Impeachment

Did Trump Commit a Crime by Seeking a Ukrainian Investigation of Joe Biden? And Does It Matter for Impeachment Purposes?

The president's critics have several legal theories, ranging from frivolous to debatable.

|

Did Donald Trump commit a crime when he urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden? Many of the president's critics say yes, and they have floated several legal theories, ranging from frivolous to debatable.

Treason

This week, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, who is notionally challenging Trump for the Republican Party's 2020 presidential nomination, claimed Trump is guilty of "treason, pure and simple." He added that "the penalty for treason under the U.S. Code is death."

The legal definition of treason requires waging war against the United States or "adher[ing]" to its enemies (defined as nations or organizations that are at war with it) by giving them "aid and comfort." Ukraine is a U.S. ally, not an enemy. It is not at war with the United States. (Neither is Russia, which may be the country Weld had in mind.) In any event, Trump's alleged aim was not to help Ukraine (or Russia) but to help himself by getting its government to dig up dirt on a man who wants to take his job away. Weld, who as a former U.S. attorney certainly should know better, also erroneously claimed death is "the only penalty" for treason. The possible penalties include prison and fines as well as execution.

Bribery

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano argues that Trump's July 25 telephone conversation with Zelenskiy could be construed as bribery: "When the president asks a foreign government—the head of a foreign government—to do something to help his campaign, when the president adds a condition to the receipt of foreign funds that Congress didn't add, and when that condition benefits the president's campaign and not American foreign policy, the president has arguably walked into the area of bribery."

The federal bribery statute applies to U.S. officials, not foreign officials, so the relevant question is not whether Trump tried to bribe Zelenskiy with military aid but whether he solicited a bribe from Zelenskiy. Under 18 USC 201, a federal official (such as Trump) commits a felony when "he directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for…an official act."

In this case, the "official act" presumably would be delivering the military aid that Trump had blocked before his conversation with Zelenskiy (although Zelenskiy did not know about that decision at the time). The "thing of value" allegedly solicited by Trump would be compromising information about Biden, a leading contender to oppose him as the Democratic nominee in next year's election.

As a Columbia Law School guide to federal statutes used in corruption cases notes, "federal courts have held that the term 'anything of value' in the federal bribery statute applies broadly to intangible as well as tangible payments." Would dirt on Biden dug up by the Ukrainian government count as "anything of value"? Advocates of that interpretation, such as University of California, Irvine, law professor Rick Hasen, note that political campaigns routinely pay for opposition research, which is essentially what Trump is accused of seeking.

Illegal Campaign Contribution

Another way of looking at Trump's interaction with Zelenskiy is that Trump was soliciting an illegal campaign contribution. "The best legal argument is that Trump committed a campaign finance crime if he solicited dirt on Biden and his son, as appears to be the case, regardless of whether there was any quid pro quo," Hasen writes.

Under 52 USC 30121, it is illegal for a foreign national to make "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." The same statute makes it a crime to solicit such a contribution.

Like the bribery statute, the campaign finance law would apply to an arrangement between Trump and Zelenskiy only if the information discovered by a Ukrainian investigation of Biden and his son, Hunter, would qualify as a "thing of value." And as Special Counsel Robert Mueller noted in his March report on Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, "No judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law."

If there was a quid pro quo (military aid in exchange for an investigation of Biden), one could argue that the "opposition research" in this case was not "uncompensated." But given the uncertainty, it would be hard to make the case that Trump knowingly violated the law, which is required for a criminal conviction.

Furthermore, if the law were understood to cover the sharing of information, it would effectively criminalize constitutionally protected speech. Mueller noted that "such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban," such as limits on campaign contributions by Americans, and "raise First Amendment questions."

Hasen is unimpressed by the First Amendment argument. "Thanks to Mueller," he writes, "Trump can plausibly claim he has a First Amendment right to go to a foreign government to solicit—even potentially extort—valuable information against political opponents. If the First Amendment protected this conduct from Trump, why even hold elections?"

But if information counted as a campaign contribution, any American who shared a potentially damaging tip about a political candidate with that candidate's opponent would be subject to the limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act. That understanding of the law would create formidable enforcement challenges. How much would, say, rumors of domestic abuse or a list of old, offensive tweets be worth? How could the Federal Election Commission assign a dollar value to such information, which would be necessary to decide when someone had exceeded the limit on individual campaign contributions? It does not seem like a stretch to suggest that such uncertainties would have a chilling effect on speech protected by the First Amendment.

Does Any of This Matter?

Probably not. The Justice Department has taken the position that it cannot prosecute a sitting president, and impeachment does not require provable statutory violations. "High crimes and misdemeanors" include violations of the public trust that do not necessarily involve breaking the law. In this case, if the allegations against Trump are true, he has abused his power for personal gain and violated the separation of powers by impeding the distribution of congressionally approved military aid. Members of Congress might reasonably conclude that's enough to justify impeachment, whether or not Trump committed a prosecutable crime.

NEXT: Intel Chief Tasks Congress With Investigating Trump's Dealings with Ukraine

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. Napalitano has lost his fucking mind. he really has. Does someone in the DNC have pictures of him with a sheep or something? There is no way someone as sharp as he always appeared to be believes the bullshit he is spewing.

    1. I’m pretty sure Judge Nap just hates Trump and cannot help but jump on the dogpile.

      1. Which is pathetic. He hates Trump more than he values his integrity. It goes to further prove my theory that anyone who ends up making their living in the media is at heart a scumbag. If Napaltano had any integrity, we wouldn’t know who he was because he would never have been on TV.

        1. Has it occurred to you, John, that Trump is crazy, and that you are crazy for defending him?

          1. You’re so boring and useless. Have has it occurred to you to use logical argumentation?

          2. No it hasn’t. That is because I have a grasp on reality as it is. You should try it sometime. Then again, maybe you do better living in a fantasy world. I can’t see reality being a very good role for you.

            1. He can’t even afford the whole place at an airbnb.

            2. Apply occams razor:

              Everyone in media, former white house staff and cabinet members, basically all republicans not in office (Bush Sr., etc.), and the majority of Americans hate Trump because ?irrational hatred of Trump?

              or

              Trump, who has had a $25mm ruling against him for fraud WHILE IN OFFICE, who has had most of his campaign staff wind up in prison, who promised to release his taxes and now fights it tooth and nail including asserting that he is above the law (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/nyregion/trump-tax-returns-lawsuit.html); who is Individual 1, an unindicted co conspirator to a federal crime for which his former personal attorney is in prison for is actually a bad president with many conflicts of interest and people have good reason to oppose him.

              Gee, what’s more likely?

              1. It took one paragraph to define one side and four for the one you think in the occams razor.

                Sorry bud Trump is turning the tables on the whole corrupt mess of deception and fraud. This is a job failed by every President but Jackson. Even if you don’t think things are corrupt( some people live in bubbles) the goals he won on and is ticking off as done, one at a time is a drastic transformation back from Obama fantasy land and those who took over conservatism.

                Close to 100 years to build the Military Industrial Complex spoken in open by two Presidents in office. That does not even taken into account the Power Elite.
                The constitution was set up to allow various fractions with the hope that the multitude of fractions would protect the people and the Country. That has become less and less as more fractions are all owned by the same puppeteer.

                1. Trump is a lifelong conman. He has never demonstrated personal courage, sacrifice, or patriotism. I don’t know why you think he is on your side.

                  1. The founders knew that men were not angels and sought to create a system that would compensate for this. I personally believe Trump is a conman. But I also believe that the intelligence and defense agencies have been running a giant con for some time to keep us on a permanent military footing so that their power and salaries will be justified. My choice is not between a good man and a bad man. It’s between a small time con whose interests sometimes dovetail with my concerns about the military-industrial-intelligence complex and a con systematically hoovering up information about the people it claims to serve while purporting to decide for the people who they can choose for leaders.

                    It does not follow that if Trump is not really on my side, that somehow the CIA is therefore a fuzzy little father figure whose manipulations are for my own good. Trump is what we have, and when 300 intelligence officials sign a letter about how horrified they are by Trump, it only reassures me that even if Trump is not my friend, he is the enemy of an enemy far more dangerous to my long term liberty.

                    1. So explain to me how he has brought the Military-Industrial complex to heel! I mean spending $750 billion next year seems to belie your assertion.

              2. we have multiple high ranking democrats and media members on the record saying that they’ll do anything to resist Trump and that they have a moral imperative, and they’ve been doing this since day 1.

                It’s far more easy to believe that he has pissed off our political class by daring to reach above his station then to say that while the last 3 presidents have all been horrible, somehow TRUMP, the guy who hasn’t started any new wars, or expanded the intelligence community’s ability to spy on people, is somehow noticeably worse than all of them.

                1. The guy throwing children into cages (including american citizens) is good for America. I had it all wrong, thank you.

                  1. The guy who continued throwing children into cages. If your disdain for Trump causes you to give all those who came before a pass, you are as silly as those who think Trump’s every move is 4D chess.

                  2. Are you 12? Minus 5 points for not saying he kicks puppies and eats kittens for dinner.

              3. I’m going to fix this for you:

                “Apply occams razor [to all relevant data, not just the subset you find convenient]:

                Everyone in media [i.e. the people who fanned the housing and education bubbles, cheered on the Iraq war and continue to support deficit spending], former white house staff and cabinet members [Are you referring to the drug-war-supporters, the foreign-war-supporters, or the ones who can’t handle their liquor and still drink too much in public?], basically all republicans not in office (Bush Sr., etc.) [who planned the aforementioned war and wrote the carrot-and-stick laws that created those bubbles] and the majority of Americans who hate Trump [almost as much as they hate Pelosi or Schumer] because [they’re still pining for the late 1990s, especially the part about limitless perpetual growth without any tricky implementation details].

                1. Sure, everyone just decided to hate trump for no reason. The judges in his many lost civil cases must be in on the conspiracy too. The man barred from ever running a charity again is totally above board! It’s just those corrupt reporters, judges, elected officials, scientists, military members, members of trump’s own cabinet who are all in a giant conspiracy to hate trump for no reason!

                  1. “Sure, everyone just decided to hate trump for no reason.”

                    No, they hate him for publicly enumerated reasons, and they lost an election after making that case to voters.

                  2. Sure, everyone in government are angels and have no interest but what is best for it’s citizen sheep that they shepard.

              4. One fact that you have not taken into consideration is that everyone in Trumps orbit has been investigated at massive expense to the American people. If as much scrutiny had been placed on everyone in Obama or Clinton’s orbit I would guarantee there would have been far more arrests for far more serious crimes.
                Take one example – Manafort.
                He was charged with crimes committed over 10 years ago. In fact, these crimes were committed when Mueller was actually head of the FBI and he had no interest in Manafort back then. Now that Manafort was connected with the Trump campaign, even for a short period of time, Mueller suddenly wants to prosecute Manafort. The crimes he committed were not connected with Trump in any way.

                1. The Mueller report was a net gain for the government. And checks and balances require investigations. The investigations would be a lot cheaper and faster if the admin did not assert that they are above the law. Odd stance for libertarians to take, supporting an all powerful executive.

                2. You know, it would be nice if Right-Wing-World could face things honestly – even if only once. Give up the tin-foil-hat lunacy about conspiracies. Abandon the childish snowflake whining how unfair it is Trump faces consequences for his actions. Just square up and look at things like an adult.

                  But they won’t, so I’ll do this Q&A on my own :

                  Question : Why is Trump in this mess?

                  Answer : Because he thought it was really, really clever to try and strong-arm the president of another country into following his (Trump’s) script for his (Trump’s) personal gain. Because that’s how the mind of a petty criminal operates. Per the whistleblower’s account, everyone else in the room during the call was cringing. Immediately afterwards they scrambled to contain the damage. Meanwhile, I’m sure Trump was glowing over his own “cleverness”

                  Because that’s the way a petty criminal’s mind works. And this isn’t new. Trump’s daddy gifted him scores of millions. Upon Fred’s death, Trump inherited scores of millions more. A sale of Fred’s assists brought even more scores of millions. So with all that money, why would Trump bother with a sleazy little scam like his faux-university? Why would he use his charitable foundation to pay Don Jr’s seven dollar boy scout fee? There’s no logical explanation for either of those cases – much less the gross shakedown of the Ukrainian call. It’s just a criminal’s mind in action………

                  1. Now do Hunter Biden and his father Joe ‘I got that prosecutor fired‘ Biden. I’ve chosen Trump as my bad guy. If you want to choose the deep state as yours, that’s fine. But let’s stop pretending that Washington D.C. was filled with fine, upright people who had only our best interests at heart before Trump’s election.

