there. SMH.

                1. The IG then looks into it and it is determined the case isn’t crucial enough to require notifying Congress under the requirements of the law. The IG also finds that the original whistleblower was motivated by political considerations and was reporting it to boost the campaign of a rival of the President. And we are supposed to believe the transcripts, official documents typed up by a non-political appointee, might be faked. Yeah this second one is so much more believable. You are so right there. SMH.

                  Trash. Vyshinsky would’ve been embarrassed to bring evidence like this to make his claims during the Moscow Trials.

                  1. Well, it’s pretty much Boehm’s argument. And Pods and Mtrueman and and GBH and LeavelibertarianTrumpalone, as much as he can make an arguemney

                    1. I wasn’t calling you trash. Just commenting on how poor the evidence is that the Democrats evidently feel merits an impeachment trial.

                      I mean, at least Clinton actually did lie under oath. It was a shitty case—helped in no small measure by the Draconian laws Clinton himself helped push through—and the whole harassment trial should have been dumped for laches, but he actually did commit perjury.

                      What crime is Trump supposed to have committed?

                    2. “”What crime is Trump supposed to have committed?””

                      Theft.

                      He stole Hillary’s dreams and Presidency when it was her turn.
                      HOW DARE HE!!

                    3. I never implied you did. I was taking a cheap shot at the multiple socks puppet usual suspects.

              2. Have you been asleep for the last three years?

                Has the fact that the FBI put a wiretap on the Trump campaign using a warrant they obtained with information they gleaned from Hillary Clinton’s opposition research campaign escaped you completely?

                Oh, and add this for good measure:

                “Collusion bombshell: DNC lawyers met with FBI on Russia allegations before surveillance warrant”

                —-The Hill

                https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc-lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before

                After the FBI spied on his campaign and bullshitted about it for years–leading to the brink of impeachment hearings–Trump would have to be an idiot to blindly trust them the FBI on a politically loaded investigation.

                1. “After the FBI spied on his campaign and bullshitted about it for years–leading to the brink of impeachment hearings–”

                  Isn’t spying on political campaigns normal practice? It was either the CIA or FBI that informed Johnson of Nixon’s supposed secret dealings with the South Vietnam government in 1968. I assume that this spying is not unusual, if not standard.

                  1. So using Government agents to spy on your opponents (and allied nation’s agents) is totes okay but asking about an investigation conducted by a nominally allied nation is the worst constitutional crisis evuh! Do I have this correct?

                    1. Keep in mind trueman’s level of stupidity or dishonesty:

                      mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                      “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                    2. “So using Government agents to spy on your opponents (and allied nation’s agents) is totes okay ”

                      Totes normal is what you should be calling it. They spy on all sorts of people. It’s their job. They spy on the house and senate too, if that makes you feel better. What on earth makes you think an exception should be made for Trump?

                    3. Normal corruption okay. But we need to get Trump for doing something everyone else does. (Obama used foreign intelligence to spy on Trump and three Senate Democrats threatened the Ukrainians this spring to force them to continue to investigate Trump). By your logic if everyone is doing it, and if Trump actually did do it, then there shouldn’t be a problem. Why should Biden be any different? To use your words.

                    4. “Why should Biden be any different? To use your words.”

                      Biden belongs to the same party that controls the house. They are the ones who decide on whether or not to proceed with an impeachment. It’s extremely simple, partisanship.

            2. Look at the troll sock pod won’t even admit we have evidence on how much and to which political party bureaucrats give political donations.

              1. Joe is not quite ready to have that massive speech destroying stroke just yet.

          2. Joe Biden is also a weak link to get Hillary and Obama on the criminal shit they pulled for years.

            Like a good jailhouse snitch, Biden, is a good target to flip on his co-conspirators.

          3. The FBI isn’t investigating Joe Biden because they were knee deep in the corruption of the Obama administration and there are many rocks they don’t want to turn over.

            This. “Tear up Texas,” ring any bells? The Potomac needs to be diverted through their headquarters building. God only knows what they’ve done that there haven’t even been whispers about.

            I was going to point out a few Democrat politicians the FBI has investigated, William Jefferson and his freezer full of cash, and more recently, a Bexar County constable—Democrat as the day is long—is getting rung up for corruption, but then I saw your caveat about low level politicians. I agree.

            1. It’s like their defense of Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal, because they threw in a few sacrificial proggie groups it just “prove” it wasn’t corrupt. Or YouTube banning a few random LGBTQ+ posters proves that YouTube isn’t going after conservatives.

            2. “”and his freezer full of cash””

              Someone took the term “hard cold cash” too literal.

    2. What is it about something happening on television that makes people imagine that because it’s on television, it isn’t illegal and law enforcement shouldn’t get involved?

      Well, to be fair (insert Letterkenny clip here), a lot of times illegal conduct on television is flatly ignored, if the right people are doing it. See, for example, David Gregory possessing an illegal rifle magazine in D.C., on nationwide television. Crickets.

      1. Or every time they illegally purchase guns to prove you can do it. Or even better attempt to buy guns illegally and get denied and are never prosecuted.

  36. It is that request—a sitting president asking a foreign leader to investigate a domestic political rival in advance of an election—that sits at the center of the latest round of impeachment speculation.

    1. Joe Biden cannot win Election 2020 to be President so by definition Biden is NOT Donald Trump’s rival.

    2. The implication is that this speculative behavior by Trump is illegal or “wrong” somehow. If it is illegal, I would want a citation for what criminal code. If it is “wrong” somehow, I would want an explanation how Trump doing it is wrong but Obama and his administration investigating Trump is “right”.

    1. Like I said above, especially when you consider the shabby way the FBI has treated Trump since before he was elected, Trump taking this matter into his own hands is perfectly understandable–even more so if Trump’s own son has been subjected to investigation by the FBI for less.

      The interesting question is why the FBI wasn’t investigating Biden for perpetrating a crime–despite Biden effectively confessing to having committed a crime on television? Is the FBI planning to run interference for the Democrats in 2020 like they did in 2016?

      1. “I’ve been around the block, I’ve known these guys a long time, they’re all assholes. With Trump they have to retire with their pensions. They don’t want to retire with their pensions, they want corporate board positions. They don’t want Trump. They want Clinton, with Clinton they get the corporate board positions”.
        From the Sy Hersh tapes 2016 speaking about the FBI, an easy search on YouTube pulls up the recorded version… I assume Biden=corporate board positions. They sure as hell don’t want a president Warren.

      2. Ken, you’re an idiot. The most dangerous sort of idiot because you’re good at communication which dresses up your stupidity.

        1. It isn’t “communication”.

          It’s called “fact and logic”.

          A girlfriend’s GFN brother one accused me of using “psychology” on him.

          No, it isn’t psychology. No, it isn’t “communication”.

          The things I wrote about Biden, the FBI, and Trump are true or false and rational or irrational–regardless of whether I’m an idiot.

          You can learn to be good at “communication”, too. Here’s Lesson 1:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

          Libertarians used to be famous for getting this stuff. That reason has a libertarian bias–so we don’t need to be afraid of it– used to be the essence of our gospel. Persuade people to be rational, and the rest will work itself out eventually!

          We can try to be fashionable instead, but then we just end up dealing with people who accuse us of “communication”, when what we really need is a society full of people who can think for themselves.

        2. He’s right, and you’re wrong. You’re so caught up in anti-establishment sentiment that you have become a tool for the establishment to use against the anti-establishment. You are, effectively, a run-of-the-mill Pelosi-style Democrat. You are wrong AGAIN, just like you and yours have been wrong, every single time, for the past two years. When will you open your fucking eyes?

        3. “The most dangerous sort of idiot because you’re good at communication which dresses up your stupidity.”

          You’re both stupid and transparent about it, so it’s easy to ignore your piles of shit.

        4. An idiot who is ‘good at communication.’

          Unpossible.

          Communication ability being an indicator of intelligence.

  37. Congress should conduct another 2 year investigation and conclude that nothing much happened and Trump is a douche.

    Of course their inability to investigate Hillary Clinton for hiring foreign actors to dig up dirt in Trump essentially invalidates this.

    Can democrats and republicans be any more corrupt in congress than they are today?

  38. Eric,,, The DNC called. They want you to “tone it down a little”.
    Thanks!

  39. What a fucking clown show this place has become

    1. It’s disappointing.

  40. You finally got Kavanaugh, oops ummm Trump.
    My prediction is that the Biden videos of extortion and corruption with a foreign leader, while simultaneously implicating Obama, go the way of the Sy Hersh tapes on the FBI in the 2016 election.

    1. Biden bragging videos

  41. Happy TDS Wednesday, everyone. Clearly, Reason has gone all in for Uncle Joe Biden in 2020.

    TL;DR version: the transcript was not a smoking gun so it must be fake. Oh, and let’s ignore Joe Biden bragging about shutting down an investigation into state corruption.

    1. To be fair to reason, Joe Biden is the only libertarian around.

  42. The TrumpInsert President Here administration has lost the benefit of the doubt because it has relentlessly lied about so many less significant matters, from weather maps to transcripts of press conferences.

  43. “If they match the transcript, then Congress will have done its due diligence without doing any additional harm to Trump or anyone else in his administration.”

