Reason Roundup

The New York Times Defends Outing Trump Whistleblower as CIA

Plus: Trump slashes number of refugees allowed in next year, big cities are shedding millennials, and more...

|

On the impeachment front… The anonymous whistleblower complaint about Donald Trump's July call with Ukraine's president (and subsequent alleged attempts to cover it up) was apparently lodged not long after a CIA officer raised the issue around the office.

"The officer first shared information about potential abuse of power and a White House cover-up with the C.I.A.'s top lawyer through an anonymous process," The New York Times reported on Thursday night. "The lawyer shared the officer's concerns with White House and Justice Department officials, following policy."

Then, about two weeks later, the officer "decided to file a whistle-blower complaint to [inspector general for intelligence agencies Michael] Atkinson, a step that offers special legal protections, unlike going to a general counsel," according to the Times.

Lawyers representing the person who filed the whistleblower complaint did not confirm that the CIA agent was their client, saying: "The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity."

Executive Editor Dean Banquet defended the paper's decision:

We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower—including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House—because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible. We also understand that the White House already knew he was a C.I.A. officer.

Meanwhile, Trump isn't letting whistleblowers and the possibility of impeachment dim his capacity for cruel immigration policy. Yesterday the administration announced that it would lower the refugee cap from its current 30,000 down to 18,000.

"The coming year's 18,000-person cap will be the lowest since the refugee resettlement program began in 1980, a major shift from the 110,000 refugee admissions former President Barack Obama proposed for fiscal year 2017," Politico points out.

The announcement comes at the same time as new figures on dwindling immigration rates:

The net increase of immigrants in the American population dropped to about 200,000 people in 2018, a decline of more than 70 percent from the year before, according to William Frey, chief demographer at the Brookings Institution, who conducted the analysis.

"It's remarkable," said David Bier, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute, of the 2018 numbers. "This is something that really hasn't happened since the Great Recession. This should be very concerning to the administration that its policies are scaring people away."


FREE MINDS


FREE MARKETS

Young people are leaving big cities. "Large U.S. cities lost tens of thousands of millennial and younger Gen X residents last year, according to Census figures released Thursday that offer fresh signs of cooling urban growth," The Wall Street Journal reports. According to the paper's analysis of census figures:

Cities with more than a half million people collectively lost almost 27,000 residents age 25 to 39 in 2018….It was the fourth consecutive year that big cities saw this population of young adults shrink. New York, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Washington and Portland, Ore., were among those that lost large numbers of residents in this age group.

The drop in young urban residents last year was smaller than in 2017, when big cities lost nearly 54,000 residents in this age group. But the sustained declines signal a sharp reversal from the beginning of the decade, when young adults flooded into cities and helped lead an urban revival.

The 2018 drop was driven by a fall in the number of urban residents between 35 and 39 years old. While the number of adults younger than that rose in big cities, those gains have tapered off in recent years.


QUICK HITS

  • The next small but significant step in congressional criminal justice reform moves involves federal sentencing policy. The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act would "end the unjust practice of judges increasing sentences based on conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted by a jury," says a press release from sponsoring Senators Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) and Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa).
  • The president doesn't understand the difference between an apostrophe and a hyphen, among other things:

  • The Senate voted to confirm Eugene Scalia as the new secretary of labor.
  • Government shutdown averted.
  • A Mississippi city is claiming undocumented immigrants don't have a right not to be killed by police:

  • Bitcoin is back in a chaos spiral downward.
  • On the spectacular downfall of WeWork.
  • A new measure in the large Australian state of New South Wales "overturned a 119-year-old law that made it a criminal offense to procure or administer an abortion."
  • Tech executives in a CNBC poll voted Facebook the technology giant "most likely to face punitive action as a result of the federal government's antitrust review of Silicon Valley."
  • Uber's redesign will "combine Uber's ride-hailing and food delivery apps, boost new modes of transportation like scooters and add safety features."
  • Everybody's canceled!

Advertisement

NEXT: How Rent Control Laws Hurt Tenants

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. That whistle blower’s name? Valerie Plame.

    1. Whistleblower was using multiple citations from a George Soros think tank to push his claims. This is supposedly non partisan per the NYT.

      1. You got the wrong Jew. Read the Jerusalem Post summary.

        There’s a betting pool outside the Tel-Aviv stock exchange based on which Jews will win this fight.

        1. What!? The President of the Ukraine is a Jew? Shouldn’t he have been the one to withhold loans to the US? Let’s check the transcript again.

      2. “We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower—including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency….”

        A ‘non-political agency’?? There’s nothing non-political about the federal government. Whether they claim to be Rs, Ds, or Unaffiliated, they all belong to the Big National Government Party.

        Also, saying they are ‘non-political’ is not the same as ‘non-partisan’ and does not mean they aren’t biased in favor of massive and growing bureaucracy (aka, “The Swamp”).

    2. Hello.

      UKRAINE YAWN!

      1. In other words it’s a huge scandal and you know it.

        1. So yuge that Adam Schiff felt he needed to lie about it.

          1. Parody. He did a parody. Pod believes this.

            1. Trump “I was parodying Biden with my Ukraine comments”

              Heads asplode

        2. What a pod.

          1. Perhaps we should start calling him Tide Pod, because he appears to have consumed some recently.

      2. We aren’t at war with the Ukraine. They are an ally.

    3. If that’s her real name.

  2. We also understand that the White House already knew he was a C.I.A. officer.

    “Because we called earlier to ask for a comment on the fact.”

      1. ARE YOU STEALING MY BIT?

        /sternly stares while aggressively spreading black currant jam on English muffin.

        1. The early bird gets the worm, Old Boy.

    1. My guess it will turn out that someone unmasked the conversation from a wiretap and this is their attempt at gaslighting america by saying people who were on the call told this whistleblower. In my opinion this sounds like more illegal spying by the IC. They worked fast to derive a plausible alternate route to get this information out rather than how they actually illegally got the information.

      1. Intriguing! “Fruit of the poisoned tree”?

        1. It’s my theory. The pattern was there from obama and powers. Other calls were unmasked with Australia and other leaders.

          1. Somebody asked “Why are none of these agents being punished for leaking classified info to this ‘whistleblower’? He clearly didn’t have access to the info”

      2. Isn’t this called Parallel Construction? And now that you mention it, it does seem quite plausible. The White House has been tapped by the CIA and they need ways to get stuff disseminated.

        If this is indeed true, what does it say that it has been 3 years, and this was the BEST they could come up with?

        1. It is parallel construction was used by the DoJ and fbi to hide origination of information, much from the cia program Clapper lied about.

      3. That’s quite a conspiracy you stitched together, yet you can’t connect the two dots of Trump withholding aid, and then immediately asking for a favor to investigate Biden when the Ukrainian president brings up said aid.

        1. You mean the part where ukraine didnt even know of a delay dumbfuck? The money was held up under a review by Esper and the DoD. But guessing you prefer ignorance to reality.

          1. Would you mind providing me a source for that? I haven’t read that.

            1. Wow, you shot off your dicksucker without the facts.

              Yup sounds right for you Esmeralda.

              1. I am asking for the facts, still haven’t received any. I’m not claiming to be omnipotent, smarty-pants.

                1. I’ll put this here but I know you’ll attack the source rather then deal with the facts.
                  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukrainian-official-appears-to-cast-doubt-on-quid-pro-quo-claim

                  1. Thanks for posting it, anyway.

                    It is a pretty thin article. Aren’t you trump supporters the ones who are usually so skeptical of “unnamed sources”?

                    If true, it does call into question the quid pro quo nature, but does not totally discredit it. Trump is notoriously unorganized, so he may have failed to make the Ukrainians aware of his aid freeze before the call.

                    1. See, I said you would attack the source, and I also love how you implied I was a hypocrite too. Not very subtle.
                      Then you double down with it could still be quid pro quo just not very organized.