                    1. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin because that was his order from the President. It was also State Department policy. It was also the position of the European Union. It was also the position of the World Bank. It was also the position of the International Monetary Fund.

                      And it was also the position of every reformist group inside Ukraine itself. They protested in the streets demanding Shokin’s ouster and cheered when he was gone. And exactly ZERO of this had anything to do with little Hunter Biden. When Trump tells you that Biden intervened to save his son, Trump is lying to your face. He thinks your either too stupid or too much the flunky to care. And when Trump peddles this phony bullshit to the president of Ukraine, he is signalling what lie he wants told.

                      Why not try a little research instead of parroting the worthless crap you’re told to say, GeoffB1972? You talk your “deep state” claptrap, but you’re the one duped as a gullible fool. Ten minutes of research and maybe you’ll start to ask why your cult hero is lying to you…..

                    2. So the investigation of Hunter would have turned up nothing?

                      Then Trump’s request would not have contributed anything of value to his campaign.

                    3. A neat little point, but it has three problems :

                      (1) Setting aside hypocrites and poseurs, why does Right-Wing-World expect wrong doing by Hunter anyway? Isn’t the story is he was only a name on the letterhead, no qualifications, getting the job off Daddy’s name alone? I couldn’t agree more, and just wonder why the little twerp didn’t chosen better means to live off his father. But I seriously doubt young Biden was ever invited into Burisma’s inner circle to scheme and plot. My guess is he was treated like an empty suit. There has never been the slightest hint he broke any law.

                      (2) Read the transcript. Trump doesn’t give a damn about Hunter Biden. His name only briefly arose through the Shokin firing; the focus was the firing and the target was Joe alone. How much “value to his campaign” do you think there is in family leeching off a politician in office? You saw that when Ivanka was granted a slew of trademarks by China. Exactly how long did that “scandal” last? Billy Carter, Neil Bush, Roger Clinton. The country yawned every time.

                      (3) The emphasis on the firing signaled to Zelensky the target and narrative. That Trump’s story was one-hundred percent lying garbage only makes his aim clear. We’ve been “good” to you, it’s time for “reciprocal” behavior, and here’s the script to follow, laid out plain as day. If Zelensky had hit his cues like a good boy Trump might indeed have bought something “of value to his campaign”

                      It’s not just Trump attempted to trade U.S. favor for personal gain. He strong-armed a foreign leader to suborn a lie. You’re never going to be able to get around that fact. At least not honestly……..

                    4. GRB, you are so full of stupidity, bullshit, and lies. Without which you would be a desiccated empty husk.

                      Really, just fuck off.

              5. Apply occams razor:

                The clerisy and the political establishment hate Trump because his policies threatens their culture and opportunities for graft wealth creation.

                or

                The eighty-four major legal and political attacks by the DNC and its acolytes against Trump dating from now to before the election, failed because of bad luck, unforeseen circumstances and Trump’s superpowers.

              6. That you’re suffering TDS. You list a bunch of bullshit things as if, ipso facto, the list itself is proof of something wrong. No context required. That is typical TDS.

              7. Trump is a loose canon who won’t follow any of the infinite number of unwritten rules and back-scratching policies. If he said the sky was blue, there are a large number of career politicians who would scream. I didn’t believe in “deep state” conspiracy theories before he was elected, but the sheer scope of the entrenched machinery and the insanity that is being used against him made me realize how deeply, deeply corrupt the system is.

                We don’t need term limits. We need to flip the entire house and senate every 12 or 18 years. Everyone in goes out. For life.

            3. Lefties and reason really have stepped up the trolling to make sure there is no dissent on this ridiculous Trump impeachment fiasco.

          3. Has it occurred to you that you’re a fucking idiot?

            1. Thanks it saved me trying to respond to Chipper. My question is when does Biden stop being a candidate and start being a corrupt ex public official (second in command) who used his office to get his drug addict son a multi million dollar payout from the Ukraine and China? You know the left can’t deal with this when they claim it has already been investigated by no other than the New York Times.

              1. Personally I don’t see why he can’t be considered to be both.

              2. When you can show a paper trail through depositions and evidence that document your assertion. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. A Ukrainian prosecutor stated that there was no evidence that the Bidens-either one–broke Ukrainian laws.

          4. Whether Trump is or is not crazy, and whether Trump is or is not a good president has nothing to do with this. People aren’t defending Trump, people are defending basic democratic principles, namely that a duly elected president should be able to govern without the House using the machinery of the state to try to drive him out of office for political reasons.

            Impeachment proceedings against Trump for this are even more of an absurdity than impeachment proceedings against Clinton were for f*cking a WH intern.

            You know what should have warranted impeachment proceedings? The lies and military actions of Bush, and the murders and unconstitutional actions committed by Obama.

            1. The impeachment proceedings against Clinton weren’t for f*cking an intern. They were for lying about it under oath. As we learned from Watergate, it’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

              1. They weren’t even for that, ultimately. They were for turning the White House into a finely tuned justice obstructing machine, where the lying under oath (And encouraging others to do so, and destruction of evidence that would contradict the lies…) was the one case where the obstruction of justice wasn’t successful enough to prevent a conviction.

                If there hadn’t been a long stream of scandals reaching back to Arkansas where you could tell something illegal happened, but the case fell apart due to witnesses going to jail rather than talk, (Webb Hubble) or evidence going missing until the statute of limitations expired, (That was ballsy, “finding” the Rose law firm billing records a couple of days after it didn’t matter any more.) he likely wouldn’t have been impeached over his obstruction of justice in the Lewinsky matter. That was standing as a proxy for all the prior cases where he’d done a better job of obstructing justice.

                The Clintons have a lot of vices, but their worst is taking joy in their enemies knowing they’re guilty and getting away with it. Causes them to deliberately skirt the line between looking innocent, and merely not being able to be convicted.

                1. If there hadn’t been a long stream of scandals reaching back to Arkansas where you could tell something illegal happened … That was standing as a proxy for all the prior cases

                  “We can’t get him on the things we believe he did but couldn’t prove, but we can get him on technicalities” is what was happening with Bill Clinton and it’s what’s happening with Trump. It’s how you turn a nation into a police state, and in a police state, the finer distinctions between libertarianism, social democracy, and conservative republicanism cease to matter.

                  1. There were no “technicalities” here. This was the equivalent of getting Dillinger on tax evasion; Clinton really did perjure himself in a court proceeding. He really did solicit perjury from others. He really did have his on the government payroll employees going around collecting and destroying evidence. None of that was a technicality, it was all very real, and all very illegal, and Democrats wanted us to pretend that the topic of court proceeding being whether he’d committed sexual harassment somehow made any crimes he committed to get off only “technicalities”.

                    Well, you can’t have a legal system if people are allowed to commit and solicit perjury, and destroy evidence.

                    All I’m saying is that it probably would have (Wrongly!) gotten a pass if it had been the only time he’d done it, rather than the only time he’d failed to do a good enough job of it.

              2. They were still a stupid undertaking.

              3. The impeachment proceedings against Clinton weren’t for f*cking an intern. They were for lying about it under oath.

                You don’t say! Any more trivial insights you’d like to share?

                See, the thing is: he should never have been asked about it under oath in the first place.

                As we learned from Watergate, it’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

                Covering up a non-crime should not be grounds for any legal consequences.

                1. Clinton rather proudly signed the very law that ensured he could be asked about it under oath. That made him one of a few hundred people in the country to whom that law could be applied with perfect justice, no matter how bad a law it was.

                  You or I might have standing to make that complaint. Clinton? Never. He deserved to be fed that law until he choked.

            2. But nothing Trump has done?

              Really?

              My God has FOX News been on top of its game.

              1. Trump hasn’t done anything illegal. Pretending and lying that he does illegal things doesn’t count Tony.

                1. Yes he has. You do your synapses no favor by exposing them only to fat right-wing propagandists.

            3. I dunno, Trump trying to hold congress mandatd foreign aid over another country’s head in order to dig up dirt on a political opponent seems like it requires impeachment. Very odd stance for all you “libertarians” in here to take: the president must not be questioned!

              Keep trusting the lifelong conman who can’t even speak under oath. Great standard to hold a president to.

              1. I dunno, Trump trying to hold congress mandatd foreign aid over another country’s head in order to dig up dirt on a political opponent seems like it requires impeachment.

                Even if Trump had done that, it wasn’t grounds for impeachment when other administrations have done it; why should it be now?

                OTOH, when “digging up dirt” translates into why the Biden family received millions from regimes Biden was pressuring, I think Trump not only has a right to ask other nations to look into it, he has an obligation.

                1. Documentation of those Biden family assets. It should be easy you look up their net worth and how its changed (filed in disclosures to the US government, purchases of real estate and other tangible assets). If they had sudden unexplained infusions of cash you got them.

                  1. Hunter Biden didn’t have to disclose. On top of that, the explanations that the Bidens filed need to be verified, starting with the question of whether Hunter Biden’s compensation was reasonable for his expertise and labor.

              2. How do you do that when the other country has no idea you delayed the money?

                1. Except the Trump admin released the money several days before he even made the call.

                  What’s amazing is how hard the Democrats are working to make what would normally be a boring, innocuous call into a massive
                  credibility booster for the man they are trying to tear down.

                  1. You have the timeline wrong. It was a couple of days before it became public.

                  2. It’s all the democrats have.

        2. Napolitano is super butthurt about not being the SC nominee

          1. Napolitano also demonstrates ever so clearly that he would have been utterly unsuitable for the job.

        3. John has something to his theory about TV personalities.

          People with character don’t lie with every breath and change their positions like the wind. Media people and politicians don’t have good character.

          1. In case no one noticed, all these folks are talking about their feelings. I liked the Judge even before he went to Fox, maybe the hair dye did him for awhile, but I’m no judge. But seeing the likes of John, and Idontknowconstitution1999, try to counteract him is hilarious. I don’t think they read, or can analyze much.

          2. That is why I would prefer to follow thier actions versus their words

        4. Just look at how Erick Erickson started going nuts once he started appearing on CNN.

          1. He always sucked.
            And Macon is a shithole.

        5. I couldn’t of said it better.
          As it’s been said so many times before, this is nothing more than a Witch hunt by American Socialists who know they can’t win in 2020.

    2. Trump was not the pick of the RNC last cycle. The Democratic frontrunners this cycle, Biden and Warren, are both very weak. Their only redeeming quality seeming to be that they are not Trump. It could very well be that RNC supporters see this as their chance to take back the presidency from Trump. It might even be to their advantage being that there is less time for the Proggie strategy of ‘repeat lies until no one remembers the truth’ to have any effect on the new candidate.

      It would explain a few of the recent defections from support of the Republican president.

      1. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said Sunday that it “would be troubling in the extreme” if President Donald Trump pressured Ukraine’s president

        Romney looks like Brad Pitt standing next to Biden and he stacks up extremely well against Warren considering he was able to convince her home state to elect him Governor. He also makes Bill Weld’s qualifications irrelevant.

        1. Mitt “Robot” Romney, who couldn’t unite Republicans against Obama is going to somehow usurp Trump because of impeachment over bullshit charges? The RNC just broke 24 hours fundraising off of this Impeachment attempt, I doubt they’ll decide to roll over and show their belly. They also likely just got a big bump in swing districts they lost in 18,as well as senatorial elections and retiring representative elections.

          1. Romney, like McCain, only has the heart to fight his erstwhile allies, not the people he claims to actually disagree with, fundamentally, on policy proposals.

            Compare his treatment of Obama and of Trump.

            1. You skipped the my obvious answer. He’s not really a Republican. He’s a liberal at heart. He most prizes feeling important and he didn’t really oppose Obama.

          2. “They also likely just got a big bump in swing districts they lost in 18”

            You appear to believe that some people are suddenly going to become bigots and shambling malcontents because they believe other people are being mean to Donald Trump.

            That’s not how intolerance and ignorance work.

            1. Arthur L. Hicklib is certainly an first-hand expert in intolerance and ignorance. Comes with being an 85-IQ slack-jawed bundle of resentment at his peckerwood upbringing.

            2. And the “Rev” has plenty of personal experience at being intolerant and ignorant.

              1. Watching evangelicals over the decades has taught me something. The biggest mouthpieces against X, are really X type people in the closet.