    The prospective harm to Trump and his administration is irrelevant.
    It’s the harm done to the electorate by having us sit through Chapter 249 in the DNC’s parade of obvious nothingburger bullshit. God forbid these people legislate.

    1. The Democrats have passed shitloads of legislation and the Senate Republicans have failed to even debate or compromise on any of it. Let’s just agree you don’t want Democrats legislating and I don’t want Republicans legislating so spare us all this bullshit “God forbid they legislate”.

      1. And you should also realize that “we should be legislating” is one of the GOP talking points. That you believe it just shows how much of a puppet you are for these creeps. Where is your complaint about Moscow Mitch not legislating? If you were legitimately concerned about passing legislation that would the first tree you would bark at. But alas you’re just another brainwashed fool.

        1. They’ve passed plenty of legislation that they knew would never actually be enacted. It is all virtue signalling, which hardly qualifies as actually getting anything meaningful done.

          1. And no it wasn’t any better when the Republicans did it to Obama either.

      2. If only this new troll knew the difference between unconstitutional legislation and constitutional legislation.

        1. In other words “Why are Democrats wasting time investigating Trump when they could be passing Republican sponsored legislation”.

          1. Now you’re getting it, retard!

          2. Why should the Democrats waste my tax money, to continue unending investigations into something where the evidence doesn’t support investigations.

          3. Why are Democrats wasting time investigating Trump when they could be negotiating legislation with the Republicans.

            Fixed it for you. Bipartisan legislation is the way to get things passed.

          4. Hey idiot. Go ask how many house passed bills Reid left in his drawer.

        2. Trolls are always so desperate for you to respond to their nonsense.

          Any guesses on what new sock Pod will take next week?

          I say Hihn.0

          1. I don’t think it’s a Hihn sock. Stupid, but not posting ransom notes.

            1. Many, many geniuses have struggled to attain Your Level of Learning, and all but You have failed! If I get some dental implants, can I tag along with Your Campaign?

              As brilliant as You so clearly must be, I bet that it would be a trivial task for You to perfect the following codes:
              Instantiate VectrorSourceFile Quantum_Gravity Begin Polygon_Disambiguate [ Modulus ( QuadWord[15:0], Plasma[15:0], Nuclei[15:0] ), Function ( $B$97 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
              Invoke DisplayModule "You are being reported to the KGB for your insubordination.", end; end module ;

              If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, Al Gore Vidal Sassoon might give us some FREE samples of shampoo!!! Or maybe even REAL poo!!!

  44. My god. You guys are getting bad. Seriously. Even *I* think you all have TDS now.

    Oh, also – when’s the anti-Biden article coming? Or is your TDS so inflamed that you’re going to ignore the criminal activity that started all this kerfuffle?

    1. principles/principals…

  45. Are those calls taped? I suppose they would be, but in that case why have a bunch of transcribers on the call? Wouldn’t it be easier–and more accurate–to have one person type up the transcript from the tape?

    Not that it matters. If Trump does release a tape and it matches the transcript, the Democrats will just claim that the tape was doctored.

  46. Because Biden and his drug-addicted son are above reproach, Trump should be impeached for a Sharpie episode made worse by his call to Ukraine call wondering if they could check if Biden committed a crime.
    Hang the bastard, No one should be allowed to do that to a Sharpie

  47. So I just read the whole transcript and at no point did I see anything that could remotely be considered threatening. They where very friendly to each other the whole time. Trump made zero demands. Not a fucking one. No money was mentioned at any time.

    The media has grossly misrepresented this conversation.

    1. This little bit of transcript isn’t even close to the whole picture. These crooks in the WH released it because it is the best side of an ugly look they have which makes me believe they are hiding the worst of it.

      1. So, you plan to withhold judgement until someone produces a transcript of a telephone conversation that never occurred?

        Does the term “confirmation bias” mean anything to you?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

      2. And I’m sure the evidence for this 100% bullshit claim will be forthcoming. Do you honestly think anyone will fall for your shit anymore? You’ve been making this same claim for two years now and I haven’t seen a single thing Trump did that is wrong, let alone illegal.

      3. “”This little bit of transcript isn’t even close to the whole picture. “‘

        You say without proof.

      4. “”the best side of an ugly look they have which makes me believe they are hiding the worst of it.””

        Also, nothing in the transcripts even hint to the possible existence of an ugly side.

      5. Pod
        September.25.2019 at 2:25 pm
        “This little bit of transcript isn’t even close to the whole picture….”

        Translated from brain-dead proggy:
        “This doesn’t prove what the voices in my head say, so it can’t be true!”

  48. Was it not multiple calls?

    You’re right Eric- don’t fall for the bs. He knows he’s guilty of this just as well as all the other crap. Gonna be an eventful lead up to Nov 2020.

    1. My understanding is that the whistle blower was blowing the whistle about this call.

      If you have a link to a source saying that there was more than one call, I’d love to see it.

      Otherwise, you’re a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that may not even be there. Call us when you’ve found it.

    2. Look, we can all disagree about if Trump committed a crime, but can’t we all agree he is guilty of it?

      This seems to be the position among the Orange Man Bad crowd.

    3. If Trump wins again, will you, Pod, and grb agree to commit mass suicide together?

    4. “You’re right Eric- don’t fall for the bs. He knows he’s guilty of this just as well as all the other crap. Gonna be an eventful lead up to Nov 2020.”

      He is absolutely guilty!
      Of making lefty fucking ignoramuses get their pants in a wad.
      Fuck off and die where you won’t stink up the place.

  49. Trump sure does have a long history of lying every time he opens his mouth. That’s because he’s a bad liar. I mean, come on, his dead weasel hair and his fake tan are both laughably terrible lies. But if you find a politician without a long history of lying, it doesn’t mean he’s not a liar, it just means he’s a skillful liar. Most every politician in Washington is no more honest than Trump, they’re just better liars.

    But what interests me is that the transcript of the phone call is privileged information, it’s automatically classified. Less than 24 hours after Trump orders the transcript to be released, it magically gets declassified and released. How long ago did Trump order documents regarding the Russia probe and the FISA warrant underlying the Russia investigation to be declassified? How long ago did he announce that Bill Barr was being given authority to declassify and release these documents? And how many of these documents have we actually seen?

    How is it that the White House can get shit done in a matter of hours that the DoJ can’t get done in months? If I were cynical, I might be suspicious that the DoJ simply doesn’t want to get to the bottom of this particular cesspit and they’re slow-walking the investigation until sometime after Trump leaves office and they can just memory hole the whole thing. But Lord knows the DoJ certainly doesn’t have a long history of lying like Donald Trump.

    1. There are potentially sources and methods that might be revealed and/or harmed if the FISA material was wholesale declassified without redaction. But it’s a weak argument, compared to your very likely to be true observation that DoJ is just running out the clock until Trump is gone.

    2. I believe it was John who was speculating above that Trump’s legal team may have been holding this in their back pocket–ever since the whistle blower story broke.

      Just because most of us weren’t paying attention to the whistle blower story a week ago doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening. Sometimes things start happening before we start paying attention to them.

      1. I truly think Trump held back on them until Pelosi gave him his wish, a full swan dive into the deep end.

      2. Might have been me. I was half joking in the comments to a previous article that Trump could have orchestrated this. But, if the Democrats do begin to wonder about the genesis of this controversy
        leading to release of the transcript then they also need to wonder what other kinds of landmines the Trump team might have planted and whether any other topics that crop up actually need scrutiny or are just another hidden rake for them to step on.

        1. I’d wondered if the “whistleblower” here was caught in a canary trap, and Trump wasn’t worried because he knew no version of the story that had been shopped around was actually true, it having been just bait to catch leakers from the start.

    3. Those other documents were in the posession of DOJ or the Intelligence Community. Trump ordered them declassified but the bureaucrats in those agencies just slow rolled his request. What is Trump going to do about it? Come down and get the documents themselves?

      This transcript was in the possession of the White House. And the people who work at the White House are close enough to Trump they actually followed his orders and released it.

      That is all that is going on here. You have to understand how the government works and how little actual control over the executive the President, whomever he is, actually has.

  50. Even if everything Democrats fantasize about what happened in that phone call happened, I still fail to see how it is bad.

    Reason and the Democrats are worse than the birthers.

    1. The birthers are a good analogy. Claiming this transcript is faked is the same level of crazy that claiming the birth certificate Obama released was forged. The only difference is that the birth certificate did shut up at least a few birthers. None of these dumb asses seem able to see reality as it is. So as a group they may be worse than the birthers.

      1. It was perfectly legitimate to ask for proof of qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

        Obama had an American mother and Kenyan father and he had varying stories of citizenship and residency throughout his life. Obama thought it was funny to withhold his US Birth Certificate, so it pissed people off.

        Obama finally showed it and there is no credible evidence that it is fake, so he was qualified to be President.

        1. So, yes, reason and Democrats are worse than Birthers.

        2. Yes it was. But once Obama released the birth certificate, that should have been the end of it. Just like releasing this transcript should have been the end of this.

          1. Now Congress is going to want the person that made the transcript to testify. Only for the person to keep referring to the transcript when questioned.