                    2. “Trump is notoriously unorganized, so he may have failed to make the Ukrainians aware of his aid freeze before the call.”

                      True conspiracy thinking: even evidence inconsistent with the conspiracy is consistent with the conspiracy.

                  2. Of course he will, it’s jeff, Its all he does. Well, that and post opinion pieces and then get his sock to defend him.

                  1. That’s like 16 different accounts that you’ve now accused me of being. You are a legit lunatic.

                    1. Sure jeff. You’ll notice he doesn’t say “wrong” he just does that lame “mentally ill for responding to an obvious sockpuppet with speculation about his identity” thing he always does.

                  2. Again, if people keep calling you mentally ill…

                    If you smell shit everywhere you go, check your shoe.

                    Seriously, get help.

                    1. It was your pants not your shoe.

                      HTH a borderline ex-girlfriend like you.

          2. They would find out in short order, and put two and two together then. “Ohhh, our aid has been blocked, and Trump just asked for a favor.”

            You’re intellectually and morally bankrupt.

        2. Hey Esmeralda, did you think you could get that lame “American Mongrel” sock over?

          1. Why are you so obsessed with me? Get some new material.

            1. Are you asking me why I’m responding to comments on a comment board jeff?

              Get some help. I responded to lots of people, you’re not being persecuted so lost the weird complex.

              1. Seriously, dude. Leave me alone. You are weird and sad. It’s embarrassing.

                If you want to engage ideas and arguments, then please do so. If your urge is to vent your inadequacies all over the internet, then please refrain.

                You are simply wrong. Some of the things you have said to me you would never say in person. That makes you a coward as well.

                1. It’s always funny when the sockpuppets REPLY with “leave me alone” as though they want the conversation ended, and aren’t just pathetically trying to get the last word.

                  YOU keep replying, jeff. Shut up and you’ll get left alone. Otherwise, you’re in the fucking thunderdome. Sack up. Jeff.

  3. Chelsea Manning, Reality Winner Excitedly Hoping Nation’s Newfound Approval Of Whistleblowers Will Get Them Out Of Jail

    Dare to dream, ladies.

    1. In the military they ain’t whistleblowers they are straight up buddy fuckers. Screw them.

    2. sounds like the equality the feminists want. Enjoy the win ladies!

    3. Chelsea’s being held for contempt. He can get out any time he wants by answering the judge’s questions.

      1. I dont think the constitution provides for an exception to the 5th Amendment that the government can keep you locked up until you talk.

        Courts can call it “contempt” but its still your constitutional right to refuse to speak with government agents.

        Contempt is a bullshit violation of the 4A and 5A to force people to cooperate with the government. Only defendants have the 6A right to have forced witnesses testify on their behalf. The state has no such power.

  4. Cities with more than a half million people collectively lost almost 27,000 residents age 25 to 39 in 2018…

    But that’s the key Nielsen demo group!

    1. Can you blame them? Based on recent sob stories about how Greedy Boomers are robbing poor Millennials blind, its obvious very few of them can afford to pay $3000 a month for the privilege of living in an 800 sq ft apartment, while dodging human feces and used syringes while walking down to the Whole Foods on the corner.

    2. In related news, Suburban Moms basements report a dramatic increase in millennial occupants.

  5. Lawyers representing the person who filed the whistleblower complaint did not confirm that the CIA agent was their client, saying: “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”

    “Why, not even *we* know who he, er, *they* is!”

  6. The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act would “end the unjust practice of judges increasing sentences based on conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted by a jury…”

    Oversight of another branch of government? Congress must be exhausted from the effort.

  7. The New York Times Defends Outing Trump Whistleblower as CIA

    United States v. Libby

    Wasn’t Scotter Libby indicted for outing a CIA officer?

    It’s hilarious that reason and Lefties consider the “whistleblower” MORE CREDIBLE by being a CIA officer.

    Much of America considers it LESS CREDIBLE because she/he is Deep State.

    1. When a bunch of commie wannabes are claiming that CIA spooks are paragons of honesty and that we should trust every word they say, it’s become quite obvious how much the far left has infiltrated the government bureaucracy.

      1. Reminds me of a quote from 88 Days to Kandahar. Paraphrased: I’d rather work with the liars in the CIA then in the den of vipers at the State department.

      2. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    2. If you can’t trust a CIA snitch, who can you trust?

    3. It’s such sweet, sweet irony that Suderman wrote a whole article jerking this whistleblower off, who turns out to be in the CIA.

      Beautiful, really.

      Reason’s resident bootlicker, carrying water for the nations internal terrorist organization. Just perfect.

      1. lets not forget it was the CIA that got the FBI to investigate Trump’s Campaign in the first place

      2. You can get Reason to print anything as long as it makes the Orange Man look bad.

        So now the CIA has become the firewall protecting American freedom, as opposed to a shady, self-interested cabal of career bureaucrats protecting turf.

        1. Yes, I’m sure it’s a massive conspiracy involving the entire CIA, FBI, Intel IG who is a trump appointee. It’s not that the man known for being an ignorant boob just keeps stepping in shit all the time because he can’t be bothered to learn what the legal limits of his office are.

          1. So, Esmeralda, when you were socking as American Mongrel earlier, why did you make it so obvious it was you?

            1. You really are conspiracy minded. And not very intelligent.

              1. You’re the one who thinks I’m obsessed with you even though I’ve responded to dozens of people jeff.

                1. According to you, they are all the same person. Your delusion would be impressive, were it not so sad

                  1. Thy can’t be? lolollo MAKE SENSE motherfucker OF COURSE THEY CAN. All it takes is a fucking email you clown.

                    It’s always funny when the sockpuppets REPLY with “leave me alone” as though they want the conversation ended, and aren’t just pathetically trying to get the last word.

                    YOU keep replying, jeff. Shut up and you’ll get left alone. Otherwise, you’re in the fucking thunderdome. Sack up. Jeff.

                  2. Give it up Jeffey, we know it’s you.

          2. “I’m sure it’s a massive conspiracy involving the entire CIA, FBI,”

            Gotta update them talking point my guy. I’m sure they worked a lot better before there was clear evidence of their involvement.

            1. Citation of clear evidence of this conspiracy? That the whistleblower is CIA is far short of proof of a multi agency to include trump appointees conspiracy.

              1. Sure bro, you’re gonna go with “rogue agent” AGAIN

                I guess you haven’t been paying attention to the analysis that offers clear evidence of multiple parties crafting the whistleblower complaint lolol you rally need to inform yourself you’re looking real stupid Esmeralda

                1. I was in the military. I worked with many other agencies. If one of them saw me do something illegal and reported it, would it be just for me to claim a CIA conspiracy against me? No? Then why does that logic hold water in this situation?

                  1. Except the whistleblower didn’t see anything. He was reporting office gossip.
                    I have a funny feeling you were a first rate blue falcon and barracks lawyer too.

                    1. I am decorated for valor and rated in the top 10% of my peers, while I was in. Thanks for making a bunch of personal assumptions because I pointed out the flaw in your logic, though.

                    2. You forgot to tell us about your giant dick and girlfriend Morgan Fairchild.

                    3. Bragging about yourself doesn’t help.

                      “”If one of them saw me do something illegal and reported it, would it be just for me to claim a CIA conspiracy against me? No””

                      The if someone saw you and reported is not analogous to the complaint at hand because the complaint infers second hand information (hersay) when it says other people told the whistleblower what happened.

                    4. TrickyVic (old school)
                      September.27.2019 at 3:03 pm
                      Bragging about yourself doesn’t help.

                      “”If one of them saw me do something illegal and reported it, would it be just for me to claim a CIA conspiracy against me? No””

                      The if someone saw you and reported is not analogous to the complaint at hand because the complaint infers second hand information (hersay) when it says other people told the whistleblower what happened.

                      I’m not bragging, I’m defending myself from a frivolous insult. Kinda funny you take issue with me defending myself rather than the other two guys calling me a pedophile and a bad soldier. Rather telling.