            3. You appear to forget that trump won an election 3 years ago even though the DNC, DOJ, and the Clintons did their damndest to smear him, including hiring agents from both Russia and Britain to compile (false haha dumbass)information on him, then leaked it the info to the NYT, and then claimed that leak of their report… WAS THE CORROBORATION of their report. And after months of smearing trump and rigging the election for Hillary…

              trump still won. How’d that happen in your world?

            4. This strengthens Trump for the simple reason that anybody with half a brain can see what b.s. these charges against Trump are. Just like the confirmation of Kavanaugh, Democrats should simply not be able to get away with this attack on our republic, regardless of whether one likes the president or not.

              The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are incompetent, racist, bigoted morons, of course, also helps to unify people behind a candidate as bad as Trump. But since you’re an incompetent, racist, bigoted moron yourself, Kirkland, you must like the Democratic frontrunners.

            5. “That’s not how intolerance and ignorance work.”

              Intolerance and ignorance? You’re soaking in it.

        2. “Romney looks like Brad Pitt standing next to Biden and he stacks up extremely well against Warren considering he was able to convince her home state to elect him Governor. He also makes Bill Weld’s qualifications irrelevant.”

          Romney would also get steamrolled as virtually zero conservatives would vote for him — I sure as fuck wouldn’t.

          1. One of Romney’s old chairs is on Burismas board.

        3. Anyone familiar with Romney’s run as Gov. of Massachusetts knows he was a helluva Tyrannical Progressive Big Govt. POS!!!! He would be worse as Prez!

        4. Mitt Romney’s security adviser from the 2012 campaign is on the board of Burisma. Jesus, how did the Ukraine become the place where no one in Washington can fail to have a problematic interest?

      2. I find it hard to believe that even the stupid party is dumb enough to think this lunacy is their chance to take out Trump. I am not sure even the Democrats actually believe it and they are barking mad.

        Also, taking out Trump would cause so much disaffection with his supporters it would destroy the Republican Party. And even the RNC has enough of a feral sense of survival to want to avoid that.

        1. The educated, or educable, leaders of the Republican Party are aware that the American electorate is becoming less rural, less religious, less white, less bigoted, and less backward. They also understand the predictable consequences of that prospect for the conservative electoral coalition.

          I doubt they are banking on Donald Trump’s ardent supporters for a political future.

          1. It’s only becoming less rural because so many uneducated, ignorant, liberal, and homeless pieces of shit keep moving to cities to be closer to the free crap all these democrat big city mayors say theyll give them.

            Thanks for populating our cities with idiots, and given how shitty city schools perform all across the country compared to suburban ones… You might want to rethink whose actually smarter dipshit. Seems most people in cities are far dumber, and graduation rates prove that.

            1. The inconvenient fact for “Rev” is that a majority of high school dropouts are Democrats.

              1. I am sure you can document that assertion, right?

              2. The Rev himself is a high school dropout. And does menial work for minimum wage. He works for a conservative, and is jealous of him.

                Typical of his kind.

          2. Kirkland, honey, even many of us “rainbow coalition” types have figured out that the neo-Marxist, proto-fascist ideology of the Democrats and progressive bigots like you is simply not viable in the long term.

            Take it from an actual immigrant: malcontent black teenagers, public sector employees, union workers, legal immigrants, illegal farm working migrants, wealthy white gay couples, and people who chop off their weenies actually have no common interests, much as Democrats delude themselves into thinking they do.

            Neo-Marxism is like old-style Marxism: it fools people for a few years into thinking that it might be worth trying until they come to their senses.

        2. The whole idea that “taking out Trump” will somehow help the GOP is a colossally fucking stupid idea in the long sad history of colossally fucking stupid ideas, and if anything I’m underexaggerating here.

          We’re stuck with Trump until 2024; we won’t have a conservative President until then no matter what.

          1. What we will have until 2024, however, is a dim-witted, inarticulate, tough-as-nails middle-of-the-road guy, and that’s not half bad, compared to the alternatives.

          2. Probably the strongest case for the GOP taking out Trump is that it would be par for the course for the stupid party.

        3. I don’t think this is supposed to actually impeach him, I think it’s supposed to be more of an attempt to discredit him, the same way they use the Russian collusion BS now. Most Americans believe that politicians get away with everything anyway, so the democrats have been playing it as “Trump actually did it, but of course he got away with it, because politics”.

          1. “I think it’s supposed to be more of an attempt to discredit him, not impeach him”
            Yup. This is just an election smear campaign by the DNC that they hope will take out two targets. Trump in the main blast and Biden in the crossfire.
            Biden’s not the DNC’s type of people anymore. They want an urbane, demagogic sociopath like Warren who’ll appeal to billionaire social liberals.

      3. If true it is a huge mistake and more proof that this country is really an oligarchy ruled by Globalists and Crony Capitalist (not Capitalists) Romney, Weld, Sasse are all weasels who are worst than the progressives/Socialists they say they oppose. I stopped voting Republican after Bush’s first term as I saw him as a progressive prowar neocon who had little concern for the Constitution. I vote Libertarian despite some of the losers the party has propped up (Weld).

    3. No.

      According to Wingnut.com the Judge is a strict Consructionist who interprets law as it was intended by the Founders.

      The Dotard is a traitor and criminal.

      1. Stick to child porn. It’s your only strength.

      2. All one has to do is listen to him to know what he’s about. And it ain’t constructionism.

      3. And what is his actual judicial experience? 8 years on the NJ State Supeior Court. No actual Federal Judicial experience. He was never a Federal Prosecutor … He was an adjunct professor at Setotn Hall. Like Obama he was a part time professor. So when I listen to Federal Prosecutors tear his opinion up I have to say he is not the guy I thought he was … He is simply another empty self promoter looking for a better gig. Probably at CNN or MSNBC. They love Fox News defectors…

      4. Hey Kiddie Raper. Taking a break from jacking it to violent child rape videos?

    4. Hey Johnny-boy. Back in 2012 you were touting Mark Sanford as the perfect conservative candidate. Do you still support him?

      1. Go jerk off to child porn you fucking weirdo. It is just fucking disgusting. Why did you think it would be a good idea to put up those instructions? At some point the FBI is finally going to nail your sorry ass and it won’t be a moment too soon. Have fun being a known pedo in a big boy pound you in the ass federal prison. Freak.

        1. So The Con Man even turned you against Mark Sanford!

          Do you swoon when his stringy-ass hair blows all over his block shaped head?

          You’re sick John. You have a Trump born STD.

          1. Thanks for at least stopping lying and no longer denying you are child porn freak. Everyone knows it. But it is good to see you stop denying it.

            1. Oh no he actually admitted it. I have the link.

              1. “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
                August.3.2019 at 11:20 pm
                Fuck you old man, no one made you click on the KP links I posted. I thought you were supposed to be a Libertarian grampa.”

                https://reason.com/2019/08/03/el-paso-walmart-shooter-allegedly-wrote-anti-immigrant-manifesto-calling-hispanics-invaders/#comment-7879239

                He said it was someone else and he’d been hacked. That’s why he had to change his password. Of course, That post was AFTER he changed his password so… Yeah.

                1. Wow, I knew he was stupid but I didn’t know he was THAT stupid.

                2. Wow…what a piece of shit. Honestly, Reason should have reported him to the police for that, not just banned him. Child porn is a criminal act (because children are incapable of giving consent), and someone distributing links to it on their site makes them complicit.

                  It’s one thing to refuse to give a fanatic federal prosecutor login info for commenters because they criticized a judge, quite another to whitewash evidence of criminals involved in the abuse of children.

                  An FBI agent needs to be going through buttplug’s computer to find out just how extensive (and possibly ongoing) his abuse of children is.

                  1. And why the fuck would they ever let him back on their message board? That should be a lifetime ban.

          2. Weird I don’t see your link to any of this.

          3. Seriously, you should just drink bleach for even knowing those links exist. You’re a disgraceful and disgusting human being.

          4. Trump born STD vs. Trump acquired TDS

      2. Links or gtfo.

        And even if links, gtfo pedophile.

      3. Mark Sanford? What a flake.

    5. You’re the lunatic John.

      1. You are a moron and likely a paid troll. Go troll somewhere where people are dumb enough to believe you.

        1. Pod, you are pissing all over the country with those comments; like Obama did when he skipped scalia’s funeral. Presidents should never skip funerals. Oh wait.

          1. Especially their own

        2. So… we can’t investigate democrats if it might be politically helpful for a republican?

          Is that the argument?

          1. You can’t investigate Democrats? Did you forget the last 20 years? Clintons?

        3. naw, he’s not competent enough to be paid. Probably just some kid with too much time on his hands and likes to feel edgy by pissing people off.

      2. Whose sock are you, Pod?

      1. Does anyone know if there is any truth to the claim that Trump refuse to pardon a friend of Napolitano and that is one of the reasons for the TDS?

        I can see Napolitano getting pissed because he got passed over for the SCOTUS. People get bent all out of shape when they think they deserve something and dont get it.

        1. “”People get bent all out of shape when they think they deserve something and dont get it.””

          Democrats after Hillary lost.

          1. And Democrats after Kerry lost, and Democrats after Gore lost, and Democrats after Dukakis lost, and Democrats after Mondale lost, and Democrats after Carter lost, and …

          2. I see what you did there

        2. Napolitano also went off on Gorsuch or Kavanaugh (can’t remember which one) because he thinks that one of them believed that constitutional rights are not inalienable, or that the Government grants rights.

          1. More plausible, Napolitano’s legal career is over, and he gets more work in his new job when what he says is sensationalist. It’s not doing jack shit politically for or against Trump, but it keeps people clicking when Nap says stupid shit. And lately it appears he’s been getting very good at his job.

      2. “Judge” Napolitano is a third rate lawyer with delusions of grandeur.

        Mostly what he is proving these days is how unsuitable he would have been for the federal bench.

    6. >>>Napalitano has lost his fucking mind.

      paid to answer. he’s a who-ah

    7. Napolitano got turned down by Trump for a federal judicial appointment. He was supportive of Trump up until then, he turned on him after that.

      Basically, he’s a frustrated office seeker who is pissed that he didn’t handed a plum job just for being a suck-up.

      1. Why has not a single anchor asked him about his though change in Character on Trump? He has been majorly wrong at least 5 times now on his predictions on Trump. He doesn’t even have the same fire he had when he was fighting for liberty.

        I never understood how after he did one of the most incredible speeches on Liberty on his own Fox News show and was summarily fired, never called them to the table on it. It’s not like Fox doesn’t settle suits to avoid controversy, They gave 32 million over 5 years to the woman O Reilly harassed.

    8. When The Establishment pushes in your face absurdities like this, they’re telling you that democracy doesn’t have much time left in the US. They’ve been doing it since “Hillary had no criminal intent” Comey urinated in our faces on national tv.

      Enjoy yourself, it’s later than you think.

    9. Also note that this was on Fox.

      Once Murdoch and Ailes were driven out, Fox’s inevitable fate as yet another news shill for the Deep State was assured.

    10. Been checking out the comments there…Boy, what a bunch of emotionally constipated young folks. WRT the article…

      Well, how ’bout extortion for his own personal gain…That seems to be the consensus floating around, rather than those “frivolous” theories Sam mentions?

    11. I’m sorry, not Sam, Jacob…

  2. What’s that thing they say about questions asked in headlines?

    “The president’s critics have several legal theories, ranging from frivolous to debatable.”

    Looks like he knows the answer.

    1. Exactly. If the author knew the answer was “yes” then he would have stated so in the title because it would have gotten more clicks.

  3. “Members of Congress might reasonably conclude that’s enough to justify impeachment, whether or not Trump committed a prosecutable crime.”

    Impeachment is political; it comes down to whether a plurality of politicians in Congress believe it will benefit them to proceed.

    1. This is why the house hasn’t called for the vote. They don’t think they have enough republicans on their side in the Senate. Impeachment will just lead to an acquittal just like it did with Clinton.

      1. Yes. but Clinton was caught lying about a blowjob.

        Trump is conspiring against the US and its election process.

        1. Yes. but Clinton was caught lying about a blowjob perjuring himself.

          FTFY

          1. perjuring himself.

            About a blowjob.

            1. Bill thought it was worth committing a crime over.

              1. Still was just a blowjob.

                Just like this is still Hilary lost fair and square.

                Call me when they want to impeach him for taxation by executive order and in the process dismantle the executive regulatory state. I’ll get on board. Until then all I here is blowjob, blowjob, blowjob.