        3. Obama did a masterful job of provoking the opposition. Obama was, without any doubt, born in Hawaii. No doubt there are people who can testify that they saw him and his mother shortly after his birth. International travel was not easy in 1961. No way a pregnant woman near term could travel from Hawaii to Kenya.

  51. Hope you bought that shark dinner before you jumped it.

  52. Jesus Christ, it’s like hearing two mob bosses talk. As a control I read a transcript of a conversation between Obama and the leader of Poland back in2015. What a fucking snoozer! But not this one… this one is good.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

    1. Real mob bosses, or the ones you see on TV?

      1. The ones on TV. Trump is teeVee President anyway so it’s appropriate.

    2. Only a truly delusional buffoon, or a lying Democrat, could possibly read it that way. Which are you?

      1. Embrace the power of “and”. This is Tony’s rage sock btw. He wanted to do a OBL-style parody account but he can’t maintain character.

  53. When Boehm’s not making up a narrative about US steel industry collapsing due to tariffs, he apparently spends his free time regurgitating Democrat talking points about Trump.

    1. reason needs web traffic NOW, dammit!

      reason doesn’t have time to pick a topic and properly research it and verify its factual reliability.

    2. You know what is ironic? If you scroll down from the comments one of the recommended stories is about that baseless Kavanaugh accusation from last week.

      Trump has turned Reason into a rabble of gullible chumps who have no critical thinking skills. They’ll believe anything as long as it makes the Orange Man look bad.

    3. Boehm may not be expensive, but I assure you that none of this is being done on “free” time.

      No free man would flush his credibility in this manner.

  54. Well, at least we still have impartial trustworthy sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post to read.

  55. The Pre·sident: “Good because 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. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to

    call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just wanted to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me. “

    1. This shit is gold!

      Trump is finally getting around to having government go after Lefty crooks. Hillary, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Pelosi… are scared shitless that they will be next to have their crimes exposed for the public to see.

  56. I’m married to a hot blonde women who is a yogi and an accomplished defense attorney that I met at a rave while I was high {bows, thank you, thank you so much!} so in that time I think i’ve Come to understand the profession of being a defense attorney. And I would say that upon reading the transcripts of Dump’s conversation and if I were his lawyer I would have been saying “shut the fuck up, asshole… just shut the fuck up!”

    But then I think: there’s no way in hell these GOP suckups are going to kick him out of office for anything. Why should they lift a finger? They’ve got their cushy jobs.Why would they do anything to change the situation when they’ve got it so good? And then I realize an important thing for all these fucking Trumpian fangirls here… he’s going to be ok, ok? Daddy is going to be alright, fan girls. You’ll still get to drool and fuck your dildos to the posters you have of him on the wall… nothing is going to change that.

    1. You’re just full of shit.

      1. No, I am full of shit. And I am getting a colonoscopy next week.

    2. You are likely not married to anyone much less to anyone hot. But if you are, she is no doubt fucking other guys every chance she gets.

  57. No libertarians commenting on Reason. Lots of Russians though.

    1. Woof, the proglydyte sockpuppets are out in force today!

      1. They really are. And the talking points get more and more deranged. Joe from Lowell sounded like a measured reasonable person compared to these clowns. The Progs have completely lost their minds.

        1. Did the progs whine about Hillary Clinton’s yoga routine in a press conference with a foreign head of state today?

          Oh no, that was the president of the United States you support unquestioningly.

          1. Thanks for proving my point Tony. Never let me say you have never done anything for me.

            1. Was your point that the president whose balls you gargle at every possible opportunity is in the middle stages of dementia? Because that was my point.

              1. Can you make a point without resorting to peurile oral sex references?

                1. You’d have to get him to post when he’s not falling-down drunk; figure 7AM.

                2. Can we have a president who didn’t extramaritally fuck a porn star during Shark Week?

          2. Nobody here supports him unquestioningly, we just don’t buy any shit sandwich the Democrats try to sell, either. They have been wrong, every single day, for the past two years.

    2. What’s libertarian about endlessly investigating someone, for years, after finding absolutely no wrongdoing over and over again? What’s libertarian about defending a bunch of deep state stooges every time they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, then deflecting to something Trump did that isn’t even bad? What’s libertarian about attempting to indict someone on misinterpretations and legal technicalities, rather than on something that is actually morally wrong?

      Can any so-called libertarian explain to me what is morally wrong with Trump working with ANYONE, including Russians or Ukrainians, to get dirt on someone dirty, or to investigate corruption? It literally boggles my mind, that now I’m some asshole Trumptard, just because I don’t bite on every single bullshit hook that the Democrats throw out, when they’ve been shown to be full of shit on every level for the past two years at the MINIMUM.

      Whether you know it or not, all you are now is a tool for the Democrats. You aren’t defending liberty at all to follow every single signal the DNC routes through CNN, like a trained puppy. Sometimes Fox news is just fucking right. Stop being so incredulous about it, calling us fake-libertarian Russians because we disagree with you. It’s arrogant.

      1. “What’s libertarian about endlessly investigating someone, for years, after finding absolutely no wrongdoing over and over again?”

        The Clintons would like to have a word.

        1. Bill Clinton lied under oath, so there’s that.

          Hillary Clinton failed to take the threat on the embassy seriously. She was rebuked for not being proactive, but wasn’t found criminally liable. Later on she stored classified info on her own private server.

          Oh – and a picture of Bill Clinton in a dress was found in Epstein’s home.

          1. Painting, not photo. Some artist’s idea of irony, I guess, it was the same blue dress as he’d failed to obtain and destroy.

          2. Comey found wrongdoing with Hillary and her handling of classified emails. But then said they could not determine criminal intent. Comey also noted in his statement that the outcome would be different for other people.

            Which of the 26 times Clinton was with Epstein when the photo was taken?

        2. The FBI explained that the only reason Hillary Clinton got off on the email thing was her intent: she was too stupid to know what she was doing was wrong.

          Unless you want the FBI to assume she’s stupid out of the gate… yep: there’s going to be an investigation.

          However, any sympathy democrats would have on that one was burned away by the last 3 years.

          1. What have Democrats done?

            1. Accuse Trump of being “Putin’s puppet”, and then accusing Trump for giving hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to a president who regards Putin literally “as an enemy.”

              That level of cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

              1. You mean threatening to withhold it unless said president gave him dirt on his political opponent.

                There’s still time to back away, you know.

                1. True, but it looks like the Democrats full speed ahead. I don’t think they’ll stop before they lose seats in the house, along with 2020.

      2. Bingo, Bongo.

        I may not be a Trump fan, but don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

      3. Can any so-called libertarian explain to me what is morally wrong with Trump working with ANYONE, including Russians or Ukrainians, to get dirt on someone dirty, or to investigate corruption?

        Good heavens. Do you not even realize that you are just casually accepting Trump’s premises as if they were the truth?

        Trump didn’t discuss fighting corruption generally. He discussed two specific topics: the “Crowdstrike server”, evidently related to the DNC hacks in 2016, and investigating the Bidens specifically.

        He didn’t say “I want you to do me a favor and crack down on corruption”. He said “I want you to do me a favor and investigate the Bidens.” A little different, don’t you think?

        1. He actually didn’t say do me a favor in regards to Biden it was in regards to helping the investigation into the hacking of Clinton’s computers, which Congress is also investigating.

        2. No, I don’t think it’s different at all. Those are both incredibly valid things to investigate, and it doesn’t bother me at all that he asked about them, just because you can make the argument that it will help him get elected. Who cares? I still DO want to know what the fuck is going on with Crowdstrike and the server, I don’t care if it seems partisan, TO a partisan.

        3. It’s YOUR PREMISE. The left’s premise is he was trying to get dirt on Biden. SO WHAT? WHY SHOULDN’T HE? WHAT IS IMMORAL ABOUT THAT?

  58. “Congress Should Not Be Satisfied With Ukraine Call Transcript, Given the Trump White House’s History of Fiddling With Records”

    Why not?

    They were satisfied with “I don’t have a secret basement server I used to send classified information in emails. Oh, that secret server, but I didn’t send classified information, and you can check the server to see. Well, we accidentally had that server scrubbed, so you’ll have to take my word for it that we didn’t use it for classified information. You say that copies of emails containing classified information that were sent from my secret server have been found on other folks’ computers? Oops.”

    1. “Oops, I had no way to know they were classified”

      “Oops, I didn’t pay attention when they taught me the marks designating classified material”

      “Oops, I didn’t mean it when I signed off on the document acknowledging that I had been informed about designations of classification.”

      etc.

      1. So, qualified immunity.

  59. I love this place. Whatever you assert is true.

    Trump has done nothing wrong, ever.

    I have a billion dollars hidden in my dressing room. How fun will it be to find that!

    1. You are hopelessly retarded, Tony.

      1. Whatever you assert is true.

  60. WSJ’s Kim Strassel adds some important context:

    the IG back in August referred this to DOJ as potential violation of campaign finance law, based on whistleblower complaint. Criminal Division evaluated and determined no violation: “All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion.”