                      And it seems that the whistle blower was right about the conversation though. The summary memo of the call does show, quite clearly that Trump tied the aid to opening an investigation into Hunter Biden.

                    5. “”I’m not bragging, I’m defending myself from a frivolous insult. Kinda funny you take issue with me defending myself rather than the other two guys calling me a pedophile and a bad soldier. Rather telling. “”

                      Not telling at all.

                      “”I am decorated for valor and rated in the top 10% of my peers, while I was in””

                      That is bragging. It offers nothing to the conversation.

                      “”And it seems that the whistle blower was right about the conversation though.””

                      Generally 2nd hand information is not 100% accurate. When people describe something to someone else, some paraphrasing usually takes place. The fact the whistle blower seems intimate with the contents of the does make the idea that he/she was listening to the call plausible.

                    6. Decorated for valor? With what? Decorated for Valor refers to a host of awards. It also isn’t a term we used, it is a term I’ve seen used by journalist but never by troops. First, it is considered poor form for veterans to brag about their awards, at least among the veteran community, second if we do, we specifically mention which awards we received.
                      Generally speaking though, if it was given for valor, you wouldn’t have to mention it.
                      You can also receive a V device for valor, on combat ribbons. Or if you are an Army Civilian employee you can receive the Army Award for Valor.
                      Let me guess you were a Special Forces Sniper with 82 confirmed kills, right? Before you transferred to Delta and SEAL Team 6.

                    7. I love how you are still maintaining the second hand gossip was correct despite the transcript showing nothing of the sort, the Ukrainians denying it happened and evidence that the Ukrainians may not have even been aware that the money was delayed.

                    8. Just for shots and giggles how does the conversation show clearly that Trump tied the request to the money, when the money wasn’t mentioned when he was speaking about the investigation?

                    9. Again, very telling how the so very intellectually honest libertarians in here are offended when I defend my service record from a frivolous insult, but have no comment about the insult. Please turn that fake outrage up another peg. Oh, now you want to speculate that I’m not a veteran at all. So which is it: I’m not a veteran or I’m bragging? It can’t be both. You guys can’t even stay logically consistent while you spin fantasies about me. Sorry i triggered your pog assess.

                    10. It can easily be both. Most cases of stolen valor are exposed because the nimrods always brag to much. It is very telling you didn’t answer me but started whining instead.
                      It is very suspicious, your bragging and the verbage you use isn’t consistent with most of the veteran community I’m familiar with (and that is a fairly large community). It’s fairly easy, start with your rank, MOS, IADT and ETS, some places your served and what your units were.

                  2. No jeff, you weren’t. And you’re not a libertarian either you sad fucking liar.

          3. It’s more like hundreds of independent cells of disaffected and largely incompetent Hillary voters who are extremely perturbed that she lost the election two years ago, and are now working separately (sometimes overlapping with one another) to find anything they can that looks like wrongdoing, when you squint your eyes and interpret the law as broadly as possible.

      3. And then pivot to Immigration.
        Reason and Reasonoids would start the coup if they could, over immigration

        1. “The INCREASE in immigration dropped to 200,000 from the year before.”

          So why not just say immigration was UP 200k?

          WTF is that?

    4. We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower—including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency

      Nonpolitical? Bwuhahahahaha! Someone is either fiercely naive or hope’s everybody else is.

      1. Unnecessary hyphen.

        1. Hey at least she knew the right thing to use incorrectly.

    5. When was the last time CIA agents tried to take down a head of state?

        1. Weren’t there a lot of rumors about JFK?

          1. There are reasons why LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump have not released all the last pages on JFKs assassination.

            The CIA being directly involved with losing control of Oswald would be a very good reason to keep it from Americans. Americans would likely demand the CIA be shut down if one of their “handled” double agents went rogue and assassinated JFK.

  8. The president doesn’t understand the difference between an apostrophe and a hyphen…

    You know who else was a grammar Nazi?

    1. SS Chief Heinrich Hyphen?

    2. Gruppenführer Adolf Apostrophe?

    3. Brigadeführer Dietrich Dash?

    4. Obergruppenführer Charles Comma?

      1. Sounds like an episode of Schoolhaus Rok.

    5. Orange man bad!! At grammar!!

    6. Technically, locked doors prevented me from leaving an immigrant deetainee center in the former Ottoman Empire, even though it was an open compound noun.

      1. “Joey, have you ever been…in a Turkish Prison?”

      1. He was a real pissant…

        1. And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was twice as sloshed as Schlegel.

        2. who was very rarely stable

    7. Von Stauffenberg. He left Adolf with a semi colon.

    8. Perhaps the president actually spends less time and attention on his tweets than some people believe.

    9. Setting aside any confusion about apostrophes and hyphens, what the heck was “Liddle Adam Schiff” supposed to mean, anyway? I don’t get the joke. By “Liddle” did he mean to write “Li’l”?

  9. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
    ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
    ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
    ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
    ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
    ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
    ────────────────║║
    ────────────────╚╝
    ____________________________________________________

    1. Thanks for the republican Pov. Not sure if you are aware, but Trump is not a libertarian by any stretch.

        1. Yes, I am. I have never voted for a non libertarian candidate for president, although I am registered Republican because there are no libertarian candidates for most of the local positions, and I like to have a say in local politics. If you voted for Trump, you are pretty fucking far from libertarianism.

          1. You’d have more credibility if you weren’t obviously a sock puppet for Esmeralda/Tony and lying about it.

            Literally everything in your post is an obvious lie.

            1. You are simply wrong. So there are a few other people on this site who don’t support a corrupt republican for president, so they must all be the same person? Again, your intelligence and reason are unmatched.

              1. Drawing a different conclusion to you equals supporting the administration?
                No, it’s the fact that you all use the same insults and twisted logic.

                1. No, supporting the administration – supporting the administration. Seriously, if the president being investigated gets you all up in arms, then you might not be a libertarian.

                  1. No, if constant investigations, usually with little to no evidence doesn’t bother you and if the loss of the presumption of innocence because of who you are and your position doesn’t bother you, you are neither a libertarian nor do you honor the Constitution.

              2. You’re so obviously jeff it’s retarded that you try to deny it jeff, you sad illibertarian fuck.

                1. You are the most utterly insane and sad person I’ve met in quite in a while. You haven’t engaged me on the ideas even once. Why do I make you so mad? You have no logically argument to counter with? Try it sometime.

                  1. AHAHAHA CRY MORE AHAHAHAAHAHAHAA I TRIGGERED JEFF AHAHAHHAHAAHAH

                    It’s always funny when the sockpuppets REPLY with “leave me alone” as though they want the conversation ended, and aren’t just pathetically trying to get the last word.

                    YOU keep replying, jeff. Shut up and you’ll get left alone. Otherwise, you’re in the fucking thunderdome. Sack up. Jeff.

    2. Quite nuanced argument there.

      1. Short. Concise. Truthful.

  10. “The New York Times Defends Outing Trump Whistleblower as CIA”

    I don’t understand why we need to know the identity of the whistleblower, not when unnamed sources in the CIA are perfectly happy to report that Operation Covfefe was being run out of the Ukraine.

    It’s the CIA. Don’t you trust the CIA?

    What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?

    1. I just want to know the sources the whistleblower had. Because I dont buy that cover. Why didnt the sources blow the whistle instead? Why route through the CIA. His heavy use of buzzfeed and think tank sources pretty much explain why.

      1. So far, the facts do not support his allegations.

        1. As I said yesterday, I think this is actually a ground prep action by lots of CIA agents who are awaiting indictments from the DOJ for all the intelligence actions surrounding the Russia-gate nonsense.

          Imagine in a couple months if the DOJ issued a bunch of indictments. The press would be working very hard to deal with the evidence. However, now they have a pattern of behavior. “Once again, Trump targets his enemies with investigations”.

  11. Government shutdown averted.

    Everyone agreed they were spending too dang much.