                1. A felony is a felony whether it’s over a blowjob or stealing a hundred million dollars, you fucking idiot turd.

                  1. It is called perjury and people are doing hard time for it.

                    1. And it’s taught us that Martha Stewart is a better thug than Tekashi 6ix9ine

                2. A blowjob is all they could prove – splooge on the blue dress – but it has come out that it was a lot more than that.
                  Plus, he was impeached, and lost his license to practice law, for more than just perjury – including suborning others to commit perjury and, in doing so, real obstruction of justice.
                  Let’s not forget that the lie was to avoid responsibility in a #metoo suit, where a similar effort to use a subordinate for sex was not received in the way Monica did.

            2. We all know Clinton was/is a sexual predator. HRC harassed and threatened every woman who came forward to accuse her husband and she had the gall to think she deserved the women’s vote just because she is a woman. Any woman with any self respect would have divorced her husband, but clearly HRC has no self respect.
              Nobody on the planet would have blamed her if she had divorced Bill considering he had sex in the oval office. He brought disrespect to the office of the presidency.

              1. Don’t forget that we have multiple witnesses that Hillary was a domestic abuser. The day after the Lewinsky scandal came out, the Clintons got into an all-out shouting match, and Hillary threw a statuette at Bill, giving him a nasty gash on the forehead. This was attested to by multiple White House staff and secret servicemen in published memoirs.

        2. Where did clinton do this lie pedo?

        3. Clinton perjured himself in a sexual harassment suit against him. The evidence standards he was resisting were ones he championed being made into law.

          1. Still just a blowjob.

            1. No, it was a blowjob on my dime. That nuance gets ignored a lot.

            2. “”Still just a blowjob.””

              Obstruction and Perjury are still crimes.

              If Clinton would have been honest from the start he probably wouldn’t have been impeach.

              1. Clinton also would not have been impeached if he had held out for a girlfriend who swallowed.

                1. For the win.

        4. The impeachment charges against Clinton were obstruction of justice and perjury.

          He committed both. The perjury is not even in dispute. Yet the dems in the Senate didn’t seem to think actual perjury is worthy of removing a president from office.

          “”Trump is conspiring against the US and its election process.””

          Good luck at proving any of that. Even Mueller said he could not find that Trump conspired with the Russian regarding the election even though he believe Trump benefited.

          1. There were even some Republicans, who also didn’t seem to think actual perjury and obstruction of justice is worthy of removing a president from office.
            Anyone think a single demoncrap in the Senate, if it gets that far, will do the honorable thing?

            1. Of course not. There are no honorable democrats left in the senate.

        5. Don’t knock Clinton. He was the greatest sexual liberator of our time.
          He got my mom to say “blowjob” during Thanksgiving dinner.

          1. As in “Hey mom, what’s for desert?”

        6. How did Trump conspired against the US? By asking for an investigation into corruption?

          1. Great question… What did he do to the Constitution by asking for support from a foreign leader to look into obvious corruption of a very public official? My feeling is that the closer that Trump gets to the truth and sheds the light on these cockroaches the more they will scream.

        7. You’re just jealous because no woman or man will get their mouth within 5 feet of your shriveled stub you call a penis.

        8. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
          September.26.2019 at 3:52 pm
          “…Trump is conspiring against the US and its election process.”

          Turd is incapable of posting without lying.

          1. He’s usually more focused on jacking it to child rape videos. Or taking his windowless rape van out cruising for his next victim.

        9. In what way is Trump conspiring against the US.
          Honestly, I swear, you Dems just open your mouths and complete shit pours out.
          Enjoy 2020 because Trump will still be president leading into the election and still be president after the election.
          I’m looking forward to all you butt hurt leftists crying and screaming the day after when you realise you have another 4 years of Trump.

    2. Impeachment is not entirely political; “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a legal term with a legal history, and removal from office is a procedure that has conditions and follows rules.

      If Congress tries to remove a president for something that is clearly not “high crimes and misdemeanors”, SCOTUS might well step in. It’s unlikely that it will ever come to that, but the idea that the process is purely political is fiction. Nothing is “purely political” under Constitutional law; Congress no more has unlimited power than the president.

      1. “”SCOTUS might well step in.””

        Or perhaps the presiding judge of the Senate trial could rule the Senate verdict void.

        Sort of SCOTUS stepping in.

      2. Yes, this popular pundit assertion has always confused me.
        Why would the Constitution say “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” if it didn’t actually meant that? It says it explicitly.
        To replace what it says, with some mushy ambiguous standard of “Anything the Congress finds Reprehensible” would seem unconstitutional, particularly so when the stakes are so high.
        I agree, if the Prez gets convicted in the Senate of something that is not a High Crime or a Misdemeanor, then I can well imagine that question being put to the SCOTUS to determine if the Constitution actually means what is explicitly says.

        1. I always found that term rather inclusive, myself; It boils down to “Serious crimes and misbehavior”. There’s actually some history behind that interpretation.

          Serious crimes have to be crimes, but there’s no such constraint on misbehavior.

  4. “allegedly solicited by Trump would be compromising information about Biden, a leading contender to oppose him as the Democratic nominee in next year’s election”

    He was also the previous administration. Investigating a previous administration should be seen as the interest of the nation.. but it also happens to have a personal benefit. I think Biden actions certainly are national interest. But would Trump be doing it if not for personal gain..

    1. Are we back to legal theory by animus and knowing a criminals internal dialogue?

    2. The argument seems to be you can’t investigate someone who may be your political opponent or belonged to the previous administration. These hypothesis doesn’t sound like the outcome would be something that the American people want to happen.

      1. Look at how many, including quite a few Republicans, who think initiating a real investigation into HiLIARy’s exposing of national secrets, though her offenses had nothing to do with her run for office, would be “banana republic” punishing someone for their political position.
        The charges may have, thankfully, kept her from getting elected, but the crimes were committed more than four years before her candidacy.

  5. “if the allegations against Trump are true, he has abused his power for personal gain and violated the separation of powers by impeding the distribution of congressionally approved military aid. ”

    As I recall, the Obama administration spent money that Congress had refused to appropriate at all by making payments to health insurance companies participating in Obamacare insurance.

    If not spending money that was authorized is an impeachable offense then so is spending money that was not authorized.

    1. Spending money that hasn’t been appropriated is a federal crime. It is called an anti deficiency act violation. What Obama did there was a felony.

      And Trump had the authority to withhold this aid. Even if the aid was specifically appropriated for it, Trump could wait until the end of the fiscal year to disperse it.

      It is fucking unbelievable how stupid the media and the lunatics on the left are and how ignorant they are of the law and government.

      1. BUT TRUMP!!!!!

      2. Even more so, nothing in a (hypothetical) threat to withhold funds would have implied that Trump intended not to follow procedure for withholding funds. Even in areas where Trump does not have impoundment authority, Trump can withhold for up to 45 days while getting the funds unappropriated by Congress permanently.

  6. Trump was asking the govt of Ukraine to place Biden under a criminal investigation. That is beyond fucked up and way more then simply asking for dirt.

    1. Do you deny that the Biden optics looks like plain old-fashioned corruption? Biden fils gets $200K /month pay and his only qualification for the job seems to be having picked the right father.

        1. Cocaine is a hella of a drug.

          1. +1 superfreak. also most correct thing Rick ever said.

            1. Did you ever see Mike Judge’s Tales from the Tour Bus about Rick James?

              1. no but i’m gonna go find it. i have several James albums on vinyl they’re fun to spin still.

              2. Checking that out. Thanks.

                Also Rick James does has some fun music.

        2. Hunter Biden has ALSO been known to blow on cheap plastic flutes w/o a prescription!!! Do NOT follow in his ill-advised footsteps!

          To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

      1. It’s total bs that a board position like that even exists. If Biden Jr it wasn’t filling the position it would have been filled by someone else. I blame the corporations who own govts around the world for it more than I blame a guy like Biden Jr for collecting the easy money.

        1. Let’s say the investigation did happen. Do you think it would have uncovered wrong doing by Hunter?

          1. You’re naive to believe that Biden Jr was doing anything that isn’t done as a matter of routine here and now. They all get lobbyists jobs after Congress. They sit on boards and are paid by the big money corporations. I think the Democrats have legislation in the form of HB 1 that would shut alot of this shit down.

            1. “”You’re naive to believe that Biden Jr was doing anything that isn’t done as a matter of routine here and now.””

              Is that a no or yes? Because as a believer that corruption in DC is routine, I would take that as a yes. But I’m not going to answer for you.

              1. I don’t know that Hunter did anything illegal. If you want to say it’s wrong to accept a do-nothing job because of who is father is, he’s guilty of that.
                Joe, on the other hand, used taxpayer money to bribe the Ukrainian government to reward the company who hired Hunter

                1. Though it is certainly plausible that Hunter participated in the corruption by making promises to burisma and telling joe the conditions for his employment

                  1. Well, given recent precedent, this should be sufficient justification for a two year long exhaustive investigation. Which will necessitate charting all the associates of the ideas with a variety of process crimes. Which will be vigorously prosecuted.

            2. Lol. Sadly I think you believe this. You’re wrong. But democrats find this their post political career. Look at media, publishing, and hollywood. All of Obama’s old staff are on major boards dumbass. How gullible are you?

              1. Then we need to lock every one of them up right away.

                Better safe then sorry.

            3. “You’re naive to believe that Biden Jr was doing anything that isn’t done as a matter of routine here and now”

              So Trump is in the clear then? That’s what you’re saying here?

            4. Remember that moratorium Trump put on future executive branch political appointees from getting foreign lobbying jobs?

              How did that work out? What would another 4 years of that look like to average dc critter?

              Does this provide a plausible motivation for some of these leaker’s creative narratives?

        2. You’ve got this backwards:

          I blame the corporations who own govts around the world

          Corporations couldn’t be cronies if there were no monopolistic coercive governments just begging to be influenced.

          Without governments having their coercive monopoly, businesses could be as corrupt as hell but would lose customers and go out of business. That’s the difference.

          1. “When buying and selling are controlled by governments, the first things to get bought and sold are governments.”

      2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf : “Do you deny that the Biden optics looks like plain old-fashioned corruption? Biden fils gets $200K /month pay and his only qualification for the job seems to be having picked the right father”

        Not a bit. I’d be more specific though : If Hunter Biden was so damn determined to score easy cash off his daddy’s name, couldn’t he at LEAST chosen cheap-money options away from a corrupt sewer like Ukraine? However, Hunter’s ethics aside, you have three problems :

        (1) Hunter’s gross venality still isn’t illegal. That’s pretty important because specific accusations of his “crimes” are extremely sketchy and have the odor of bullshit.

        (2) The meme that Biden forced out the prosecutor Shokin over Hunter is bullshit, pure and simple. Jonah Goldberg over at the National Review said that accusation won’t stand up to five minutes of reading on the subject. Biden’s threats followed the President’s orders, State Department policy, and the expressed aim of the European Union, World Bank and IMF. Inside Ukraine every single reformist group wanted Shokin fired. They protested in the streets demanding his ouster, and cheered when he was gone. Which leads us to…….

        (3) Not only is Trump strong-arming a foreign government to serve his personal ends – not only is he trading the favor of the United States for his own private gain – not only is he colluding with another country to influence an election – but he’s asking that country to promote a fraudulent accusation. Can you get more impeachment-worthy than that?

        As for his CrowdStrike nonsense, that’s too batshit crazy for me to comment on. Seems like more water-carrying for DJT’s BFF Putin though…..

        1. The corruption isn’t the job, but the optics. No one would pay Biden Jr squat for his expertise; they paid for the access to Biden Sr. Much like Bush Jr getting lucrative Saudi oil contracts simply to gain access to Bush Sr.

          Pretending there was nothing untoward is a joke.

          1. But I conceded Hunter’s actions was entirely untoward. We’re in total agreement there. Your problem is Joe’s weren’t. That sleazy piece of garbage who sits in the Oval Office got on the phone with Zelensky and said this :

            “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.”

            And this :

            “I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair,” he said. “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.”

            Now, everything Trump said is lying on a grotesque level. But it was a signal to the president of Ukraine, asking him to perpetrate a fraud for his (Trump’s) private gain. And if you can’t see the quid pro quo involved, it’s because you have your eyes screwed tight shut.

            1. So they gave Hunter Biden all of that money and got nothing in return? I kind of doubt that. Biden was corrupt too or there would not have been anything for Hunter to sell.

              Stop lying you ignorant troll.

            2. “Your problem is Joe’s weren’t.”

              No actually that’s your problem. You keep going at Trump because of what he did to Biden, but by your own admission, there wasn’t an investigation into Biden. It was his son. You’re trying to get Trump by tying his request of an investigation to Sr, but without ALSO tying it to Jr. You can’t have it both ways.