    Whistleblower? Look at this nugget, referenced in the OLC opinion. The IG’s review found “some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

    1. Then there is this
      http://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/09/25/no-biggie-dem-senators-biden-threatened-ukraine-funding-trump-investigation/

      Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

      So two Democrats did exactly what the Democrats are claiming Trump did in order to get Ukraine to investigate Trump. But somehow that is okay but Trump asking the Ukraine to look into Biden is the worst thing ever because REASONS.

      1. More things that “real” journalists won’t reveal in their stories.

        1. I too am having fun. This place is like a fun zoo where the chimpanzee REd team flings shit at themselves.

          1. It’s easy to keep the less intelligent and mentally immature entertained.

        2. I know, right?
          How dare the “real journalists” not play along with Trump’s whataboutism deflection strategy.

          1. If I had to choose between accusations of whataboutism, or of being a mendacious partisan hypocrite, I choose whataboutism.

            To John and Ray’s credit: their heads aren’t exploding at the “constitutional crisis”, and they’re not consulting the AG to see how quickly they can get said democrat politicians in jail.

            Other people are doing that (ie, mendacious partisan hypocrites).

            1. If I had to choose between accusations of whataboutism, or of being a mendacious partisan hypocrite,

              You do realize that there are other options available to you.

              1. So you’re saying one can point out mendacious partisan hypocrite cunts without engaging in whatsboutism?

                1. You don’t have to endorse either one.

                  1. But they are mendacious hypocrite cunts.

          2. It’s not Whataboutism to show that the exact people who want to impeach Trump actually did what they are accusing him of. If I was charged with marijuana possession (and didn’t bother to get a fake note from my doctor first) and I knew the DA prosecuting me was also toking it up, why should I not point that out?

            1. It’s not Whataboutism to show that the exact people who want to impeach Trump actually did what they are accusing him of.

              Actually, yeah it kinda is.

              1. I think you misunderstand the point here.

                You could say “Trump is a bad man.”

                And I could say “You’re a hypocrite asshat.”

                And then you could say, “That whatsboutism doesn’t make Trump a good person.”

                And I could say, “Correct, and you’re still an asshat.”

                See how that works?

                1. Oh. So you’d rather call people names instead of discuss the basis of claims. Is that your point?

                  1. It is called an analogy.

                  2. Sure, let’s talk about the basis of claims.

                    It looks like prominent democrats were totally comfortable accusing the president of treasonous conspiracy before the Mueller investigation was even over, which is a basis of rumors and innuendo, and is now willing to impeach the president with no more basis than rumors of an alleged anonymous whistleblower.

                    That comes across much less like a pursuit of truth on a basis of fact, and more like a vendetta.

              2. No it is demonstrating hypocrisy and it actually is a fairly common defense tactic. If Trump actually did threaten the Ukrainians, he was wrong to do so. But the Democrats can hardly call him on that when they’ve recently done the same thing. If they impeach him and not at least censure the mentioned senators (they can actually vote to eject them) then it demonstrates they are unprincipled and only impeaching for partisan gains. See how that works.

      2. Oh look, John posts a whataboutism— and a laugh inducing awkward one at that. John, you might be able to get a girlfriend if you’d pull Trump’s arse off your face. There’s not enough room, man!

        1. Just a complete lack of talent

          1. Your erudition is profound and Deep! The wisdom we have all been looking for, is here now among us! If I wear something nice, to include a pearl necklace, could I be excused from dodge-ball in gym class?

            Striking out all insignificant terms of the equation, Your Genius is obvious! So, I bet that You could help me debug the following source codes:
            Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Lamarckianist_Epigenetics Begin {( Pupate Infinite_Time posedge_CLK<= 6.02 ^ 10 x 23d ) || ( Infinity_&_Beyond_negedge_CLK[23:0] ) && ( arachnoids[23:0] || Orange_Man_Bad[23:0] ) }
            DisplayModuleCall "WARNING! Don't stick it in crazy!", end; end module ;

            Master-Coder, PLEASE help me! If we can debug this code, Al Gore Vidal Sassoon might give us some FREE samples of shampoo!!! Or maybe even REAL poo!!!

            1. All that reads:
              “Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit”
              See how easy it is?

        2. See my above response to your possible sock (it’s hard to tell because everyone of yours talking points are so similar, including the juvenile as hominems).

  61. Trump has done plenty of other extra-constitutional, improper and even untoward things, but I really don’t see the problem with every American finally realizing Hunter Biden is both a crackhead and an inarticulate douchebag. Have Democrats suddenly decided to stop talking about income disparity over this?

    1. And just like that, people stopped talking about what might be the biggest pedophile ring in history.

      1. Careful, a Clinton runs for office and talk like that might earn you a botched robbery for treason.

        1. While at the rate Hillary and Bill are going, it would have to be Chelsea we need to worry about. Is she as ruthless as her parents?

          1. Well, she does work in investment banking!

  62. “Congress Should Not Be Satisfied With Ukraine Call Transcript, Given the Trump White House’s History of Fiddling With Records.

    Sure thing.
    Just as soon as Biden gives up his transcripts in dealing with the Ukrainians.
    Until that happens, Trump should tell the democrats to fuck themselves.

  63. Dear Right-wingers:

    Since you are incapable of making one honest argument I thought i’d Give you an example— from a right-winger.

    I’m honestly puzzled that Trump’s defenders online are claiming any kind of vindication over the contents of this transcript. It admits one profound abuse of power, and it implies another, even worse, violation of the public trust.

    See how he does that?

    1. Case closed.

    2. You march out a token “conservative” like a Klansman marching out his token black friend.

  64. Sometimes I think Team Red and Team Blue really are living on different planets. It is absurd. No one can even agree on what the scandal supposedly is.

    1. Perhaps.
      But there many of us not on either team but get accredited to the opposite team when we point out something a team does not like.

      1. I know, right?

        There is nothing partisan nor inconsistent with pointing out:

        1. Biden may have done something corrupt with how he handled Ukraine aid money in trying to get the prosecutor fired
        2. Trump may have done something corrupt with how HE handled Ukraine aid money in trying to get Biden investigated
        3. Neither one should necessarily be taken at face value

        But point this out and poof the knives come out.

        1. No, knives have come out because what Trump was accused of once again is supported by the available evidence. But this time Pelosi has decided to double down and let it all ride on 43.

          1. Or to stick with my pinochle analogy above, she had decided to sweep/shoot the moon with five trump out against her and one 9 with a line ace in the same suit. It might work, but the odds aren’t great.

  65. Paddypower, the bookies that lost money betting against The Don, are offering even money on this hullaballoo. So I guess folks are betting both ways and canceling out. But if the Dems really wanted to get rid of the guy, the ticket would be to remove global warming, climate communism, carbon tax, ban electricity and taxes to buy votes with. I’d never vote for either looter party, but the Dem tax & energy planks can’t help but alienate everyone older than 12.

  66. Great news! OJ has vowed to help the Democrats find the real transcript!

  67. A political party uses their majority to launch investigations and impeachment inquiries without even looking at and evidence, but hey, it’s Donald Trump.

    Ross Ulbricht received a life sentence based on a false testimony of agents. The Russian probe was based on a phony dossier assembled by foreign interests. If the crooked reporters who covered BK actually succeeded in pressuring the witnesses to lie, his life may have been ruined. Ulbricht unfortunately didn’t have the spirited backing of the GOP and the Trump loyalists, so his life is ruined. But the source of injustice remains the same.

    Does anyone realize that when Trump fired Comey, the Russian probe continued, whereas when Biden fired Shokin, the investigation on his son or the company effectively ended? “But Shokin was crooked!” But the Atticus Finch who replaced him apparently didn’t go forth with the investigation. Shokin was about to question Biden’s son when he was let go.

    Biden literally walked up he Ukranians and “I leave in 6 hours and if the prosecutor isn’t fired in that time, you don’t get the money”. The Ukranians say he pressured them as early as 2015.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

    Oh but Donald Trump, he asked the Ukranians to look into a previous investigation, and that’s like Trump asking the North Koreans to dig up sex tape of Biden on his behalf. Biden’s son is navy dropout with no experience in energy, but he got top dollar as an energy consultant while his dad was involved in foreign policy. Oh but Donald Trump and his hurricane map. Someone stop that lady from crossing the street, Donald Trump may push her onto oncoming traffic! Oh god help me, don’t let Donald Trump get in the bus with me! My dog is sick, and I think Donald Trump poisoned her!

    What the heck happened to this place? “Hey guys look, that guy looks suspicious and acts guilty, what’s up with that” Ok, let’s send the cops to anyone who sort of appears to be shifty and refer the case to the DA. Libertarian moment is here!

    1. “Hey guys look, that guy looks suspicious and acts guilty, what’s up with that”

      Serious question: Do you think the standard should be the same for those who wield considerable power, compared to those who don’t?

      OF COURSE no one here would defend the cops hassling some ordinary innocent person who just ‘looked suspicious’.

      But what if it’s the Vice President using his authority to demand that a foreign prosecutor be fired, which just might end up benefitting his son? Should that person be hassled by the cops at least a little bit?

      And what if it’s the President who is playing games with delaying Ukrainian aid money and asking the Ukrainian PM explicitly about investigating the Bidens. Should that person be hassled by the cops at least a little bit?