    1. One of the symptoms is chipmunk cheeks.

    2. I assumed Trump had misspelled Liddell, given what Alice Liddell was best-known for.

  12. A Mississippi city is claiming undocumented immigrants don’t have a right not to be killed by police…

    WHY SHOULD THEY COME HERE AND GET SPECIAL TREATMENT CITIZENS DON’T HAVE?

    1. I can’t wait for the city attorney to claim that the Supreme Court has already decided that:

      Not being citizens they have no standing in any court of the United States. Cool. The city has already claimed that

      Since the United States Constitution recognizes humans as belonging to only three classes – citizens, Indians, and property; the courts must find that this human not being a citizen or a Dawes Act Indian must therefore be property. And no citizen having come forward to claim this particular human as property, it must be found that, in fact, said property belonged to the city and the city has every right to dispose of its property as it sees fit.

      Said property having deprived the city of economic usefulness by stepping into the path of a bullet, the courts must find his family guilty of theft of property and force them to compensate the city for the entire present value of all future labor that said property would have provided city.

      1. Yes, the city attorney obviously has no idea that the words “person” and “people” appear in the constitution, and no idea of what those words mean.

        1. This isn’t about person/people in the Constitution, this is about civil lawsuits trying to recover money from US taxpayers. There is no constitutional right to recover damages from US taxpayers for damages suffered in the commission of an illegal act.

    2. This isn’t about a right not to be killed; the illegal migrant had that right. But accidents happen.

      This is about the ability to obtain money from US tax payers. Yes, illegal aliens should not be able to obtain money from US tax payers, any more than you should be able to obtain money from me for injuries you suffer while trespassing on my property. That’s not a constitutional issue, it’s a liability issue.

      1. I have to disagree with you on this one.

  13. The drop in young urban residents last year was smaller than in 2017, when big cities lost nearly 54,000 residents in this age group. But the sustained declines signal a sharp reversal from the beginning of the decade, when young adults flooded into cities and helped lead an urban revival.

    Turns out that when you aren’t in your 20s anymore and have kids, a good school district is more important than the newest fad bar to get drunk at on the weekends. That’s something you can’t find in the nation’s can’t-keep-up urban shitholes.

    1. The Progressive’s ideal life seems to be some version of the Honeymooners. They are real forward looking like that.

      1. “To the Moon, Alice!”

      2. No progressive actually wants to hold an actual blue-collar job like Ralph Kramden had. Jobs like that are for the peckerwoods and brown people only.

        1. This is true. Ralph is now a free lance graphic designer and is supposed to be in a gay marriage with Art Carney who plays kazoo in a Rob Zombie cover band.

          1. And he has a beard and neck tattoo.

        2. Yeah, if they made The Honeymooners today, Ralph and Alice would be on disability.

      3. Wealthy progressives typically virtue signal about progressivism while living the lives of conservatives. Just like Bernie screaming about rich people while owning three houses.

        They’re too dumb to understand the irony. Family wealth creates a lot of hypocrites.

        1. I suspect in about 5 years or so, most of the remaining white urban residents will end up being Boomers and early Gen-Xers who cashed out in the real estate market, and homeless people.

          Can’t wait for the “white flight” articles to start popping up in the next couple of years.

          1. And based the voting patterns of 2nd and 3rs generation Hispanics, the media will start them as whites. They will no longer be ‘brown’ people.

            1. They never were. Spain is a white European country.

              1. That is the joke.

              2. That’s why the identitarians don’t consider Spaniards to be Hispanic or Latinx+*.

                1. Right. THAT is actually the joke. Spanish aren’t Hispanics. Or Latino.

                  1. But really what they think is irrelevant. Spain colonized those countries, so they’re white Europeans. That’s the rule here, so it’s the rule there.

                    1. Quite a few ex Confederates and Germans in Brazil.

                    2. Yet, all those brown Cubans call themselves “white”, reserving “black” for the truly chocolate.

          2. There is a lot of that going on. A lot of divorced, bored white people putzing around new apartment buildings. They can afford to take the tax hit because they voted in a social security policy that steals from young people’s future.

          3. Progs want to annex the suburbs to authority of the city, ban single family homes, while mandating taxpayer subsidized, gov’t owned percentage of units in all condominiums.

        2. See Justin ‘Twinkle Cuck’ Trudeau.

          By the way, he blamed a ‘racialized Canada’ for him going blackface.

          1. A true victim of circumstances.

    2. That is the thing, Millennials are no longer the youngest of the young adult category, their priorities for what is good in life are changing. Also, the hate lately directed at gentrifiers and the progressive mismanagement of city governments and school systems probably are not helping.

      1. Urban school districts have been shit for decades, white flight or no. And Millennials aren’t the type to actually build up a community and fix those problems themselves–they’re too mobile, and will migrate somewhere that’s already established where older generations have done the work to put one in place.

        After which, the Millennials will go about denigrating the people who built the nice community they moved into as “old and out of touch.”

        1. People try to put us d-down (talkin’ ’bout my generation)
          Just because we get around (talkin’ ’bout my generation)

        2. I was thinking about Welch’s articles on the Brooklyn school system, where they are bound and determined to tear down any ability to find a relatively good school for your kid, and any objection to their plans is racist.

          1. Deblasio made gifted programs illegal.

          2. Here’s why it’s racist: good schools must set and enforce standards of achievement. That means that they will have some students who can’t meet those standards and will fail. If the school is racially integrated, the students whose performance is sub-par will be predominantly non-“white”. Since all races and cultures must be assumed to be equal, any differential in achievement can only be ascribed to racism, therefore, schools at which “white” students stand out as high achievers must be racist. The solution is “integrated” schools, none of which have too many “whites”, with low standards, at which low-achieving students receive most of the teachers’ attention. This will drag down the performance of the “white” students so they no longer stand out as much revealing the lower performance of non-white students.

    3. What Portland lost in residents, they made up for in homeless.

    4. the newest fad bar to get drunk at on the weekends.

      So that’s how mommy and daddy met.

      1. Don’t take 7 seasons to get around to telling us

  14. The city claims his family has no standing, because as an undocumented immigrant…

    The Constitution’s paperwork clause.

  15. Bitcoin is back in a chaos spiral downward.

    So then it’s almost time to buy?

  16. “the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency”

    But you just said he works for the CIA make up your mind.

    By the way, all you “there is no deep state” assholes can choke on this.

    1. Shout out to Chem Jeff.

      This list of examples of of deep state operatives is a mile long but it’s always a conspiracy.

      1. People working for the agencies that the government has is definite proof of a deep state, but Trump freezing aid then asking for a favor on the very next call is totally just business as usual. If you are going to go all in on believing conspiracies, at least be logically consistent.

        1. Damn you didn’t get your updated talking points, you’re still using the ones from before the CIA was credibly implicated.

          1. My comment directly references the fact a CIA employee was the whistle blower. Not sure what point you are attempting.

            1. I think his point is that you’re obviously a sad fucking sock of jeff, minimizing the deep state’s interference.

              Which you are jeff.

            2. The point is your handler isn’t doing their job keeping you updated on how Media Matters wants you to frame the issue.
              Is there someone in head-office that you can complain to?

        2. CIA involvement?

          No big deal.

          Covering yourself with glory there Esmeralda.

          1. So will you just lay out your whole sad conspiracy for me? Jeff, shreek, esmerleda, and…? Are all the same person? There is only one dissenter from Trump support on this whole forum? Lay it out for me.

            1. Use very similar talking points, insults and tropes.

              1. It does make it suspicious.

                1. Maybe because this dude says the same thing to everyone who comes on this board and disagrees with him? He claims me calling him insane is evidence I’m one of the other guys because they do that too. I’m over here like, “Well, you are acting insane. What do you expect.” How many different responses can there be when the guy literally copy and paste stalks me with the same comment over 2 days now.