              1. Really? I quoted sections of the call where Trump explicitly signals To Zelensky that Joe Biden is the person he wants targeted. The exact words are two posts above your response. Why don’t you quote the sections focused on Hunter? Good luck with that…..

                The story being promoted is this : Biden pressured Ukraine to save his wastrel son. It’s a complete lie, but that just makes Trump’s aim all the clearer. How do you coerce a foreign government into launching a fraudulent probe? By withholding aid. But insisting on how “good” you’ve been to them, but it hasn’t been “reciprocal”. By telling the leader of a foreign government to work with your private attorney in crafting the story.

                And by laying out that story, plain as day. Because you’re not very smart, and certainly not subtle. The officials around you are cringing as they listen. Immediately after the call they attempt to scrub away the stench. But you’re oblivious, with a huckster’s belief in his own scam……

            3. I’ll add another point. Today Trump said this :

              “Who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,” the president continued. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

              Then he went off on a rant about reporters as “scum” and “animals”. His UN news conference yesterday was barely coherent, it was so bizarrely unhinged. Meanwhile, in an interview today Giuliani said he’s holding texts to ‘protect’ himself. These are ugly loathsome people, and when they turn on each other it will quickly get brutal.

              In contrast, imagine those professional types described in the whistleblower’s complaint – dragged into this cesspit by President Dumpsterfire. I bet they jump into line to testify. The only question is how deep Trump has dragged Pence and Barr into this mess.

              1. Cool story bro.

                It’s fun how you have nothing, you throw up literally everything.

                It’s just the typical argument by insinuation.

              2. Remember the other day when I made you completely lose your mind and have a tantrum like a spittle flecked retard yeah you’re doing it now

              3. Right but the majority of your post is a lie and never happened

              4. The only real question is how MUCH of a fucking retard you are.

            4. Some sanity finally. Of course, the only responses you are getting are variations of “shut up.” They get so emotional when you make them confront their cognitive dissonance. Your comment and the responses could be a text book entry on the subject of cognitive dissonance.

            5. What you are saying is lying on a grotesque level.
              There is actual documentation that shows Hunter’s lawyers apologized to the fired prosecutor for the efforts to get him fired and portray him as being corrupt.
              https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

              1. Another piece of John Solomon drivel ?!? He pumps out agitprop two or three times a week and 99.99% of it goes straight into the garbage bin. Take a look in the comments to his pieces : Most of them are people laughing at what a lying hack he is. As for today’s excretionary example, how much reality do you have to ignore to take it seriously?

                Want to know why Ukrainians were protesting in the street demanding Shokin be fired? Because he refused to prosecutor anyone from the ousted Poroshenko regime, even though they had looted the country. Because one of Shokin’s prosecutor underlings was arrested for corruption with several millions dollars worth of diamonds found in his house. Shokin released the prosecutor, refused to charge him and returned the diamonds. I’m not sure what your jokey Solomon bullshit about an alleged “apology” has to say about that.

                Want to know what the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, said about Shokin in a Sept. 2015 speech delivered in Odessa?

                “There is one glaring problem that threatens all of the good work that regional leaders here in Odessa, in Kharkiv, in Lviv, and elsewhere are doing to improve the business climate and build a new model of government that serves the people,” Pyatt said, later adding, “That obstacle is the failure of the institution of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine to successfully fight internal corruption. Rather than supporting Ukraine’s reforms and working to root out corruption, corrupt actors within the Prosecutor General’s office are making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform.”

                I’m not sure what your Solomon bullshit about an alleged “apology” has to say about that. For that matter, are you interested in why the European Union demanded Shokin be fired? In 2014 they listed ten steps required for Ukraine to establish an independent judiciary. Shokin blocked every measure. So where does your crap about an alleged “apology” fit in with that?

                The President wanted Shokin fired, official State Department policy wanted him fired, the European Union demanded his ouster, the World Bank & IMF threaten to withhold aid unless he was out. Does your Solomon “apology” cover them all?

                Just after Shokin was fired the Kyiv Post wrote this : “By the end of his term he was likely one of the most unpopular figures in Ukraine, having earned a bad reputation for inaction and obstructing top cases.” Apparently all of Ukraine owed the man an apology too.

                Look at what Trump has made of today’s Right : People willing to peddle dishonest excuses for a sleazy crook like Shokin…..

                1. You make up a lot of bullshit. And no one cares if worthless progtards like you troll John Solomon. That has nothing to do with the quality of his work.

                  The bottom line is you are a piece of living garbage. You have no value and really are functionally nothing more than a malignant tumor. That you have the temerity to post such fetid crap here speaks volumes about your lack of character.

                  You really are just awful.

        2. The article promoting European Union, World Bank and IMF interest in the firing the same prosecutor shows even more the whole Biden issue was Corrupt as sin.

          The European Union ousted a duly elected President by a small Military Coup. The European Union ran Obama, which why Ukraine happened and Libya is such a mess after the CIA orchestrated the death of Kadiffi for the French.

          The Dems have turned the US into Third world politics. When you can’t beat them at the polls send in the same media scum to write stories and lies and engage your political mechanism for impeachment or recall.

          National Review has only one writer worth reading and that is Hansen. The others are Rhino stooges who took over the conservative elite educated class and sold us Bush and wars upon wars, upon wars.

          1. By the “conservative elite educated class” you mean the war mongers and bigots that used to make up the party?

        3. We don’t know whether what Hunter Biden did was illegal. It is certainly reasonable for Ukraine to investigate.

          1. You’re kinda missing the point. Trump has no shortage of lies about Hunter Biden. Since this was exposed, he’s been at it full bore. The lying has quickly gotten out of hand; at one point Trump had Hunter’s take up to one billion dollars.

            So if Trump didn’t lack material if he wanted to feed Zelensky script lines on little Hunter Biden. That’s the advantage of just making stuff up. Instead, Hunter was only mentioned in reference to the firing of Shokin. What Trump wanted to talk about was the firing.

            And that’s because the target was Joe Biden. That was the signal to Zelensky. And since Trump’s story on the firing was complete bullshit, he had to be direct about what he expected. Read the transcript : He was.

            1. According to Hunter Biden’s attorneys, your take on the firing is complete bullshit.
              The $1. 5 billion figure comes from the Chinese money he secured while on another “diplomatic” trip of his father’s

              1. Hilarious. You guys are a non-stop clown show. Newsflash : The 1.5 billion dollar number is just another Trump lie. Try Googling “Hunter Biden and China” if you can bear having Fact Checkers crush another one of your sordid little fantasies.

                You know, Nardz, you’re just as gullible now as the very first time Trump spoon-fed bullshit into your mouth. Thousands of lies later and you’re just as much a dupe. What does that say about you?

            2. You’re kinda missing the point. Trump has no shortage of lies about Hunter Biden

              It’s a fact that Hunter Biden is someone who was kicked out of the reserves for drug use and then received millions from countries his father was pressuring as VP.

              And that’s because the target was Joe Biden.

              Of course the target was Joe Biden. Hunter got those jobs because corrupt third world regimes wanted to buy favors with the administration, and instead of Joe objecting to it, he either silently tolerated it or encouraged it. An investigation by Ukraine might help resolve whether he broke any laws there, but either way, Joe Biden is a crook.

              1. In all your meaningless blather and spleen, there is one interesting point : Can Joe Biden be held responsible for a son leeching off his name? Couldn’t he have insisted on his rights of a paterfamilias, as in the ancient days of Rome – perhaps demanding a formal meeting in togas. You tend to want to be a bit censorious, but where do you then stop? Because you see the same parasitic behavior everywhere, in both political parties. This includes (in case you were unaware) the Trump family……

                1. In all your meaningless blather and spleen, there is one interesting point : Can Joe Biden be held responsible for a son leeching off his name?

                  No, but Joe Biden can be held responsible for not dealing appropriately with a conflict of interest. I think he failed to do that. He could have (1) resigned, (2) recused himself, or (3) told his son to resign.

                  But that’s not what we are talking about here. A Ukrainian investigation would be about whether Hunter Biden or Joe Biden actually violated Ukrainian law, which they may well have done, in addition to Joe’s evident conflict of interest. As part of that, we might also have learned facts relevant to whether Joe Biden or Hunter Biden violated US law.

                  You tend to want to be a bit censorious, but where do you then stop? Because you see the same parasitic behavior everywhere, in both political parties. This includes (in case you were unaware) the Trump family

                  I have not objected to law enforcement (foreign or domestic) looking into the business dealings of the Trump family, as they have evidently done with great relish. Trump, in particular, was investigated at the behest of the prior president even, a political rival.

                  For some reason, you want to apply a different standard to Biden.

                  1. GRB is a sick combination of disingenuous and blind fanatic. He will never admit the truth or acknowledge reality. Which is typical of his kind.

                    He is a good example of why we can longer allow progressivism in America.

        4. “(1) Hunter’s gross venality still isn’t illegal. ”

          You’re familiar with the relevant Ukrainian law?

          “Biden’s threats followed the President’s orders, State Department policy, and the expressed aim of the European Union, World Bank and IMF. Inside Ukraine every single reformist group wanted Shokin fired.”

          That list isn’t as damning as you’d like us to think.

          1. No, not nearly as damning as you’d like us to think.

            Two sorts of people attack prosecutors: Honest people who think the prosecutor is corrupt, and corrupt people worried the prosecutor might be honest. They’ll both say the prosecutor is corrupt.

            1. Really, Brett? This is what Trump’s brought you to? Peddling dishonest counter-factoids to cover for sleazy scum like Shokin. And not even straight-up, but by insinuation no less. I’m not sure if that makes you better or worst than your weaseling brethren who defend Shokin openly.

              Hell, I’m not even sure what the point is. Because even if you “prove” black is white and the whole world was wrong about Shokin (including the Ukrainian people), that still won’t rescue your bullshit story of Biden trying to save Hunter. Biden would have still have been following the orders of President and State Department regardless. You’re defending a truly loathsome person in Shokin, and for no reason whatsoever except meaningless conspiracy mongering. What Trump has reduced you to, eh?

              Speaking of Trump, let’s get back to the subject: It was clearly a quid pro quo, and poor Zelensky was obviously desperate to be accommodating. A better man than Trump would have been embarrassed with the Ukrainian leader’s fawning – would have left the poor guy a little bit of dignity – but we all known DJT is gutter trash.

              So what was he asking from Zelensky? Investigations of the CrowdStrike gibberish (a batshit-crazy lunatic lie) and Biden protecting his son thru Shokin’s ouster (also a clear lie). In each case Trump carefully laid out how he wanted the lie told to Zelensky, because the only sure way to suborn perjury is to go over the story, word by word.

              Who knows? It might have even worked without the whistleblower. After all, Brett, Trump has you lying for him. Why not Zelensky?

              1. OK, let me ask you: What basis do you have for thinking Shokin sleazy scum? Because the sleazy scum head of the IMF said so? Because the sleazy scum world bank said so?

                What personal information do you have about him, besides sleazy people having spoken badly of him?

                1. First : There is a massively oversized post by me about a dozen comments up, going over some of the low-lights of Shokin’s career. One example is his subordinate prosecutor arrested on charges of corruption with several million dollars worth of diamonds found at his home. Shokin released the man, refused to proceed with charges, and handed back the loot.

                  Second : If you were truly interested in Shokin’s character as opposed to covering-up for Trump’s, you – Brett Bellmore – who do some research on the Ukrainian. But either you haven’t because you prefer to prevaricate from ignorance or you have & are doing it by strategy. Not a very appealing choice…..

                  Third : It is not just the IMF, as you well you. Those who thought Shokin hopelessly corrupt and wanted him ousted included : The President, the State Department, European Union, and World Bank. It also included the reformists in Ukraine itself, who protested in the streets demanding he be fired. No doubt you know more about the man than they do, right?

                  Trump was twisting Zelensky’s arm to demand lies on CrowdStrike and Shokin’s firing. There has to be limits on what you’ll excuse. Right ?!?

      3. Do you deny that the Biden optics looks like plain old-fashioned corruption?

        I was just listening to a call-in show on this where the station (KGO for Bay Area people – Pat Thurston, but with a sub for the day) had a DNC lawyer on explaining how there’s nothing to see here, Biden-wise.

        A Ukrainian lady called in saying ‘I don’t support Trump, and didn’t vote for him, but I come from Ukraine and can tell you that the oil and gas industry in Ukraine is very corrupt, and that if Biden’s son was working with Ukrainian oil and gas company, he is corrupt. It just is what it is.’