      Of course all people should be regarded as formally innocent in a court of law unless proven guilty, as a matter of law. But this isn’t a court of law we’re talking about either, here.

      Those who hold offices of power and public trust should be held to a higher standard. It’s not enough to claim “I was never proven guilty” – those who hold these offices have an obligation to demonstrate that they are worthy of the trust of the offices that they hold, and crossing the very low bar of “not convicted in court” isn’t enough. So yes I am absolutely fine with the ‘cops’ hassling people in public offices who “look suspicious”, at least to some extent, provided no one’s rights are formally violated.

      1. I would hope whatever standard there is, it’s a consistent one.

        Or else, let’s stop pretending we have standards.

        1. What standard do you follow Brian. You and I have been together for a long time where you bitched and moaned for six decades about Benghazi and the fact that Obama let a F-16 drop a couple of bombs on Libya. And now Trump commits an obvious abuse of power and you’re left crying about whether you’re a hypocrite or a partisan hack. I dunno… I think you’re both, maybe.

          1. “And now Trump commits an obvious abuse of power…”

            Lie.

            1. Astonishing Wisdom from the Beyond the Beyond! Behold, mere mortals! If it’s not asking too much, can I sing You a Song of Praise?

              In a data-driven manner, entomologically speaking, can You please review the following source codes:
              ThemNotUsBad WeBeGood Begin Begin-Beggin’ [Honest-Babe-I-Luve-Ya(Willya-B-Mine 4 ^ Ever) If-else-I (Meet Sum 1 Bettah) || (her tits R bigger)] || [I ken doo bettah] end-Beggin’
              Invoke DisplayModule “We know what you’re up to! Stop slandering Putin!”, end; end module ;

              Now if You will only PLEASE help me get this code to compile, Putin and The Donald will STOP making out so grossly, right before our very eyes!

            1. Are you serious?

              1. The fact that you made multiple errors in your statement then made a declarative statement about this being a blatant abuse of power, yet when asked for a reference you resort to serious makes it appear that you aren’t capable of actually debating. Instead you insist everyone accept your interpretation or you will insult them.

              2. Like I keep telling the Rev, this style isn’t likely to convince more people to believe you, but it is likely to make people believe you less.

                1. Meh… i’ll Pass.

              3. Not really.

                Despite the decades here and all, you can’t find links to any of that.

      2. Cops shouldn’t hassle anyone unless they have a warrant. The courts shouldn’t bother you if you haven’t been charged with a crime.

        In other words – If you acted in a way that appears unethical, cops and courts can’t hassle you on that alone. Just like cops can’t arrest a black person for hanging around a drug ridden neighborhood.

        “So yes I am absolutely fine with the ‘cops’ hassling people in public offices who “look suspicious”, at least to some extent, provided no one’s rights are formally violated.”

        You just described a violation of someone’s rights. And the constitution doesn’t hold people of power to different standards.

  68. I’d be curious if any lefty here could give other examples of foreign aid being appropriately withheld because of a prosecutor?

    1. My speculation is that the prosecutor may have been trying to extort a kick back from little Biden, and big Biden stepped in.

      1. Your speculation is neither wanted, nor believed.

        1. You lose! I tricked you into reading something that you didn’t want to read.

          1. You lose. I already expect to read nonsense when I come here. So there’s nothing here I don’t want to read.

            Except for some of the actual articles.

            1. Well, if you ever find yourself wanting to read my unwanted speculations, you have my blessing.

    2. Little Jeffy doesn’t answer this question, even though 90% of his shit in this thread is dependent on it.

      1. You asked for the opinion of a lefty, not my opinion.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist
          September.25.2019 at 9:40 pm
          “You asked for the opinion of a lefty, not my opinion.”

          OK, how about the opinion of a fucking idiot? You’ve got that covered.

          1. Ooo sick burn!
            Tell us, what attracted you to libertarianism? Was it the misanthropy or the loneliness?

  69. “More on the transcript in a moment. First, let’s” impeach!

  70. When did Zelenskiy become the president of Ukraine? What was his political experience and campaign platform? What campaign promises allowed a new generation of PM’s to sweep through the Ukrainian parliment this year?

  71. Very detailed timeline on “Ukraine-gate”. Very handy.

    https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

    1. So Trump ordered the money be reviewed before the conversation and never mentions the money in the conversation. The Ukrainians denied there was ever a quid pro quo. The transcripts back this up.
      I do admit if this timeline is correct (and Ihave no reason to doubt it) I was mistaken in my impression the money was released before the call. But instead was released two months after the conversation, after the DoD finished it’s assessment. Okay and the smoking gun is what?

      1. Early July: Trump delays appropriated money.
        July 25: Trump has a phone call where he says “I have a couple of favors to ask of you. Oh and by the way would you mind meeting with my personal lawyer Giuliani.”
        Late July/Early August: Giuliani meets with Ukrainian officials.
        Sept. 11: Trump releases the money.

        Hmm.

        Go ahead, tell me that that sounds completely innocent to you.

        1. I admitted I made a mistake. You see how that works, I receive new information and actually admit I was wrong. You should try it.

          1. Good for you. I too admit when I am wrong. See below.
            Would you agree that this timeline paints a less than ideal picture of Trump’s interactions with Zeleznyy?

        2. You see I believe in this concept called innocent until proven guilty and reject the idea of condemning people based upon purely circumstantial evidence especially when there is exculpatory evidence, e.g. the president of the Ukraine saying he was never pressured and there was never a quid pro quo. And the transcripts at least provide some evidence to support this.

          1. That’s nice. I believe people in positions of power and public trust should be held to a higher standard than a mere legal standard of “not convicted of a crime”. The legal standard should apply only in the courtroom; the higher standard should apply at all other times.
            I don’t believe people in positions of power and public trust should, in general, receive the benefit of the doubt. I believe the burden of proof should be upon them to prove to us, their *masters* and *employers*, why they deserve the power and trust they believe we should place in their hands. I believe this should apply just as much to Obama and Biden, as it does to Kavanaugh and Trump.

            So I’m not in favor of “condemning” Trump, but I’m not going to pretend he’s an innocent snowflake either. He should have to explain EXACTLY what he thought he was doing with the phone call and with messing around with the Ukrainian money, along with Giuliani and Barr, and preferably in coherent sentences. Under oath too, that would be nice.

            1. “I believe people in positions of power and public trust should be held to a higher standard than a mere legal standard of “not convicted of a crime”.

              This makes no sense whatsoever, and is the essentially the basis of the Metoo and intersectionality movement. T

              Why should rich people or politicians be held to a different standard or given less benefit of the doubt? If a woman spins a BS accusation on a millionaire and the immigrant garbage man, we should give the former case more weight? Because we have to assume that rich guy may have used his wealth to influence opinion or squelch witnesses?

              It’s fine to be wary of the establishment and their intentions. If Trump says “I cut spending” you can obviously chortle. When he or their politicians have been accused of a crime, then you shape your opinion based on facts.

        3. Quid pro quos don’t occur if the other side isn’t in on it.

          “Do what I say or you don’t get the money” is a quid pro quo. It’s what Biden did.

          “Would you mind doing me a favor” when the other side isn’t aware the money hasn’t been delayed based on some precondition isn’t a quid pro quo.

          Trump says he withheld the money because he wanted other nations to chip in. You may find out unconvincing, with some good reason, but Trump has been bitching about NATO, UN, and other entities not paying their fair share into defense and other concerns.

          Reality check – when Trump fired Comey, the Russian investigation continued. When Biden fired Shokin by threatening to withhold money, the investigation into his son was dropped entirely, at least temporarily.

          1. Trump says he withheld the money because he wanted other nations to chip in.

            So you take Trump face value at his word. Huh.

    2. “Very detailed timeline on “Ukraine-gate”. Very handy.”

      Not very handy. Shows nothing of interest.

      1. And that’s just you being a bitchy old man.

        It actually is a very detailed, very good summary of current events. But because I post the link, you feel the need to trash it.

        Maybe if I posted a link to the Bible, you’d trash that too.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist
          September.25.2019 at 9:25 pm
          “And that’s just you being a bitchy old man.”

          An honest one responding to loser fucking lefty ignoramuses, with absolutely nothing, again hoping ‘the walls are closing in’ this time.
          You lost, loser. Grow up and at least try to act like an adult. Perhaps you parents can help.

          1. So why don’t you tell me what you specifically didn’t like about the timeline that I posted.

    3. How about another example of foreign aid being withheld because of a prosecutor?

      1. I don’t know. I’m not the encyclopedia of foreign aid. Go ask Google.

        1. You’re not even trying anymore Tony.

          1. You must have me confused for someone else.

            1. Well, considering this entire flap is about rather Biden did exactly that, it would probably be a good idea to have some idea about it.

              1. I thought this flap was about Trump allegedly pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.

                1. “I thought this flap was about Trump allegedly pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.”

                  Yes, you hoped no one would notice the effort.

  72. The pure mendacious partisan bitching about Donald Trump, masquerading as “concerned patriots” is absolutely ridiculous. It’s pitiful to watch.