                  1. “he guy literally copy and paste stalks”

                    I swear to god there’s a post in here asking why i dont leave you alone, jeff, followed by several replies from you.

                    Save the victim crap girl.

              2. And all the rest of the people in here who support trump are not using very similar talking points and tropes? I’ve tried to stay above insults, but it is kinda difficult when the dude when straight to calling me a pedophile.

                  1. Shall we meet in person to discuss this topic?

                    1. Oooh he wants to meet you in public… You should be scared.

    2. They must have meant “non-partisan”, because there isn’t anything non-political in D.C.

  17. Turns out Shokin wasnt just an overtly corrupt person who Biden wanted out. US lobbyists with ties to the Clinton’s and State were actively working with US Attorneys in the US to help Burisma out while being investigated by Shokin. So Biden and the left’s story about the firing doesnt seem to add up. In fact the democrats appear to have multiple ties to Burismas effort to get out of the corruption investigation.

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

    1. That’s gonna chafe a certain lying idiot, since his entire justification for swallowing this load is that Shokin was so super corrupt that even people convicted of corruption wanted him out.

      1. More than one.
        It’s the favorite progressive talking point

      2. Shokin single handedly corrupted the heaven that was Ukraine- baby jeffrey

      3. Jeff is useful because he does a good job representing where the reason editorial board stands on the issues. He’s not even close to the worst poster here. That said it chaps my ass that his “Biden did what Trump is accused of doing but it’s on the up and up because other people wanted said prosecutor out due to corruption” angle is exactly the argument trump is going to use in an impeachment trial but in reverse. So if they can prove Trump did in fact threaten to withhold funds(this remains to be seen) to investigate corruption he did exactly what Biden admitted on the record to doing except those same people using that defense will say what Trump did was worse somehow.

    2. Too bad you can’t see my “shocked” face.

    3. One of the most absurd spins on this is that sure Hunter Biden is shady but Joe is somehow clean as a whistle. If Joe Biden is some innocent victim of his son’s malfeasance, what exactly was Hunter Biden selling?

      Burisma didn’t give Hunter Biden that money for nothing. It is a misnomer to say Hunter Biden was selling “access”. A company that large and connected doesn’t need access. It has lots of that. It needs influence. Hunter Biden was selling influence. And it wasn’t Hunter Biden selling the influence, it was Joe Biden. Hunter Biden was just how the money was laundered. You can’t pay Joe Biden all that money. That is too obvious even for a Democrat. You pay his son all of the money. Biden was using his son to launder bribes to influence American foreign policy the way Hillary Clinton used the Clinton foundation.

      But somehow, Trump is a traitor for wanting it to be investigated.

      1. The idea that Joe’s crackhead son got that position on his own merits, or even that he had connections and favors to sell like the Clintons, is laughable on its face. It was a vanity job, similar to what NBC gave Chelsea with her stupid yak show, so that they could ingratiate themselves with an influential US politician.

        1. Just look at the millions democrats get from publishers. Napalitano at UC. Susan Rice on the Netflix board. It is a direct line from democratic offices to major corporate boards.

          1. The left loves to compare Trump to a dictator, and Spurs coach Gregg Popovich was crying after he got elected about us being “Rome.” Well, no shit–when you have a banal, hypocritical, corrupt, rent-seeking Optimate class, you’re going to get a Caesar from the ranks of the nobility who sees an opportunity to gain power by aligning with the Populares and engaging with the proles on their level.

            1. Trump is not Caesar. He is one of (or both of) the Grachai brothers. They were the ones who showed the elite that there really was power in the Mob. Caesar was the first of the semi-elite to realize this and to then use that to his benefit.

              Trump is no dictator. That person is just now working their way up the ranks of government or military service, learning and watching. They’ll make their appearance in 10 years or so.

              1. Yes. Trump is actually the elite’s last chance. If Trump fails, someone like Ceaser will follow him. Sadly, the elite are too stupid and arrogant to understand that.

                1. If Trump fails, someone like Ceaser will follow him.

                  Would you support a Caesar seizing power?

                  If you wouldn’t, then why do you think many others would?

                  1. Ah so NOW you’re actively soliciting conjecture lolololl

              2. That’s a good point. It’s notable that the Gracchi brothers were both killed by Optimate mobs, which is basically what Antifa is today.

      2. Surely this stuff will become more, um, known. But the continued spin will be that it pales in comparison to Trump’s sin.

        1. “Joe was corrupt and so was his son, but Trump should have left them alone because election”

      3. What is weird are the arguments that the sinecure given to Hunter Biden insulates Joe from any accusation of corruption, but everyone can see that Trump was asking for a quid pro quo from the Ukrainian president and it does not matter he did directly say such a thing, interpolation of the conversation is good enough to provide the missing evidence.

      4. Top Romney Adviser ,Cofer Black, also was on the board of Burisima with Hunter Biden. Black was former CIA. WTF?

      5. “But somehow, Trump is a traitor for wanting it to be investigated.”

        Trump is the traitor because he used foreign aid as a quid pro quo to getting the investigation re opened. No one cares about Biden. They can share a cell together when this is all said and done.

        1. “No one cares about Biden.”

          Except the whole charge is predicated on him being a candidate. So yeah, you’re exactly wrong.

          What you meant to to say was “No one with a D next to their name cares about Biden’s crimes” Esmeralda

          1. I don’t think D’s are very excited about Biden, and I doubt he will end up being the nominee, but that is all beside the point. The point is, does Trump perceive Biden to be his political rival and did he use public funds in a quid pro quo to solicit an illegal campaign contribution?

            1. I don’t care what you think jeff. You know that.

            2. And god damn if your reply isn’t CLASSIC chemleft deflection, jeff loololol

              1. My comment is deflection? That’s pretty rich, coming from the guy who never engages the arguments at all.

                1. “leave me alone” jeff said 10 minutes before posting this

              2. LOL. “De Oppresso Liber” is not me. I’ve never called Trump a traitor. I don’t think he is a traitor, actually. I think he is an ignorant narcissistic buffoon, but I don’t think he is literally giving aid and comfort to an enemy.

                1. To be clear, I am aware Trump does not meet the legal definition of a traitor. I am using the term in it’s common or colloquial sense: one who betrays the trust and confidence of their country.

                  1. Well, then you can say that without using loaded, and explicitly defined, terms like “traitor”. After all, certain former Libertarian VP’s think that Trump should be executed for it.

                    I have a real big problem with the casual use of the word “traitor” and “treason”. I loathe the man, but I do not doubt for one minute that he loves his country and regards himself as a patriot.

                    1. I very much doubt that he loves his country more than he loves himself. I believe his political ambitions have always been about enriching and glorifying himself above all else. He has never once demonstrated patriotism, and he has had ample opportunity.

                  2. “Leave me alone” he said to me, twenty minutes before he posted this

                2. Sure De Oppresso Liber.

                  God your sock names are always as pompous as your regular one

    4. ONCE AGAIN Jesse is citing an opinion piece as if it were fact.
      Maybe at some point in the future Jesse will learn how to cite authoritative sources and not try to gaslight everyone with opinion masquerading as fact.

      That being said, let’s try to come up with plausible answers to Mr. Solomon’s two “troubling” questions:

      1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”

      Well, let’s see.

      Let’s suppose that Shokin was a heroic investigator hot on the trail of a corrupt Hunter Biden and the company he worked for, Burisma. If Joe Biden shows up and corruptly demands that Shokin be fired, to protect his son and his company, then how might one expect Burisma to respond? “No, don’t fire Shokin, Biden is telling lies”? Umm, no. They would WANT Shokin fired and would AGREE with Biden’s desire to want Shokin fired.

      So this “troubling question” actually undercuts the narrative that Shokin was prevented from carrying out his work by an interfering Biden.

      2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?

      I don’t know why this would be a troubling question. The investigation against Burisma was still open, but just dormant because Shokin spiked it. With a new prosecutor, the Burisma lawyers could reasonably expect the case to no longer be dormant anymore. Why wouldn’t they want to meet with the new prosecutor to discuss the case?