        They could not get her off the air fast enough, and told her she could listen on hold while the lawyer explained that this has all been investigated and this is all about Trump please stop bringing Biden into this.

        1. Must protect the narrative!

    2. Poor troll pod. As with the other sock trolls around here you will have to get Hillary’s cock out of your mouth before we can understand your mumbled words.

      1. I think he also has Soros’ cock in his ass simultaneously.

        Progtards do enjoy a good spitroasting after all.

    3. No he didnt. He never once mentions criminal charges.

    4. LOL at a fucking commie insisting that the word of a CIA employee should be trusted without question.

    5. I am sorry he asked him to help look into it. Biden has been shooting his mouth off about how tough he is and now it has called attention to his drug addict son who has lived a favored/privileged life thanks to his father’s connections. This Ukraine thing raised questions that Trump was obligated to address. If you think Biden’s son appointment to a energy company board was because of his financial expertise, reliability, energy knowledge or anything else other than his ability to drink Vodka by the gallon then you are fooling yourself. Please list the criminal statue that Trump has broken or even the Constituional issue.

    6. “Trump was asking the govt of Ukraine to place Biden under a criminal investigation. That is beyond fucked up and way more then simply asking for dirt.”
      shitstain, here, thinks finding out whether Biden is a cook is verboten!

    7. Why do you think is it “fucked up” to ask a foreign nation to open a criminal investigation into what clearly looks like corrupt behavior?

    8. “”That is beyond fucked up and way more then simply asking for dirt.””

      So is the Steele dossier being used in a top secret court against Trump.

    9. I have to disagree on one point.

      Look at the bare-bones description, and it looks corrupt as all get-out. Not just corrupt, but children’s fiction corrupt.

      The son with no qualifications and a cocaine habit gets a board of directors position. When the company gets under investigation, Biden steps in, the prosecutor gets fired, and the investigation dropped. This is so obvious that you have to ask yourself if it’s real. Biden’s statement that he didn’t know who his son worked for is not likely, to the point of being unbelievable.

      Please tell me with a straight face that this is not worthy of investigation. Trump is in agreement with the New York Times that this is something that needs to be investigated and evaluated.

      He gave a mild request to the Ukrainian President, who agreed.

  7. So anything that someone could provide a candidate that could make them look good or an opponent look bad could be considered a bribe or campaign finance violation. I think that may be a standard many politicians will regret being set if it becomes a precedent.

    1. The precedent they seek is only when trump does it

      1. Only when a Republican does it.

    2. It should be a precedent. Presidents shouldn’t ask foreign governments for favors that benefit them personally, whether that be for aid in getting elected or for monetary benefit. It leads to quid-pro-quo risks. Presidential conversations with foreign governments should be about policy, and should be done in the capacity of a president of the U.S., not as a candidate for re-election.

      1. Isn’t informing a foreign government about possible corruption in their country policy? By your logic, Trump should not tell another nation anything no matter how urgent if doing so will somehow benefit him politically.

        You do understand that is crazy don’t you?

      2. The theory being put forth does not seem to limit it to this particular circumstance.

      3. “”should be done in the capacity of a president of the U.S., not as a candidate for re-election.””

        Politicians are positioning themselves for re-election their whole career. When are they not a candidate for re-election?

      4. Zero reason to believe Trump was looking at this as a candidate for reelection. The Biden’s and people they work with/were paid by in the Ukraine are corrupt and should be investigated and prosecuted. Trump has been investigated ad-nauseum time for the truly corrupt to get theres. Trump is right and the Dims are fools.

      5. It could be argued that that Biden did the damage to our country by trotting his drug addict son around the world to set him up with pay for play jobs in Ukraine and China

      6. A criminal investigation of Biden doesn’t benefit Trump unless it yields evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Biden.

  8. “political campaigns routinely pay for opposition research, which is essentially what Trump is accused of seeking.”

    He didnt ask for dirt. He asked Ukraine to look into a corrupt demand from Biden. That is not dirt to use in a campaign. The Biden request was already known. If this is the definition of bribery arrest everyone associated with Steele and the Mueller investigation.

    1. +100

      Lefties are upset that Trump is now comfortable enough to have government expose Democrat crimes and possible indict them.

    2. Why would Trump want the chief law enforcement officer -AG Barr- involved if he wasn’t talking about a criminal investigation?

      1. Why did democrats work with State, ukraine, australia, and Britain when investigating trump.

        I ask again. How fucking stupid are you?

      2. Odd…he has never asked Barr to do anything, actually. And why involve Barr? You mean outside of his access to the info submitted by Mueller?

    3. “He asked Ukraine to look into a corrupt demand from Biden.”

      This.
      Anyone who has passed 5th grade English class in the US can see this by simply reading the transcript. Any “pressure” has to be inferred by the reader because there was none in that transcript, the Ukrainian president said there wasn’t, and if there was then if Trump asks his secretary for a Coke it could be construed as he pressured her to get a Coke.
      If Trump pressured him then handshakes are sexual assaults, chickens are now ducks, and ham comes from cows.

    4. Rudy Giuliano claims to have evidence of money laundering by Hunter Biden and claims to have evidence of even more serious crimes. Rudy is an idiot who should have retired 20 years ago but he obviously has Trump’s ear. It seems pretty obvious to me that Trump was asking if the Ukrainians could substantiate Rudy’s claims In much the same way the Obama administration pressured them to produce evidence against Paul Manafort.

      1. Well, and what’s wrong with “asking the Ukrainians if they could substantiate Rudy’s claims”? If they can’t, no harm done. If they can, the US public should know.

  9. Did Trump Commit a Crime by Seeking a Ukrainian Investigation of Joe Biden? And Does It Matter for Impeachment Purposes?

    1. No
    2. Impeachments are political processes, just like armed insurrection and removal of Lefty politicians in our government is a political process.

    1. John is sucking Trump’s tiny mushroom dick right now.

      You have to wait.

      1. Poor Child pedo SPB, your words are so mumbled with Hillary’s dick in your mouth.

      2. Child porn. Tiny dicks. What’s on your mind champ?

      3. More using homosexual behavior to insult your foes.

        So, you like kiddie porn AND you hate gay folks.

        Truly, you’re a winner.

      4. It’s pretty clear you know you already lost this one.

        1. And he’s too stupid to know the first rule of holes: stop digging.

      5. why is this necessary other than to concede you are losing the intellectual sideof the arguement and need to project your own sick twisted fantasies.

      6. Hey Kiddie Raper, I see you haven’t killed yourself yet. I’m the alternative, I hope the FBI excites a no knock warrant in you and you get your balls shot off in the hail of incoming bullets. Then you can’t rape anymore children.

        Although you will still be able to be a usable plug and play interface for your eventual cellmate and his friends.

    2. Agreed. If the dems make it ok to overturn an election just because they didn’t win, I don’t see any reason to respect any elections they “win”

  10. It’s almost as though campaign finance laws are in conflict with First Amendment protections. But I digress.

    1. A real libertarian magazine would highlight this aspect. Volokh has a few times on the other side.

    2. It’s a real shame foreign govts can’t buy our politicians.

      1. The trick is to reduce the power and money of government to reduce the incentive to be bought. That’s what you’re too fucking dumb to understand. You think if the right people are merely voted in there be no corruption.

        1. I sort of agree with you that govt power lends itself to corruption. But I also think from my understanding of history that powerful private interests would fill that void and exercise that power if govts was diminished. I’m referring to those companies that used to pay their workers with company money that could only used in the company store. The trick is balance the power and have competing interests. I think founding fathers did a pretty good job of designing our system.

          1. Those private interests can’t arrest me. Corrupt leaders can.

            “”The trick is balance the power and have competing interests.””

            True, but the left are more interested in the monopoly of government or at least enough power over companies that they can’t make their own decision anymore.

          2. The founding fathers wanted a small government with very little of the power it currently has. They also never envisioned that people would want to serve in goverernment their whole adult life as Biden has.

            1. If biden spent more time parenting instead of being a politician, maybe his kid wouldn’t be a drug addicted piece of shit.

          3. Pod
            September.26.2019 at 4:51 pm
            “I sort of agree with you that govt power lends itself to corruption. But I also think from my understanding of history…”

            Which you’ve shown to be at about a 5th grade level, so we can ignore any of your bullshit on that subject.

            1. And you offer nothing to the conversation except to highlight your rather limited IQ. Certainly don’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to present a decent argument.

      2. Well, Presidents can have increased flexibility after elections, right? That’s cool, right?

        1. Flexibility to do what? That’s the money question.

          1. There’s even a video of the President talking to a Russian representative, making this very statement!

            I would strongly encourage you to look for it. I have no idea why this video hasn’t been used to seek impeachment, though.

            1. Lmao, the fact he doesn’t know what anyones referencing shows his age. You know he thinks its a Republican or trump

        2. Exactly when Obama made that statement he was acknowleging that once he no longer had to worry about the electorate he could sell out his allies and betray the Americans he represented with impunity. What a turd he is.

      3. “It’s a real shame foreign govts can’t buy our politicians.”

        The hag disagrees:
        “”Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.”
        This was sourced from a right-wing publication:
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-
        reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-
        to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-
        dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-
        8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_
        term=.2cbca4a77536

  11. the parameter “frivolous –> debatable” is too small to have meaning.

  12. “”Like the bribery statute, the campaign finance law would apply to an arrangement between Trump and Zelenskiy only if the information discovered by a Ukrainian investigation of Biden and his son, Hunter, would qualify as a “thing of value.”””

    I guess there is an assumption that the investigation would have shown Hunter was at least complicit in a way that Trump could have used it. Otherwise, just asking for an investigation gives Trump nothing of value.

    1. That is the thing about this entire thing. If Biden is innocent, then it makes no sense for Trump to ask for an investigation to help his campaign because as you point out it will give him nothing of value. If Biden is guilty, then it makes sense for Trump to do so, but Trump isn’t doing anything wrong by informing the Ukrainian President of criminality occurring within his country.

      So it is either not bribery or it is Trump doing his job as President.

      1. Trump wanted Biden investigated. The mere fact of placing Biden “under investigation” is enough for Trump to use to slander Biden in the election. It wouldn’t matter if Biden was cleared at the conclusion of it. The value of the thing was that “Ukraine investigated Joe Biden”.

        1. Biden was already under investigation and bragged about extorting the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor. That was all a matter of public record. So, having him investigated again does Trump no good unless there is something there.

          Try again retard.

          1. Who had place Biden under criminal investigation?

        2. “The mere fact of placing Biden “under investigation” is enough for Trump to use to slander Biden in the election.”

          And the totally bogus “investigation” of Trump was OK by you, right?

        3. Do you mean the way that Democrats slandered Trump in the ’16 election with Russian Collusion? Try unfucking yourself for once.

        4. “”The value of the thing was that “Ukraine investigated Joe Biden”.””

          I get why you believe that. Something similar is in Hillary Clinton’s book 10,000 reasons why I was rob of the 2016 election.

    2. But that can’t be assumed. If Hunter was clean then that negates that. If Hunter is dirty it only means something if Biden is in fact his opponent. Right now Biden has 20 opponents. Much of what Trump referred to was Crowdstrike and the Dems alleged involvement /collusion with Ukrainian officials to get dirt on Trump in 2016. Allof this led to the phony Steele Dossier and eventually the appointment of the Special Council. Barr has been committed to getting to the bottom of this fiasco.

      1. Very true. A lot more people than just the Bidens should be put in prison. Most of the democrat power structure are guilty of a myriad of crimes.

  13. So… we can’t investigate democrats if it might be politically helpful for a republican?

    Is that the argument?

    1. Yes. It is now a crime for a Republican to even request an investigation of a Democrat politician. They actually believe that. That is how batshit crazy these people are.

      1. How far would Trump have to go to make it a problem? If he explictly said: “You won’t get your foreign aid unless you re-open this closed investigation of my political opponent” instead of implying it would that be bad enough?

        1. Suppose he did. Assuming he had the authority to withhold the aid, and he did, why would that be a problem assuming Biden is guilty? According to your logic, Biden could be guilty of any crime up to including trying to overthrow the government and Trump could not so much as tell the Ukrainians about it if doing so would benefit him politically.

          Again, you are fucking nuts if you think that.

        2. “How far would Trump have to go to make it a problem? If he explictly said: “You won’t get your foreign aid unless you re-open this closed investigation of my political opponent” instead of implying it would that be bad enough?”