    If the idea of a foreign influence affecting the election shakes you to the core, could you at least pretend you want to wait for an investigation to be over so you can know that’s actually happened before you go around accusing your political opponents of treason and fantasizing about jail time? After all, we’re idealistic dreamers, aren’t we?

    If your head is going to explode at the “constitutional crisis” of a president asking a foreign leader to look into a political opponent, could you at least pretend you want to see an actual transcript, or confirmation from the foreign leader, or something beyond rumors of a whistleblower before you start impeachment hearings to remove them from office?

    If the idea of dirty politics offends you so much, could you at least pretend that you’re not out to get rid of a political opponent who won an election simply because you hate him, and are looking for any excuse to do it, no matter how flimsy or unexplored the evidence is?

    If you looking for a reason why the country isn’t all on your side, find a mirror. But that would take self-reflection. And how can you self-reflect when that’s not about Trump?

    It is obvious that congressional politicians are playing a game for their own personal benefit all around. Please stop asking me to pretend you care about people or facts. That is all.

    1. “It is obvious that congressional politicians are playing a game for their own personal benefit all around.”

      The Democrats are escalating an attack on their enemy. Luckily, if there’s no evidence now, Trump and his toadies will soon be furnishing it. Even if it comes in the form of poorly spelt tweets.

      1. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

        Sort…. cough….uh? Mmmmmmmm…..

        pointless….marxist……..

        Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

          1. “It’s pitiful to watch.”

            Not nearly as pitiful as the straw-grasping by you and the other fucking lefty ignoramuses.

            1. The pure mendacious partisan bitching about me, masquerading as “concerned patriots” is absolutely ridiculous.

              1. “The pure mendacious partisan bitching about me, masquerading as “concerned patriots” is absolutely ridiculous.”

                Keep grasping at those straws! Maybe your tiny hands will get one.

    2. Doesn’t impeachment mean accusation, Brian?

      1. Actually, impeachment is a formal laying of charges after an investigation by the HoR (charges not accusations) which are then tried by the Senate which does or does not choose to remove the president. Accusations without evidence are not grounds for impeachment, at least not in spirit.

    3. Hey look, some guy is clutching pearls. How sweet.

      1. “Hey look, some guy is clutching pearls. How sweet.”

        Yes, we’ve noticed that about you, along with your abysmal stupidity.

          1. “Can we get a MAGA! from Sevo?”

            Did your mama tell you that you clever? She lied.

              1. “OK an insult. Close enough.”

                OK, bullshit. Expected.

  73. Can we back up a second? Is this article assuming there ARE tapes, or is the existence of the tapes something that is documented in other news articles, and I’ve just missed reading about it?

    1. So, I did some googling and the news articles I found say it’s unlikely there are any tapes. They just have several note takers listen to the call, and then they put their notes together to make a “transcript”.

      So, why is Boehm writing about how the Democrats should demand the tapes?

      1. Mike, if you read Boehm’s article carefully, there are potentially other follow-up calls from Giuliani and Barr. We have no idea what they talked about yet, but given that he has his personal lawyer talking with a head of state, it sure has the potential for trouble.

        1. “We have no idea what they talked about yet, but given that he has his personal lawyer talking with a head of state, it sure has the potential for trouble.”

          I think you should stick with the first clause; a head of state is pretty much allowed to speak with whom he pleases.
          You should seek treatment; you need it.

          1. I know you do, Sevo. You’re behaving exactly like your hero. How many more 4-letter words have you memorized? But to the point, Giuliani is not a head of state. If he facilitated a crime, he’s in deep trouble.

            1. That is a lot of if: a lot of we have no ideas if the conversations happened and if they did what was said and if it was illegal. In other words pure speculation not supported by the evidence yet. However, the President of the Ukraine denies it ever happened. That is a pretty big stumbling block for your speculation to overcome. And the evidence released so far bears that out. Yes, if more evidence comes out to the contrary it will be bad for Trump, but at this point it isn’t looking good for the walls are closing in folks.

            2. And Mueller Claus is going to be delivering that indictment any day now.

            3. Gflyer
              September.25.2019 at 9:56 pm
              “I know you do, Sevo. You’re behaving exactly like your hero. How many more 4-letter words have you memorized?”
              As if a fucking lefty ignoramus had any idea who my hero might be, fucking lefty ignoramus.
              —————————–
              ” But to the point, Giuliani is not a head of state. If he facilitated a crime, he’s in deep trouble.”
              Just to offer more aid than a fucking lefty ignoramus than a fucking lefty ignoramus deserves, that head of state is welcome to speak to whomever he pleases.
              Try to keep up, fucking lefty ignoramus, even a cave man can do it, so someone of your limited abilities might also do so. Perhaps.
              Let’s be clear: By nest week, you and the rest of the fucking lefty ignoramuses will be back to exactly where you were a day ago; losers whining that the hag should have won.
              Stuff it up your ass, loser.

              1. Sevo, you are not worth the effort to even attempt an intelligent discussion with. You do exhibit all of the classic signs of an immature, insecure narcissist. You try to establish your superiority and authority over someone else by demeaning or insulting them. You are narrow-minded because you don’t make any attempt to learn from and understand another person’s point of view. In other words, you are behaving exactly like Trump, which is one of my biggest problems with the little boy disguised as an adult. In my opinion, both of you act juvenile and childish because you’re actually hiding massive insecurity behind a shadow of egotism. A very wise person told me years ago “Don’t argue with idiots, because they’ll drag you down and beat you up with experience.” So go ahead and respond with another childish, 4-letter word laced rant. You’re not worth the effort, little boy.

      2. “So, why is Boehm writing about how the Democrats should demand the tapes?”

        There are always tapes.

          1. Good for you! Our first spam flag! Have you got the makings of another?

            1. mtrueman
              September.25.2019 at 9:56 pm
              “Good for you! Our first spam flag! Have you got the makings of another?”
              Yeah, keep it up loser.

              1. Your logic is impeccable! What splendid intellect! Not to impose, but, might I, can I, can I have a second helping of cat food?

                In a manner obvious to the casual observer, I bet if You were so inclined as to be so kind, You could help me debug this source code:
                Instantiate SourceFile Include Precipitate-Spontaneous-Biogenesis Begin Allocate [ Vector ( Pitch[63:0], Yaw[63:0], Rolls_Royce[63:0] ), Flight_Envelope ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                PrintF "Malfunction junction command invoked. To restore services, send your life savings to Facebook.", end; end module ;

                If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then they will allow us to be seen AND heard!

        1. Actually, from what I’ve read it is against protocol for there to be tapes. That is per CBS news.

          1. Granted their take was the transcripts are based upon notes and thus possibly incomplete and the lack of tapes makes it still possible that there actually was quid pro quo and the transcripts don’t prove there wasn’t (in regards to the phone call).

  74. I think Trump is in serious trouble this time. The senate’s 100-0 vote to see the whistleblower evidence and their almost simultaneous rejection of his emergency wall funding are telling. Trump has made a LOT of enemies in his own party, and it sure looks like they smell blood.

    1. I think you’re full of shit.

        1. I’m all grown up. I think we should use elections to chose our government. And now that I know some of you don’t believe that…

          1. I think we should use elections to chose our government. And now that I know some of you don’t believe that…

            Do you agree with the concept of impeachment and removal at all, in a general sense (not necessarily applied to Trump)?

            1. For the right reasons, sure. For partisan reasons (and considering a number do Democrats currently calling for Impeachment have been since the day after the election in 2016, it is hard to believe they are doing this for the good of the Republic).

        2. Gflyer
          September.25.2019 at 9:57 pm
          “Grow up.”

          I’m grown up; you’re still full of shit.

          1. Your logic and citations are boundless! True genius! Left minus right = ZERO! (sneer) If You and Your bodyguards will put up with me, will you PLEASE be my BFF? Maybe even be my Bitsy Woogums?

            In a manner obvious to the casual observer, I bet that You could debug the following codes in Your sleep:
            Include Hashtag (#My_Tribe_Rules) Begin Begin-Beggin’ [Honest-Babe-I-Luve-Ya(Willya-B-Mine 4 ^ Ever) If-else-I (Meet Sum 1 Bettah) || (her tits R bigger)] || [I ken doo bettah] end-Beggin’
            DisplayModuleCall “Your WoW dragon just ate your avatar. Pay your over-due user fees.”, end; end module ;

            If You will please help me get this code to compile, The Google might buy us out!

    2. So voting to want to see the evidence before making up their mind means Trump is in trouble?

  75. So, ‘way back up there, pod made it clear the transcript was ‘vomit-inducing’ (or some such feelz bullshit), but admitted he hadn’t finished reading it. Several of us asked him to please inform us of the ‘smoking gun’ he assured us was buried in there.
    I had some work needing completion, so I missed several hundred posts; did pod ever answer, or, along with trueman, Tony, and Hihn’s various ‘personalities’, is it obvious he is full of shit?

    1. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript/index.html

      Here you go, feel free to read the transcript for yourself.

      1. No, asshole, you’re making the claim, YOU provide the cite.

      2. BTW, I opened that link. If you think that’s a “transcript”, you’re farr more stupid than I thought.
        That’s a CNN (‘We Hate Trump 24/7’) article with zero cred as to providing news rather than editorial comment.
        Try again or admit you have no idea what’s going on here.