      But this would be true REGARDLESS of how the previous prosecutor left his job, pressured by Biden or not. This isn’t a “troubling question”, it is a non-sequitur thrown in to cloud the issue rather than to clarify it.

      1. Your answer to #1 is not compelling. They said it was fake information. That is the fact in evidence. That doesn’t undercut anything. In fact- that they would blatantly call out the corruption allegations as false could just as easily re-enforce the notion that the fix was in. They felt comfortable saying it, because they knew that Biden would protect them no matter what. (Note, I don’t have any evidence one way or the other, but the point is that there are many reasons for or against the theory as to why they said it. All we know is that they said it.)

        1. They felt comfortable saying it, because they knew that Biden would protect them no matter what.

          If they thought they could count on Biden’s protection, then how does it benefit them to call out Biden as a liar? Is it really a wise idea to publicly defame the person who is protecting you?

          1. They didn’t call out Biden as a liar. Biden called for the firing of someone that “everyone knew” was corrupt (Wasn’t that your argument yesterday- that Biden was just following the orders of the White House?). He didn’t put this evidence in front of people. He just acted on it. Maybe he knew it was fake. Maybe he didn’t.

            What is clear is that Biden personally involved himself in the firing of a prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company. That same company called corruption allegations against that prosecutor as “fake information”. Anyone could have pressured Ukraine to do this. Secretary of State. State Department Officials. The President himself. But Biden did it. And he did it using funding as leverage.

            On the one hand you have a public official specifically stating that Ukraine will not get money unless they take an action. In that case it might be correct to do so, but the public official also has a personal stake in the outcome. On the other hand, you have a public official perhaps (maybe, depending on how you read the conversation) implying that Ukraine won’t get money unless they take an action. In that case, it might be correct to do so (there was real corruption), but the political official also has a personal stake in the outcome.

            These two cases look remarkably similar to me. Why do you work so hard to defend Biden, and give the worst reading to Trump?

            1. “Why do you work so hard to defend Biden, and give the worst reading to Trump?”

              The world may never know…

            2. Okay I misunderstood your argument. When you wrote “They said it was fake information.”, I thought the “it” referred to Biden’s claim that the prosecutor was corrupt.

              Anyone could have pressured Ukraine to do this. Secretary of State. State Department Officials. The President himself. But Biden did it.

              Because that was the job he was given by Obama, after the 2014 revolution.

              https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-09-24/how-ukraine-found-itself-at-the-heart-of-intensifying-trump-scandal

              Corruption has been a major concern since Ukraine gained independence with the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. After pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a 2014 revolution, successive U.S. administrations — under President Obama and then Trump — poured millions of dollars of aid into Ukraine, much of it aimed at helping shore up Ukrainian forces. But all international partners, including the World Bank, European governments and the International Monetary Fund, were worried about rampant corruption, which was why Obama assigned Biden to be the point man on the issue.

              And he did it using funding as leverage.

              I agree that this part specifically looks particularly problematic.

              These two cases look remarkably similar to me.

              They have some similarities, yes. I have said all along I’m not opposed to seeing both investigated fully. But there are also differences. Notably, Biden never asked *specifically* for the prosecutor to stop prosecuting Burisma. Trump, however, *did* ask *specifically* for the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. It was not a broad statement against corruption per se; only against alleged corruption, an investigation into which that would most directly benefit his political fortunes.

              1. Hey look another opinion piece filled with conjecture, filled by chemleft engaging in conjecture about conjecture.

              2. He asked specifically for them to look at the circumstances behind the firing, not Biden himself. The Ukrainian President then speaks at length about the firing and his enthusiasm to investigate it as well.

              3. Notably, Biden never asked *specifically* for the prosecutor to stop prosecuting Burisma. Trump, however, *did* ask *specifically* for the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.

                And I think this is why Trump polarizes people so much.

                I think a lot of people look at these two situations and see something very similar. The difference is that Biden has a better sense of what to say out loud and what not to say out loud than Trump does.

                Some people are outraged that Trump doesn’t understand how to do politics, others are outraged that Biden gets a pass because he follows the conventions.

                I actually think this comes out of Trump’s background in construction and real estate development – in construction you have a lot of “let’s cut the crap” discussions that you would never have in a political context.

                Although those of us who have public construction experience know that you talk to politicians differently than you talk to contractors. . . .

      2. A Whole AirBnb to Myself
        September.27.2019 at 9:48 am
        That’s gonna chafe a certain lying idiot, since his entire justification for swallowing this load is that Shokin was so super corrupt that even people convicted of corruption wanted him out.

        Thanks for being utterly predictable proggo.

      3. “Let’s suppose”

        For a guy who constantly deflects with “just an opinion” and “conjecture”…

        1. That’s rich coming from a guy who argues via tu quoque.

          1. So it’s my fault you bitch about opinions then front them yourself?

            How do I have such control over you. It ALWAYS seems to be my fault somehow proggo.

      4. Holy fucking shit are you dumb. John Solomon has been investigating this since 2016 you ever living retard. He cites fact after fact in the article which you would know if you read past the headline moron.

        Yesterday you present literal timeline and then used pure conjecture as infil. Solomon literally names groups supports it with documents and has active FOIA out for more.

        How fucking stupid are you jeffrey?

        1. He cites fact after fact in the article which you would know if you read past the headline moron.

          Yes he does cite facts. Yes I did read past the headline, which I amply demonstrated by cutting and pasting directly from the text of the article itself.

          You’re starting to sound like an NPC yourself.

          IF {chemjeff posts text}
          THEN printf (“stupid jeff didn’t read article”)

          1. You may have read it, but your obvious bias hindered your comprehension of it.

    5. WHOA! YOU MEAN SOMEBODY WHO OBAMA, THE EU, THE IMF, ET AL THOUGHT WAS CORRUPT WAS NOT?

      Dammit…those groups are such fine judges of character historically.

      1. Umm, yeah he was.

        https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html


        For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.

        “There was no pressure from anyone from the United States” to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” he added.

        Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin’s office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.

        Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine — first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor — worked to bury it.

        “Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case,” Kaleniuk said.

        Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed — and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.

        But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired.

        They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.

        1. Ah, but that’s an opinion piece and conjecture.

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-of-negligence-in-fraud-trial-a7484586.html

          THAT is a criminal conviction. Of one of the people you are trusting. For corruption and money funneling.

          So… Yeah. You’ll say this is irrelevant of course.

          1. It is amazing watch Jeff’s inconsistency in every argument he makes.

            1. It’s not an opinion piece. Tulpa’s lying.
              That is what Tulpa does. He relies on people like you not actually bothering to check, and so you just lazily believe whatever he tells you.

              1. They can read it and see for themselves that is an opinion piece. They can see its not a research paper. There are no APA or MLA citations. There’s no works cited. It isn’t a research paper. It’s a guys opinions. He SAYS SO

                “Here is a look at the arguments, facts, and evidence in the dispute pitting Trump against former Vice President Joe Biden, a front-runner for the Democratic nomination to challenge the incumbent in the election next year.”

                And we can all see how you violently attack people when they point out your hypocrisy.

                1. Oh look here’s Tulpa playing his goalpost-shifting.

                  No, it’s not a research article. But I didn’t claim it was a research article. It’s just not an opinion piece. A research article is a subset of the articles that are “not opinion pieces”, but an article doesn’t have to be a research paper in order to not be an opinion piece.

                  It’s a news article. That’s what it is.

                  And by engaging in this pointless little discussion about whether or not it’s an opinion piece, it derails the whole conversation, impedes the discussion on the actual topic, which is the corruption (or lack thereof) of Shokin, and tries to make the discussion all about TULPA TULPA TULPA.

                  Which is what Tulpa wants. He wants to try to frustrate any attempt by me, or others on his obsessive infatuation list, to be able to have a productive discussion. Therefore they get frustrated and leave, which is the main aim here.