          We’ll just note here that the situation you describe is EXACTLY what Biden and multiple D senators did

        3. He didn’t imply it … in the end Ukraine got the money and in fact more military aid than ever. There was no mention of re-opening the case rather it was look into specifically Biden’s self admitted extortion and the fact his drug addict son happened to be connected to dirty money to the tune of $600k per year. Perhaps in the Ukraine Drug Addicts make that kind of money. I am not sure what they do on boards of Energy companies. Perhaps they supply the stock holders with crack. Also he is very good at sleeping with homeless meth addicted scab infested women.

        4. “Lester224
          September.26.2019 at 4:41 pm
          “How far would Trump have to go to make it a problem? If he explictly said: “You won’t get your foreign aid unless you re-open this closed investigation of my political opponent” instead of implying it would that be bad enough?”

          How much time do lefty ‘tards spend coming up with laughable hypotheticals?
          Fuck off and die.

    2. No, elected law enforcement officers may not baselessly investigate their political opponents. Is this news to you? It might hell you this better by exchanging the noun Trump with “mayor”, i.e The mayor instructed the police chief to start a criminal investigation of her opponent.

      1. “No, elected law enforcement officers may not baselessly investigate their political opponents.”

        Trump is a law enforcement officer? He heads the DoJ but he seems quite lacking power to indict anybody.

        1. He’s the Chief Executive supposed to enforce the laws, I know it sounds ridiculous to even say it.

      2. I would say that the New York Times article in May provided plenty of basis to at least open an investigation. Again, think of the precedent. If a political candidate is involved, does that make both them and their children immune to prosecution? Remember who this investigation was into. Hunter Biden’s employer. That’s two degrees of separation.

  14. “Did Trump Commit a Crime by Seeking a Ukrainian Investigation of Joe Biden?”

    Yes. Republicans cannot investigate any democrat because, as we all know, the democrats are as pure as the driven snow. Such pogroms against the kind, innocuous, and gentle lambs of the democratic party must be met with suspicion and immediate retaliation if we are to have a fair and impartial country that loves justice, equality and peace.

    “And Does It Matter for Impeachment Purposes?”

    Of course it matters for the impeachment process! We must remove Trump from office with a just and even-handed non-evidentiary impeachment process. Pro-capitalists like Trump deserve no evidence to remove them from office. They are the reason why so many people embrace the free market values and reject the prudence of socialist slavery. America doesn’t need evidence to remove Trump from office, only rumors, innuendo and make-believe conspiracies.
    It is only through the judicious decision of removing a sitting president without any real reason or evidence can we can finally go back to ruled by our obvious betters who are wise enough to welcome socialist tyranny over all us, the unenlightened.

    1. C’mon. The Demos know Trump won’t be removed unless it is done so by the Republican controlled Senate. Even then, we’d have President Mike Pence. They aren’t doing this because they think it will remove Trump.

  15. Two out of two presidents ever impeached were impeached based on statutory violations. Neither was convicted. Yet “experts” consistently opine that “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes things other than crimes, based solely on citation to the opinions of other “experts”. If you were a voter trying to decide whether to vote for or against the ratification of the Constitution, what would “high crimes and misdemeanors” have meant to you? In other words, what was the original public meaning of the phrase?

    1. I think crimes being statutorily defined is a more recent phenomenon. I think at that time there was a common law, i.e. case law, understanding of what constituted criminal activity. I could be mistaken. Whatever the case I think impeachment is more of a political question than a legal one.

    2. I am perfectly fine with impeaching a President over a legal but highly unpopular action; there is evidence that this is even included in the term of art “high crimes and misdemeanors”. We will know when a President has done this when there is enough bipartisan support to remove a President.

      I am not at all convinced that this issue is justification for impeaching President Trump, though. I’m not that great a fan of President Trump, but I also won’t get behind an impeachment attempt unless there’s a good reason for it. And this is definitely not it!

  16. “any American who shared a potentially damaging tip about a political candidate with that candidate’s opponent would be subject to the limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act”

    Jacob is misconstruing what is happening here. It’s not as if Ukraine has dirt on Biden and Trump is merely asking them to release it. Trump is asking Ukraine to actively perform an investigation and then release it. In other words, expend time and resources to produce dirt.

    So that’s one thing. The other thing is that this matter has been looked into and there is nothing there. Trump is pushing Ukraine to open an investigation because we all know that the mere opening of an investigation is enough to taint Biden’s campaign. It would be one thing if there was evidence to suggest that it was worthwhile to open an investigation but there is not. That is the crux of the matter. Trump is peddling a conspiracy theory and asking Ukraine to give that theory official cover.

    And it is not just his meddling with Ukraine that is problematic. Trump is publicly making claims about Biden that are unfounded and based on confusion at best. Trump and his supporters are intentionally spreading disinformation about the firing of Shokin. They are making it appear as if he was fired while investigating Burisma instead of getting fired for his lack of investigating corruption in general. That’s a huge difference. Trump is either extremely confused or he is spreading disinformation. Either way this is extremely troubling.

    1. Keep trying.
      You’ll still keep losing

    2. “The other thing is that this matter has been looked into and there is nothing there.”

      Grill the toadies, Something’s bound to pop up.

    3. Trump is either extremely confused or he is spreading disinformation.

      You are clearly not a Nth dimensional chess player.

    4. “The other thing is that this matter has been looked into and there is nothing there.” I keep hearing this but I’ve yet to find any evidence that there was ever an investigation by anyone into possibly corrupt behavior by the Bidens in Ukraine or China. A handful of mentions in the press in 2015 doesn’t prove much either way.

    5. Trump is asking Ukraine to actively perform an investigation and then release it. In other words, expend time and resources to produce dirtidentify any illegal acts Biden may have committed.

      There, FTFY. And that is a totally legitimate exercise of presidential power.

      Trump is peddling a conspiracy theory and asking Ukraine to give that theory official cover.

      Call it what you like, either Ukraine finds evidence for it or they don’t. If they don’t, no harm done. If they do, Americans should know, preferably before the primaries.

    6. Please explain who is that has looked into Biden’s corruption?. The New York Times? If is determined that Hunter accepted a position in order help an oligarch gain access to his father I don’t see that as dirt .. I see that Hunter is dirty but that would be a fact of the finding. Biden has been shooting his mouth off about his tough take on Ukraine and how he got an allegedly corrupt Prosecutor fired by extorting the Ukraine President. Do we know for a fact that this guy was dirty? We also know that he may have been investigating Hunter’s company Burisma. Certainly it was reported that the owner oligarch was pleased when Biden did this. We know that Biden’s drug addicited son had little to offer this company other than access. We know that the Dems have been involved with Ukraine for nefarious reason for years.

    7. The hill just had an article yesterday discussing how Burisma’s legal reps apologized “for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting.”

      So, it looks like there was something there, and that the prosecutor WASN’T corrupt, at least according to the Ukrainians, who have no reason to lie here (especially since the prosecutor belonged to the previous administration). They’ve also stated that there’s no Quid Pro Quo, and no pressure, but hey, let’s not let inconvenient facts get in the way of your gaslighting.

      https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

    8. I have to disagree. On one point. This hasn’t been investigated thoroughly. That is exactly what is at the core of the issue.

  17. The fact is, though, that impeachment precedents indicate that not only can something be impeachable without being indictable, the opposite seems to hold – something can be indictable without being impeachable.

    Take the Bill Clinton precedent.

    (Progs like to pre-emptively call attention away from their double standards by coining the awkward word “whataboutism.” – understandable if they are aware that their guys tend to be subject to similar criticisms to the outraged indignant accusations they throw at the other side)

    Clinton wanted to set up sex-abuse laws which tilted against the defendant – he signed bills to help this process – and he seems to have thought these laws would apply to little people, not him. Apparently, he was correct, since he got acquitted for misleading the courts when he got sued for sexual harassment (sued under legal theories supported by his Supreme Court appointees, incidentally).

    So it’s not impeachable to mislead courts even if you’re caught up in the mesh of legal proceedings advocated by yourself for application against others.

    So Trump’s impeachers will either have to explain why Trump is worse than Clinton, or they’ll have to admit Clinton should have been convicted.

    1. “So Trump’s impeachers will either have to explain why Trump is worse than Clinton or they’ll have to admit Clinton should have been convicted.”

      My guess is the former.

      1. I dunno, the Clintons have much fallen out of grace with the Democrats in general, and the base as well.

    2. I don’t think they’ll explain anything. They’ll brush it off as being irrelevant.

  18. Ukraine is a good place to get dirt on Biden because Biden coordinated the coup there.

    Where’s that investigation?

    I see. It’s getting dirt on your political opponent that’s criminal. The dirt itself is irrelevant.

    1. See Hillary and the DNC rigging the Democrat Primary against Bernie.

      1. But it was her turn!!!!

      2. Is it that you people can’t get through breakfast without a conspiracy theory to settle your bowels? He lost the primary by 4 million votes. That’s even more votes than Trump lost the general election by.

        1. Listen to the famous “fuck the EU” recording.

          That’s the Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and Ukraine Ambassador Geoff Pyatt CLEARLY heard discussing the planning of the coup that ousted the democratically elected president, and the western puppets that they will install.

          At the end she says they should earn an “atta boy” from Biden.

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

  19. So if Trump had found out that Biden the Younger and Biden the Elder were planning to overthrow the government of Ukraine, and Trump told the president of Ukraine about it, that’d be an impeachable offense, because Biden was running for President.

  20. Hey, now the President has threatened a whistleblower into his corruption with death. Is this >Venezuela or <Venezuela now?

    Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call, he never saw the call — heard something and decided that he or she, or whoever the hell they saw — they’re almost a spy,” Trump reportedly told the staffers, referring to the whistleblower. “I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy.”

    “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now,” he continued.

    1. You know, my family suffered through socialism. You are an ignorant asshole to compare whatever Trump said to the suffering and death of millions.

    2. “Hey, now the President has threatened a whistleblower into his corruption with death. Is this >Venezuela or <Venezuela now?"

      Do you post to prove the depths of idiocy of which humans are capable?
      If not, you win the prize anyway.

    3. yes that was a legitimate death threat .. for the love of Pete you progs are an insufferable lot.

      1. I mean, Beto thought “Come and take it” constituted a death threat. It’s like the Idiot Olympics over at the DNC right now.

  21. Would dirt on Biden dug up by the Ukrainian government count as “anything of value”?

    “Dirt on Biden” would consist of criminal acts by the Biden family. Do you seriously want to argue that the US president is prohibited from prosecuting corruption by past US government officials because it might help his reelection?

    I mean, maybe that theory has legs, but if it does, then pretty much every dollar of pork spending and social welfare spending Congress engages in should result in removal of the people who voted for it from Congress, and possible prison sentences. Hey, maybe that’s not such a bad idea.

    1. “Do you seriously want to argue that the US president is prohibited from prosecuting corruption by past US government officials because it might help his reelection?”

      The more absurd the lie, the clearer the message that it’s your face they intend to be stamping on – forever.

  22. 1. Trump publicly liked libertarianism, drawing totalitarian boiling wrath.
    2. The Ukraine has elected officials who like libertarianism and are trying to form an LP.
    3. Biden is another totalitarian prohibitionist down on all fours with Ronnie and the Bushies in 1987 to force peeing in Dixie cups plus asset forfeiture until the economy collapsed. Who needs more than that? Read the prohibition and War on Plant Leaves laws AND stock quotes.

  23. “impeachment does not require provable statutory violations. “High crimes and misdemeanors” include violations of the public trust that do not necessarily involve breaking the law.”

    That is debatable. Some scholars, like Alan Dershowitz, insist that a specific statute must be shown to have been violated, that the framers intended that, and did not want impeachment based on vague stuff like bad administration, violation of trust, or “abuse of power” unless it’s tied to a specific violation of law. IMO that seems right.

  24. Santa Mueller knows if you’re naughty or nice…

    “Trumps panicking”

    There a Stormy coming

    Cohens ownin…..

    That and all your favorite oldies if you call now

    1. Why is it that the Reason comments section can produce this, but SNL can’t?

      1. Because the SNL folks know that if they do, they’ll never work in show biz again.

        1. I don’t know, their skit mocking government workers was pretty funny — being lazy, racking up vacation pay to jack up their pensions…

  25. It will be fun voting for Trump so he can have government investigate, indict, and prosecute Lefties for crimes that they put on the books.