        1. “Try again or admit you have no idea what’s going on here.”

          Trump is being impeached. That’s what’s going on here.

          1. And the vote for impeachment is..?

              1. Never happened is his point.

                1. You in a hurry? I think the Democrats will see advantage in drawing this thing out.

                  1. mtrueman
                    September.25.2019 at 11:45 pm
                    “You in a hurry? I think the Democrats will see advantage in drawing this thing out.”

                    Fucking lefty ignoramuses tend to do that, fucking lefty ignoramus. Please impress us all with your lame education by replying in present perfect tense so we can laugh at your pretensions one more time, shitstain.

                    1. “Please impress us all with your lame education”

                      Just keep reading my comments here. I’ve never asked for more of you.

          2. No, actually they haven’t votes to formerly impeach him. They are holding hearings to see if they will hold formal impeachment. It’s another dog and pony show.

            1. The last dog and pony show put some of Trump’s favourite toadies behind bars. And the beauty of these shows is that even if the toadies haven’t done anything wrong, they still end up eating their meals from metal dishes, through dog and pony trickery.

              1. mtrueman
                September.25.2019 at 11:52 pm
                “The last dog and pony show put some of Trump’s favourite toadies behind bars….”

                Cite missing, shitstain, and since you don’t have a clue as to what a “cite” is, we’ll presume it will continue missing.

                1. Search wikipedia for Mueller’s dog and pony show. You might find yourself a cite that pleases you. Or not. Not my problem.

                  1. mtrueman
                    September.26.2019 at 12:23 am
                    “Search wikipedia for Mueller’s dog and pony show. You might find yourself a cite that pleases you. Or not. Not my problem.”

                    We understand that Lit courses have no connection with logic; your lack of ability is not my problem.
                    Fuck off, loser.

                    1. “your lack of ability is not my problem.”

                      Your president is being impeached! Why are you wasting time responding to my jibes?

          3. “Trump is being impeached. That’s what’s going on here.”

            1. “Trump is being impeached. That’s what’s going on here.”

              Left off:
              Try again or admit you have no idea what’s going on here.
              No, shitstain, those afflicted with TDS are again trying to find some justification for their idiocy; you to.
              Get back to us when ‘Trump is being impeached’; like Cyrano de Bergerac’s nose, your idiocy precedes you.

              1. Don’t take this personally or seriously.

                1. mtrueman
                  September.26.2019 at 12:28 am
                  “Don’t take this personally or seriously.”

                  Your stupidity is not my personal problem; it’s yours.

              1. mtrueman
                September.26.2019 at 12:24 am
                “That’s what I said.”

                It remains a lie, shitstain.

                1. Your wit and wisdom is boundless! The cheesiness of Your Grated Cheese is indeed GREAT, Oh Great Grated-Cheese Cheesy One! Blessed Are the Cheese Graters!If I meet You at Your Batty-cave, can I tag along with Your Campaign?

                  With Your powerful vision, L. Ron Hubbard Willing, I bet You’d have no trouble helping me debug the following:
                  Theocratically Islamically Correct Deploy Begin Auto_Integrate [ Bitwise_Magnetize ( Vector[31:0], Time_Domain[31:0], Frequency_Domain[31:0] ), Contents ( $RU$488 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                  DisplayModuleCall "Needs more cowbell.", end; end module ;

                  Now if You will only PLEASE help me get this code to compile, we'll be allowed to speak outside of the free-speech zone!

                2. Lefties have been called on to deflect…deflect…deflect!

                  Trump must have the spotlight kept on him and that is the Lefty strategy. If people and governments start investigating Lefties then all their misdeeds will be exposed and they are not in charge of government like they used to be to control that.

          1. Impeachment is imminent.

          2. And?
            You should still be sorry.

  76. Little Jeffy just admitted he doesn’t know shit about what his points are based off.

    1. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
      Perhaps if you could formulate a cogent argument on this topic, I might be able to respond appropriately.

      1. Give up, Jeff. You’re probably arguing with a grade-schooler.

        1. Collectivist Jeffy is being defended by a Tony sock.

          1. You must have some sort of mystical Source in the Beyond the Beyond, to display such Deep Understanding! If I can obtain all of the correct degrees, licenses, and credentials, will You teach me to be smart like You? Can I have your babies?

            Ignoring negligible factors, Your genius is indisputable! So, could You PLEASE help me debug the following codes:
            Philosophically Quantum-Gravity Deploy Begin Auto_Integrate [ Bitwise_Magnetize ( Vector[31:0], Time_Domain[31:0], Frequency_Domain[31:0] ), Contents ( $RU$488 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
            PrintF "This computer rejects hunt-and-peck inputs. Learn to code!", end; end module ;

            If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, our therapists will give us pats on our heads.

      2. Nah. You’ll go out of your way to miss every point that doesn’t agree with your agenda.

        1. Tell me, R Mac, I”m curious. You think I’m a lefty, right? Why precisely do you think I’m a lefty? Do you think I support the Green New Deal or higher taxes or a wealth tax or socialized health care or any of the other progressive policies currently being pushed by Democratic candidates?

          1. TLDR. Cuz you’re a lefty.

            1. So it’s just a general-purpose insult for you. Okay got it.

              1. No, it’s just for your pedantic ass.

                1. Why do you think “lefty” is an insult?
                  Do you think there is something inherently wrong with being a “lefty”?

                  Lots of lefties support legal pot, legal gay marriage, and criminal justice reform. Are they wrong?

                  1. Lots of lefties support legal pot, legal gay marriage, and criminal justice reform. Are they wrong?

                    Yes.

                    Because what they support is government permission to smoke pot, and government permission for same sex marriage, and the ‘legal reform’ they support is the ability to use laws to jail and murder those who disagree.

                    They support ‘rights’ as prizes for the state to bestow upon the favored.

                    As you do.

                    1. Yep. That’s why he’s Collectivist Jeffy.

                    2. “If lefties were equivalent to the caricature in my head, they’re evil! Clearly!”

                  2. Pots becoming legal at the state level despite lefty’s. Gay marriage is already legal, try to keep up. Criminal justice reform? Obama did what?

                    You’re a lefty shill who pretends he’s not a lefty shill.

                    1. Pots becoming legal at the state level despite lefty’s.

                      Umm no. It’s been pushed overwhelmingly by left-wingers. Republicans are still fighting it. See: today’s vote on marijuana banking

                      Gay marriage is already legal, try to keep up.

                      Who pushed for it, and who fought against it every step of the way?

                      Criminal justice reform? Obama did what?

                      Hey you’re right, Obama didn’t do a good job on this issue. By the way, why don’t you ask John what he thinks about criminal justice reform.

                      You’re a lefty shill who pretends he’s not a lefty shill.

                      So when have I advocated for lefty positions, that weren’t also libertarian positions? Got some quotes?

                      Oh wait, no you don’t, because according to you I”m pretending not to be a lefty. So I don’t advocate for lefty positions, but you’re just super duper convinced I’m a lefty nonetheless, because… you can read minds now or something?

                      Oh wait I know, it’s because I don’t support Trump! That makes me a lefty, amirite?

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.25.2019 at 11:05 pm

                      Pots becoming legal at the state level despite lefty’s.
                      Umm no. It’s been pushed overwhelmingly by left-wingers. Republicans are still fighting it. See: today’s vote on marijuana banking”

                      “Jerry Brown Opposes Legal Pot Because ‘We Need To Stay Alert’”
                      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jerry-brown-marijuana_n_4885455

                      Moonbeam: Noted rightwinger.

                    3. “Oh wait I know, it’s because I don’t support Trump! That makes me a lefty, amirite?”
                      No.

                  3. Lefty’s also believe in Government answer to everything and collectivism. If it were just about pot and gay marriage it wouldn’t be as, but throw in that other shit.

                    1. Collectivist Jeffy likes to point out what lefties allow us plubes.

                    2. You’re right, lefties also have a lot of shitty ideas, but they have a few good ones. Kinda like righties.

                    3. Collectivist Jeffy just admitted he’s a lefty to libertarians. But righties… yeah we got you collectivist Jeffy.

                    4. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.25.2019 at 10:58 pm
                      You’re right, lefties also have a lot of shitty ideas”

                      Clearly I’m a lefty. LOL

                    5. “Why do you think “lefty” is an insult?
                      Do you think there is something inherently wrong with being a “lefty”?

                      Lots of lefties support legal pot, legal gay marriage, and criminal justice reform. Are they wrong?”

                    6. I feel a “yeah but” coming on.

                    7. chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.25.2019 at 11:07 pm
                      “Clearly I’m a lefty. LOL”

                      Are you really hoping that people here will ignore your constant support of lefty causes and accept your claim of being otherwise.
                      Are you really that stupid?

              2. See, Little Jeffy, this whole thing is like a pony for Christmas for you. You’re never getting the pony. No matter how much you wish for it. It’s over. There’s no pony. Now it’s time for you to move on to things that people who realize there’s no pony think about. Which is grown up stuff boy.

      3. “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

        That’s obviously true, but you also have no idea what you’re posting about.
        Grasp those straws, TDS victim! It’s all you got.