                  1. Hi De Oppresso Liber, cry more about posting an opinion piece and then getting caught lying about it.

                    “And by engaging in this pointless little discussion”

                    Of course you think you being a hypocrite is pointless. Cry more about how I keep making you do things

                    1. Because your entire aim here is to steer the conversation away from the topic at hand, and instead shift it into some discussion about my perceived moral failings. In other words, argument by tu quoque.

                      Goalpost shifting, word games, and tu quoque is about all you have.

                      Now back to the discussion of Shokin. Corrupt, or not? What do you think, Tulpa?

                      (Answer: Tulpa doesn’t give a shit.)

              2. It looks like an opinion piece to me Jeff. If it isn’t, what is it?

                1. Oh this should be good. Don’t expect a straight answer.

                  1. I was so right. He thought he could bust out his sock lolololol

                2. An opinion piece usually has a thesis at the top and then proceeds with their evidence for that thesis. I don’t see that in this article. It looks like a summation of events leading up to the current situation.

                  I am sympathetic to you all not knowing how journalism works. There has been a concerted effort to confuse right wingers on this subject.

                  1. Hey look at the brand new sock with the same douchey, overly verbose, impervious stupidity as jeff defending jeff. Total coincidence right jeff…ahem Esmeralda

                    “an opinion piece usually ”

                    So not always. And let’s be clear, this thing you’re doing where you insist on your own definition? Totally obviously you jeff. You still haven’t learned no one cares that you do that.

                    “I am sympathetic to you all not knowing how journalism works”

                    I am sympathetic to you not knowing how the word “usually” works jeff. Being wrong obviously sting you a great deal. Fuck you’ve been shitting up threads for days because of it.

                    You really suck at this sockpuppet thing.

                    1. Did you have a point or…?

                      I’ll use smaller words in my future submissions so you can enjoy them too.

                  2. It is just Tulpa playing his stupid games. He doesn’t give a shit about any of this here. He enjoys derailing the conversations of those on his obsession list. See? Now no one is talking about Shokin’s alleged corruption. It’s all been directed to discussion about Tulpa.

                    1. Why are you replying to yourself? We can all see it’s you.

                      “He doesn’t give a shit about any of this here”

                      Dead wrong. I love how you have to run a sock and then goading you into being so stupid that it becomes obvious its you.

                    2. That is the part that you like – derailing conversations and having fun at my, and others’, expenses. Discussion of the actual issues? Not so much.

                      It’s all just a big game. I’m a dancing monkey for your amusement. That’s all it is.

                    3. Is he really Tulpa? I seem to remember Tulpa as being an over the top cop worshiper back in the day. If he is, then it is an incredible turn that Tulpa’s opinions have aligned with the majority in here now.

                    4. I did not know Tulpa “back in the day”. It would not surprise me to learn that Tulpa’s core beliefs are, shall we say, “flexible”.

                      Tulpa’s only purpose here now is to stir up shit and have fun at everyone else’s expense. He obsesses over certain people, like me and you, but in the process, disrupts entire conversations and makes it harder for everyone else to communicate, including the people he would otherwise support. And he’s explicitly said that he doesn’t give a shit about any of it.

                  3. AND, also note that Tulpa has totally dropped the whole “is it an opinion piece or not” discussion. Because his goalpost shifting has been called out, and now it’s all about who is socking whom.

                    He doesn’t give a shit about whether that article was an opinion piece or not. He never did.

                    We’re all dancing monkeys for Tulpa’s amusement. That’s all. NPCs in his computer screen endlessly amusing him.

                1. Any more Tulpa socks wishing to weigh in on this important matter of whether or not this article is an “opinion piece” or not?

                  1. why don’t you solicit the opinion from your sock “De Oppresso Liber?”

                    Yeah jeff, “everyone who disagrees with me is tulpa” doesn’t make you look insane.

                    1. Yeah jeff, “everyone who disagrees with me is tulpa” doesn’t make you look insane.

                      While you’re laughing your ass off setting up socks.

                      So “MillenniumMP” and “40′ of broadside” are not your socks? Is that what you’re going with?

    1. I dont get how they didnt read it. It’s not that long. Its written by crappy lawyers fluffing up second hand accounts and news sources. It’s no worse than reading an Atlantic article, same bias.

      1. It’s no worse than reading an Atlantic article, same bias.

        I think you answered your own question, I dont get how they didnt read it?

        1. Should at least know the arguments your opponents are making, no matter how dumb they are.

        2. Does it have an easy crossword tho? I like those

      2. A former intelligence officer has opined that exactly. It, in no way, reads like a whistleblower complaint. It reads like something that had outside counsel help draft.

        1. CIA officers do a shit load of writing. That did not strike me as odd at all. He probably did retain a lawyer and write several drafts before sending up. Why wouldn’t he?

          1. The lengthy footnotes? Not normal for a whistleblower complaint.

            And given that Schiff had the complaint back in August…I strongly suspect he helped craft it.

            1. And then he lied about it.

              That is gonna come back to haunt him. You watch. Trump is going to seize on those comments, and use the courts previous judgements based on Trump’s comments against Schiff. Watch.

              1. Please note: Schiff was parroting the leaker’s complaints a month ago (8/29).

                Sounds like collusion to me.

                  1. (is anyone surprised jeff believed it was a “parody” lolololl he’d eat leftist shit if they told him it was food lolollolol”

          2. Man you sure started deflecting about the CIA involvement pretty fast.

            Thats got to suck for you, being in the position of staning for the deep state.

            1. Seeing as my father was a 40 year federal employee and I was for over a decade, I guess I’m born and bred deep state.

              1. Yeah, all lies jeff.

                “I guess I’m born and bred deep state.”

                Nah you decided that.

                1. Have you tried just being less horrible?

                  1. A second ago you were crying about being left alone Jeff.

                    You’re like my borderline personality disordered ex-girlfriend jeff

                    1. The only one crying around here is your severely disappointed father.

          3. I’d also ask how the leaker could claim there was nothing sensitive to qualify for the classification. Trump discussed a different world leader with the Ukraine leader. That ALONE makes it a very sensitive document.

            The leaker LIED about that. Just as he LIED about what was said. LIED about his witness.

  18. As Republicans Face Impeachment Dilemma, Romney Is a Lonely Voice of Concern

    Romney, concern troll?

    Romney the RINO sure wants to be President Pelosi’s VP.

    1. He has pronounced himself “deeply troubled” by Mr. Trump’s effort to enlist a foreign leader for political assistance

      “A Troubled Man For Troubled Times!”

      1. “why couldn’t Trump just roll over and show his belly to Hillary like I did for Barrack? Where is the civility?”

    2. What “dilemma”?

      1. More popcorn or heat up nachos?

        1. Yeah, that is a tough one.

        2. I was thinking buffalo wings and a nice scotch ale.

          1. The Scotch Ale is because it is cold here (Great Falls is expecting more than a foot of snow this weekend, we are supposed to get dustings) and I prefer heavier bears and ales in cold weather.

            1. Which, if you ever get to Sidney Montana try the Old Gus at the Meadowlark Brewery. I also recommend the fried pickles and the fish street tacos.

    3. Next they will link to Jeff Flakes claim of 35 gop senators would impeach if a silent vote was allowed.

      1. Secrecy now =transparency.

    4. Can you blame them? Based on recent sob stories about how Greedy Boomers are robbing poor Millennials blind, its obvious very few of them can afford to pay $3000 a month for the privilege of living in an 800 sq ft apartment, while dodging human feces and used syringes while walking down to the Whole Foods on the corner.

      1. Bloody squirrels.

        I’m really not a spambots. I promise.

    5. Anyway, as I was saying, just as the mantle of Elijah fell on Elisha it appears John McCain’s title of “Maverick” has fallen to Mitt Romney.

      The Media’s new Favorite Republican is just living up to expectations.