  26. Truth or Rumor “Ivanka 2024”

    1. Rumor. Ted Cruz will be the GOP nominee in 2024.

  27. OK:
    “Treason” – flat out bullshit
    “Bribery” – “Advocates of that interpretation, such as University of California, Irvine, law professor Rick Hasen, note that political campaigns routinely pay for opposition research, which is essentially what Trump is accused of seeking.”
    More bullshit
    “Illegal Campaign Contribution” – Laughable, except that some people who are paid by my taxes are making that claim with a straight face.
    Fire ’em.
    “Does Any of This Matter?” – No. Trump is charged with being Trump, so to those suffering from TDS, not much else matters at all.

    1. “No. Trump is charged with being Trump, so to those suffering from TDS, not much else matters at all.”

      Let us know when get “TDS”. If you haven’t developed immunity,

  28. Can anyone see the whole Campaign Finance laws have finally achieved their real goal weaponization for the power elite.

    You can’t even ask about actual corruption as someone might be a campaign opponent in the future. In the meanwhile there are so many loop holes the money just rises and rises. The one Candidate that won with the least amount of money is attacked left and right.

    Another win for Mc Cain.

  29. The direct answers to Sullum’s questions are: No, and No.

    The country will be torn apart if POTUS Trump is impeached for ‘bullshit reasons’. Readership will need to answer that question for themselves – is impeaching POTUS Trump for anything he has said/done thusfar justified, or is it just total bullshit?

    Sullum already picked his side. The very least he could do is put a disclaimer letting us know that what he writes, he does with animus toward POTUS Trump and his supporters.

  30. ” if the allegations against Trump are true, he has abused his power for personal gain and violated the separation of powers by impeding the distribution of congressionally approved military aid. ”

    Drop dead, slaver.

  31. FFS
    Trump is actually below the law. We’ve had EOs stayed by courts who openly admit that the EO would be legal if someone else was president
    We have had an investigation of a political opponent by the previous administration using foreigners that turned into an impeachment insurance policy
    The transcript indicates NOTHING illegal. All of the TDS infected turds are implying some hidden meaning because you know it’s Trump
    STFU seriously

    1. We also had the Intel Community very quietly reducing requirements for a whistleblower complaint as well from first hand knowledge to third-hand knowledge.

      Schumer said Trump shouldn’t fight with the IC because they will screw you. Which they are doing. Do we want the CIA to be bigger than any elected official? I certainly do not.

      Reason does.

  32. You idiots need to understand that Trump has committed about 100 impeachable offenses, but this latest one is just easy enough for toddlers to understand, and Republicunts are scrambling to figure out whether to make up some bullshit excuse or jump ship, and even Pelosi is forced to act. Also, half of the American public are in favor of Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, a shift that happened in the course of a day.

    Extorting a foreigner for election help is a felony. Trump already committed 10 instances of obstruction of justice as detailed in the Mueller report, which should already have led to impeachment if Democrats weren’t so inept at messaging.

    Even their ineptness is no barrier to the obviousness of this crime. Jump ship now. I personally won’t respect you, but you might be able to save yourself some future embarrassment.

    How much fun has this been watching libertarianism become just another arm of the Trump cult. Fucking Trump. I mean, seriously.

    1. Reason magazine has become a MiniMe of Salon. Or Slate. There is enough idiotic ideology in the world without the patrons of Reason demanding more but they seem to. I use to be a registered Libertarian but with calls for open borders, sneering and smearing Trump in every issue, as though that were a mark of brave journalism rather than the cowardice of lemmings, I am now a registered independent. I will vote proudly for Trump in 2020 as I did in 2016. I imagine half the staff or Reason, at least, voted for the corrupt Hag of Washington. Why are there no articles in Reason thanking Donald Trump for running and winning and saving the country from the like of Hillary, Brennen, Clapper, Strojk, Ohr and 1000 other committed anti-Constitutionalists and anti-freedom tyrants?
      The folks at Reason fancy themselves as the vanguard, the elite of intellectuals yet they haven’t got a clue about what Trump is doing nor any insight into how important it is that he does it and how dangerous the Left is to our Constitutional Republic.
      What kind of moronic intellectual organ to they have that makes them talk about open borders like it’s something we should seriously consider doing? Incredible disjunct from reality.
      Reason writes a bullshit headline by asking if Trump committed a crime by seeking a Ukranian investigation of Joe Biden. Here is the Salon type bias in full view. The first question is, “Did Trump seek an investigation of Joe Biden?” The answer is clearly ‘No.’ Trump is asking that the Ukrainians clear up their part in the horseshit that has been going on for the last three years and that dovetails with the Ukranian President’s commitment to clean house of the corruption and the thugs in his government the same way we should be doing it in our own. That may include looking into a corrupt Biden. So? Should the President not look into corruption and not protect our election system from corruption. Or is Biden jumping into the race a ‘get out of jail free card?’ How asinine can people be?
      Apparently, the editors and writers at Reason are a collective of jackasses or they simply do what the Koch’s and other moneyed people tell them to do.
      I’ve read Von Mises, Hayek, Rand, Friedman, Rothbard, Nozick, et al and I think that they would all be appalled at what Reason has turned into.

    2. And you, my dear idiot, my legal scholar, need to understand that Trump has committed not even one impeachable offense, to anyone with a functioning mind. To anyone who can read the law. To anyone who can look at facts in context.
      Just because someone is being accused of things by a pack of madmen, a group of ideologically deranged TDS sufferers is no reason to conclude that the accused is guilty of anything.

      1. An offense is impeachable if there are the votes in the House to impeach. That’s the reality of things.

        If he were a private citizen he’d be in prison by now.

        1. Then why did the founders add high crimes and misdemeanors to the Constitution?

          1. Because they predicted Trump.

        2. “If he were a private citizen he’d be in prison by now.”

          You’re full of shit.

    3. “Extorting a foreigner for election help is a felony.”

      He didn’t. Meanwhile, his opponent’s campaign did. After hoovering up money from these countries for years.

    4. Tony
      September.27.2019 at 9:01 am
      “You idiots need to understand that Trump has committed about 100 impeachable offenses,…”

      You’re full of shit.

  33. Reason magazine has become a MiniMe of Salon. Or Slate. There is enough idiotic ideology in the world without the patrons of Reason demanding more but they seem to. I use to be a registered Libertarian but with calls for open borders, sneering and smearing Trump in every issue, as though that were a mark of brave journalism rather than the cowardice of lemmings, I am now a registered independent. I will vote proudly for Trump in 2020 as I did in 2016. I imagine half the staff or Reason, at least, voted for the corrupt Hag of Washington. Why are there no articles in Reason thanking Donald Trump for running and winning and saving the country from the like of Hillary, Brennen, Clapper, Strojk, Ohr and 1000 other committed anti-Constitutionalists and anti-freedom tyrants?
    The folks at Reason fancy themselves as the vanguard, the elite of intellectuals yet they haven’t got a clue about what Trump is doing nor any insight into how important it is that he does it and how dangerous the Left is to our Constitutional Republic.
    What kind of moronic intellectual organ to they have that makes them talk about open borders like it’s something we should seriously consider doing? Incredible disjunct from reality.
    Reason writes a bullshit headline by asking if Trump committed a crime by seeking a Ukranian investigation of Joe Biden. Here is the Salon type bias in full view. The first question is, “Did Trump seek an investigation of Joe Biden?” The answer is clearly ‘No.’ Trump is asking that the Ukrainians clear up their part in the horseshit that has been going on for the last three years and that dovetails with the Ukranian President’s commitment to clean house of the corruption and the thugs in his government the same way we should be doing it in our own. That may include looking into a corrupt Biden. So? Should the President not look into corruption and not protect our election system from corruption. Or is Biden jumping into the race a ‘get out of jail free card?’ How asinine can people be?
    Apparently, the editors and writers at Reason are a collective of jackasses or they simply do what the Koch’s and other moneyed people tell them to do.
    I’ve read Von Mises, Hayek, Rand, Friedman, Rothbard, Nozick, et al and I think that they would all be appalled at what Reason has turned into.

  34. If Trump committed a crime, then every President has committed a crime any time they spoke to anyone regarding corruption of a prior, standing for election, or current elected official.

  35. This impeachment nonsense and all of the anti-Trump turmoil and chaos is politics at its best. It all serves to discredit politicians and government action in general.

    What is a crime suitable for impeachment? Whatever Congress decides, if the Supreme Court agrees. The law means what the politicians and the courts decide.

    Keep the political theater going, it may lead to greater rejection of reliance on government action.

  36. Sigh, if the democrats wouldn’t impeach a president who actually lied under oath about (surely a violation of public trust), why should the republicans impeach Trump when he arguably didn’t commit any actual acts of treason?

  37. BTW, whatever news wife has on the TV in the kitchen, the claim now is that Trump “urged” someone to do something.
    Isn’t that wonderful? Such a definitive term!
    Is this the way guys get in trouble with whacko women who claim the guys “urged” them to have sex against their will?
    I’ll leave it to others to show how picking up a phone and starting to dial an area code is impeachable, since Trump could have been intending to “urge” someone to do something in that area code!

  38. “leave it to others to show how picking up a phone and starting to dial an area code is impeachable, since Trump could have been intending to “urge” someone to do something in that area code! “

    Area code.

    Urging in an area code is obviously the charge here.

  39. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you >>>>> ReadMore

  40. Isn’t a call between world leaders a privileged diplomatic communication? Isn’t the crime spying on it and reporting it?

  41. So, Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President is illegal because … seeking information from anyone in the world is a crime? Wow, the truth is really being sacrificed for the sake of … well, not much. You can’t say for our democratic elections because information is actually necessary for people to make rational decisions regardless of where it comes from.
    Maybe, opposition research is becoming criminal because politicians are such crooks that they will outlaw anything that could get themselves into trouble, even the truth.

    “Truth is treason in an empire of lies.”
    Ron Paul

    1. Meanwhile Hillary should be in prison for the Steele Dossier, am I right?

      Laws are a thing.

      1. Yes, why isn’t she in prison when many others are for lesser crimes?

        1. And a president is not for much bigger crimes (which is to say, actual crimes), but only because he’s the president.

          That would lead me to stop supporting him, but I have a conscience.

  42. This is such complete bullshit. Twisting the interpretation of already arguably unconstitutional laws to invent a crime.

    Trump suggested an investigation of fairly blatant corruption. In what f’d up world is that wrong? Should he just turn a blind eye to corruption like others have? Isn’t the real story about Biden’s corruption?

    1. No evidence of corruption, and if he wanted an investigation he should have called the FBI, not extorted a foreign head of state.

      Just pretend he has a (D) after his name. That goddam (R) turns you all into slobbering morons who don’t understand how law works.

  43. Let’s say Burisma was under public suspicion for gender pay discrimination regarding Hunter Biden – he was getting paid more than the Ukrainian women of the company despite having no expertise in energy or just not doing a better job in general. And this happened anytime Joe Biden was tangentially involved.

    Donald Trump asks the Ukrainian PM to look into the matter (“do me a favor”) as part of a larger conversation regarding corruption. Is this really abuse of power worthy of impeachment? Election interference? If the resulting investigation revealed pay discrimination, that’s only significant insofar as it “personally” benefits Trump? Would most liberals see it that way, if the party affiliation was reversed?

    As with cancel culture, the liberals either resent or avoid being held to their own standard. Watch how they instantly they assume the worst on Trump and start connecting the dots, but won’t do that on Biden. Shokin may have been corrupt, but he was ordered by the Ukrainian PM to look into Burisma. When Biden made the threat, the PM relayed it to Shokin, who decided to resign before the heart of the investigation could occur. Then whole thing died out even with a new prosecutor. Although apparently they decided to resume the investigation.

    Trump shouldn’t have held back on the aid. But in the end, who effectively achieved an end favorable to his side by threatening to withhold money? Biden. Trump railed against Comey who was arguably ineffective and fired him. I suppose if there was public pressure to fire him, he would have been totally justified?

    When did Trump ask for “dirt” on Biden personally? Why does an existing investigation on Burisma suddenly become uniquely favorable to Trump or election? If the company was found guilty, that would be public knowledge. Trump asked the PM who initiated the investigation to look into things he started. No deal or any kind was offered.

    Obama signed a treaty with a rogue terrorist nation without congress ever getting involved, and sent them previously frozen
    cash, which was promptly used in terrorist activity. No impeachment for that guy! No concentration camp for him, even though he caged families and 3 people died in detention centers. A few families sued the government alleging torture. But he was Obama. He can interfere with Israeli elections all he wants, because the Jews are icky, just ask the squad.

Please to post comments