        1. I’m starting to think little Jeffy is a Tony sock, just so Tony can feel better about himself that he’s not as dumb as Little Jeffy.

          1. Your citations show that You are, indeed, Deeply Learned! If I get rid of my pet snakes, could You appoint me to the SCROTUS?

            Incomprehensibly speaking, I say unto ye, can You find any errors in the source codes to follow:
            Instantiate SourceFile Include {(Verilog || AHDL) && AHDL} OoogaBoogaPower Begin Preversion Subversion _Inversion_Module_Call Booty_Call { Call_of_Duty Doobiee_B_Bad ( Dude_B_Bad[32:0] || GoTo_Heck_&_Tarnation[32:0] ) }
            Invoke DisplayModule “Don’t be such a deplorable.”, end; end module ;

            If You’d only PLEASE apply Your Vast Skills here, to help in the debug effort, Putin might take back ALL of the bad things that He said about You!

          2. I am still unsure why some of you people even try discussions with troll socks.

            reason uses some socks, trolls, and bots to boost web traffic. Other socks, trolls, and bots are here for non-discussion purposes.

  77. Gotta ask:
    trueman, when called on his bullshit, constantly threatens to ‘spam flag’ me.
    I have no doubt s/he does so, since s/he’s mentally incapable of responding to my comments, but I also know the ‘held for review’ pile at the Reason web site is *never* reviewed.
    And I have no idea if I can see my posts even if they are blocked to others; that’s one of the causes for Reason getting a $5 annual check instead of 4 digits.
    So, is this visible?

      1. Gracias,
        I don’t doubt that trueman is more than willing to ‘flag’ someone calling him/her on bullshit and does so; scumbag lefties are not overly concerned with principles.

  78. To trueman, jeff, our new sock Gflyer, pod (who seems to have disappeared after being asked for specifics) and those several others I’ve missed:
    Very simple:
    Quote chapter and verse from an actual transcript of the conversation and tell us what part of the discussion is even possible grounds for impeachment.
    Trueman, your Lit degree ain’t gonna help, Tony too. The rest of you may well be smarter, but if so, it’ll become obvious there is nothing there.
    Put up or STFU

    1. I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it3

    2. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

    3. Efforts to fire Mueller

      Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

      Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

      Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

    4. Efforts to curtail Mueller

      Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

      Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

      Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

    5. Efforts to have Sessions take over the investigation

      Obstructive act (p. 111): This question “would not turn on what Attorney General Sessions would actually do if unrecused, but on whether the efforts to reverse his recusal would naturally have had the effect of impeding the Russia investigation. … The duration of the President’s efforts … and the fact that the President repeatedly criticized Sessions in public and private for failing to tell the President that he would have to recuse is relevant to assessing whether the President’s efforts to have Sessions unrecuse could qualify as obstructive acts.”

      Nexus (p. 111): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge,” as well as the existence of a second grand jury empaneled in July 2017. However, “[w]hether the conduct towards the Attorney General would have a foreseeable impact on proceedings turns much of the same evidence discussed with respect to the obstructive-act element.”

      Intent (p. 111): “There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope.”

    6. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

      Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

      Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

      Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

    7. Conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, and unknown individual (Stone?)

      Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” Though Trump’s lawyers exchange with Flynn’s lawyers “could have had the potential to affect Flynn’s decision to cooperate,” Mueller “could not determine” whether Trump had any knowledge of or involvement in the exchange. Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

      Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward all three individuals “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

      Intent (p. 132): “Evidence concerning the President’s intent related to Flynn as a potential witness is inconclusive.” But “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

    8. Conduct toward Michael Cohen

      Obstructive act (p. 153): “[T]he evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen’s false testimony.” But “the evidence … could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or to undermine Cohen’s credibility once Cohen began to cooperate.”

      Nexus (p. 154): Trump was aware of investigations into Cohen by the Special Counsel’s Office, Congress, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

      Intent (p. 155): “There is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government. … The evidence could support an inference that the President was aware of [Cohen’s efforts to continue the Moscow Project past January 2016] at the time of Cohen’s false statements to Congress. … The President’s public remarks following Cohen’s guilty plea also suggest that the President may have been concerned about what Cohen told investigators about the Trump Tower Moscow project. … The President’s concern about Cohen cooperating may have been directed at the Southern District of New York investigation into other aspects of the President’s dealings with Cohen rather than the investigation of Trump Tower Moscow. There is also some evidence that the President’s concern about Cohen cooperating was based on the President’s stated belief that Cohen would provide false testimony against the President in an attempt to obtain a lesser sentence for his unrelated criminal conduct. … Finally, the President’s statements insinuating that members of Cohen’s family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating with the government could be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and chill further testimony adverse to the President by Cohen or others.”

      1. “There is also some evidence that the President’s concern about Cohen cooperating was based on the President’s stated belief that Cohen would provide false testimony against the President in an attempt to obtain a lesser sentence for his unrelated criminal conduct.”

        That’s the reason of all of this. Trump believed it was a setup and tryed to avoid being trapped by a Malicious prosecutor.

    9. Through his businesses in the United States and abroad, the president receives payments, regulatory approval, and other forms of direct and indirect financial benefits from foreign governments. These violate the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials, including the president, from receiving a “present” or “emolument” from any foreign government or official. The president’s businesses also act as a conduit for enrichment from federal and state government coffers. These violate the Domestic Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from receiving, beyond his official salary, any emolument from the United States or any state.

    10. All that work and Tony still has not cited anything that Trump did wrong or warrant any action, let alone impeachment.

      We get it though, Lefties want to impeach Trump because they lost Election 2016 and will lose Election 2020.

      1. Right? You can take some given vague law, and some interaction between Trump and one of his cabinet members or a foreign leader, and stretch them both to the point of near breakage, and if you squint real hard and infer malevolence, you can make it look like it was a crime. Is any of this stuff unreasonable, or immoral? No, not really. It’s all exactly what I would do if I had a system of thousands of nasty, establishment crooks looking into every aspect of my life for something to lynch me for.

  79. Obstructive act (p. 43): Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty and pressured Comey to “let this go” regarding the FBI investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. “In analyzing whether these statements constitute an obstructive act, a threshold question is whether Comey’s account of the interaction is accurate, and, if so, whether the President’s statements had the tendency to impede the administration of justice by shutting down an inquiry that could result in a grand jury investigation and criminal charge.” “[S]ubstantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.”

    Nexus (p. 46): By the time Trump spoke to Comey, Trump had been informed that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI and that his statements could violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the prohibition on lying to federal investigators. “[T]he President’s instruction to the FBI Director to ‘let[] Flynn go’ suggests his awareness that Flynn could face criminal exposure for his conduct and was at risk of prosecution.”

    Intent: “[E]vidence is inconclusive” as to whether Trump was aware of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak when they occurred. But “[e]vidence does establish that the President connected the Flynn investigation to the FBI’s broader Russia investigation.”

    Trump attempted to have Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland “draft an internal email” stating that Trump did not ask Flynn to discuss sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she was not sure if the statement would be accurate. Though “evidence does not establish” that Trump was trying to make McFarland lie, the incident “highlights the President’s concern about being associated with Flynn’s conduct,” and McFarland was disturbed by the request and felt it was “irregular.”

    1. None of this officially proved obstruction.

      1. And you wonder why people don’t post links. Would it change your mind in any way? No. So why do it?

        1. Why didn’t Mueller charge Trump with obstruction if the evidence of him having done so is so obvious and easy that you can paste it into thread on the web?

          Are you alleging that Mueller is in on some kind of conspiracy to protect Trump?

          What do you know that Mueller didn’t know, and how did you come to understand this groundbreaking revelation–that’s hiding in plain sight where everyone can see it . . . except for the special counsel?

        2. All I see is an innocent man that COULD have tryed to protect himself from a malicious investigator abusing perjury trap, fishing expedition and selective leaking to the press.

        3. I post links.

          You’re a troll Tony and you didn’t provide a single link.

          You provided a citation which presumably links to something factual.

  80. I don’t even like Trump, but this whole Ukraine story is absolutely stupid. Once again is the allegation is more important than the truth. Didn’t we just go through this a few time before? It’s starting to become a pattern which to me make it appear to be a purposeful tactic.

    I always like to take a look at things by asking the question if this was on the other foot, such as if the roles were reversed. Would a President Biden or Warren, etc. stand up through the constant attacks by the media? Of course you would have to pretend that the media is fair and honest and does not have a bias.

    While I didn’t vote for Trump and don’t intend to ever vote for him. I do have a degree of sympathy for the pile of BS that’s lobbed at him. He is being monitored by a vast number of hostile entities that is unprecedented.

    I’m somewhat indifferent to him winning another term, however I truly wish that the Democrats be punished by the voters at the ballot box. It’s time that voters introduce a third party into the mix to help clean up the mess the two major parties have created!

    1. What did Democrats do?

      Libertarians sure haven’t been a fan of government oversight lately, huh?

      1. Government oversight? Oh, you’re referring to the deep state running interference for the DNC.

  81. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
    ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
    ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
    ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
    ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
    ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
    ────────────────║║
    ────────────────╚╝
    ____________________________________________________

Please to post comments