      1. He’s always been far harsher to Republicans than critics. He savaged the Republican field in 2012. He sat on Obama’s lap during the general.

  19. Tech executives in a CNBC poll voted Facebook the technology giant “most likely to face punitive action as a result of the federal government’s antitrust review of Silicon Valley.”

    It’s an honor just to be nominated.

    1. Google was in first place until it removed the poll from it’s search page.

    2. No mention of Hooli?

  20. Uber’s redesign will “combine Uber’s ride-hailing and food delivery apps, boost new modes of transportation like scooters and add safety features.”

    ENTER THE REGULATORS.

    1. “We must destroy the industry in order to save it”

    2. And that sounds like a Metallica song:

      “Say your prayers, CEO….”

  21. As whistleblower report on Trump and Ukraine reverberates through Washington, scandal will test Pence

    Haha. Pence will be just fine and so will Trump.

    In fact, the Election 2020 results will be even sweeter as Trump gets reelected and Democrats definitely lose control of their majority in the House.

    With many of the RINOs gone or who get voted out by supporting an impeachment inquiry, maybe the GOP can repeal ObamaCare.

    1. LOL

      #TrumpUkraine has effectively ended Drumpf’s Presidency.

      #Impeach

  22. No, you idiots, you weren’t supposed to fire the reporter for his dumb old tweets, you were supposed to not have him write about other people’s dumb old tweets in the first place

    You did the stupidest thing at every possible turn

    It did become apparent by the description of the editorial process in this case that cancel culture was imbued within.

  23. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $60.0 billion

    OK, so he finally broke the sixty billion barrier. But I’m sure he was much higher than that during the Obama economy. So he’s only recovering what he previously lost due to Drumpf’s tariffs and immigration restrictions.

    Moreover, he’s only up $600 million this year. Koch / Reason libertarianism wants to see the richest people on the planet increase their wealth by a lot more than 1% per year. And that isn’t happening during this #DrumpfRecession.

    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. You need a better hobby

      1. You need to stop using the same cliches. I told you this Tony, I mean Esmeralda, I mean De Opresso Liber (God your sock names are fucking dumb)

  24. Calls to cancel New York Times subscriptions emerge over report identifying Trump whistleblower

    Since few non-Lefties even have subscriptions to the NYT, this is bad news for Democrat leadership. When you lose average Democrats, winning elections gets harder and harder.

    1. Times contributing writer Wajahat Ali, who called on the public to “reconsider” their decision to cancel their subscriptions. “It employs fantastic journalists & breaks important stories. It’s also under direct assault from Trump & his supporters,” he tweeted.

      “Plus, it’s my phony-baloney job!”

      1. “Stop cancelling your subscriptions because you will hurt my… er… fine writers pay.”

      2. “Fantastic journalists”. Well, he’s not wrong. Some of the stories I’ve seen in the NYT are so fantastic they could have been written by Baron von Munchausen.

        1. Yup. Looks like Gillespie, Boehm, and Shikha will be stuck at reason for decades to come.

  25. Hundreds of ex-national security officials support impeachment inquiry into Trump

    More evidence that there is a vast Deep State of bureaucrats actively trying to undermine the Constitution.

    Investigate each one for crimes, like unconstitutional domestic surveillance without warrants based upon probable cause.

    Fuck these traitors to the Constitution. Edward Snowden was a whistleblower of the best kind and the Deep State didn’t want to protect him at all.

    1. The bulk of the statement’s signees are former Obama officials

      Inconceivable!

    2. I look forward to Jeff defending these assholes. Lick the boot Jeff!

      Bureaucracy overthrowing elections is great!
      -Jeff

      1. Bureaucrats exposing corruption are great.

        What would you prefer – bureaucrats who see corruption, and then do nothing about it?

        1. Umm…most of the Obama bureaucrats openly ENGAGED in corruption and are petrified of how deep it goes being found out.

          1. Okay? So shame on them for not exposing the corruption among their colleagues.

            Again, what would you prefer – bureaucrats observing what they perceive as corruption, but not doing anything about it?

            Do you want bureaucrats to be akin to soldiers following orders without question?

            1. “Do you want bureaucrats to be akin to soldiers following orders without question?”

              THATS WHAT THEY ARE

              They’re Obama holdovers following orders. Please try to keep up.

              1. And to be more clear… this isn’t a democrat/ republican thing. This is once again the bush/mccain/obama/clinton establishment. It just so happens that Obama was the last one in charge.

                1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

              2. How very libertarian of you: “Don’t investigate this extremely obvious example of corruption because … because they are Obama people! The president is above reproach!”

                1. Engaging the apparatus of state to crush your enemies because you lost an election isn’t libertarian either Esmeralda

                  Shorter Esmeralda “LEAVE THE DEEP STATE ALONE!!!”

                  1. But preemptively using the state to crush your political opponents is libertarian? You are so wildly logically inconsistent.

                    1. What political opponents jeff? The probe was into Bidens SON lolololll YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING JEFF lololol

                      AHAHHA YOUR GOTCHAGOT YOU INSTEAD AHHAAHAHAHAHA

            2. “Again, what would you prefer – bureaucrats observing what they perceive as corruption, but not doing anything about it?”

              Would you prefer they only decry what they deem to be corruption SOLELY if it benefits their side politically?

              At this point…why would a Republican trust the IC at all? Trump sure as hell shouldn’t.

            3. Uhmmm the whistleblower didn’t observe anything. He/she/they reported office gossip.

        2. What corruption dude?

          There’s no there there. And it’s all second hand knowledge.

  26. The president doesn’t understand the difference between an apostrophe and a hyphen, among other things

    Grammar trolling? Really?

    1. Know who else couldn’t tell the difference?

  27. Reich is right!

    “Income inequality at highest level in more than 50 years, according to Census figures”
    […]
    “The Gini Index grew from 0.482 in 2017 to 0.485 last year, according to the bureau’s one-year American Community Survey data.
    […]
    Even though household income increased, it was distributed unevenly, with the wealthiest helped possibly by a tax cut passed by Congress in 2017, said Hector Sandoval, an economist at the University of Florida.”
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-census-income-inequality-20190926-xbyywpnh2fawfbasgwmujej6pi-story.html

    So AP is pant’s-shitting over an increase in inequality in the amount of 3/10th of 1%, and the increase was causes not by any loss, just the fact that the rich got richer faster than the poor got richer.
    The paper Chron then informed us that several commie POTUS candidates would ‘fix’ that…

    1. I always wonder why liberals dont look at the global GINI as cheap power and capitalism lifts millions put of poverty.

      1. Importing refugees or migrants who were living on $90/month, and now making $25k-$30k a year supports their income inequality stats.

    2. I see you are unaware of the principle of compounding interest. Squeeze your eyes shut all you want, the middle class is thinning out. This is not a good thing for us.

      https://www.investopedia.com/insights/americas-slowly-disappearing-middle-class/

      1. Ahahahaha you stupid fuckimg sock Reason debunked that shit lololol how are you so bad at thinking Esmeralda lol

        1. I can’t follow your crazy mouse logic train. A few articles ago you made a comment to the effect of Reason staff being team blue shills, now they are trustworthy sources of economic analysis?

          1. LOLO when you say “to the effect of” jeff we all know you’re about to fabricate something

            “A few articles ago you made a comment to the effect of Reason staff being team blue shills, ”

            “now they are trustworthy sources of economic analysis?”

            Reason isn’t a monolith jeff you fucktard lollll YOU KEEP TRYING GOTCHAS AND MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF JEFF LOLOLOL

            Lol i love how you lie so effortlessly jeff

  28. That editor Hunter completely missed the point.

    There’s ageless wisdom in the axiom LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE.

    Or don’t walk through a lion’s den when Bugs Bunny holds an alarm clock as Yosemite Sam discovered.

    NOTHING GOOD COMES OF IT.

  29. “On the impeachment front…”

    I’m not a linguist, and I’m not here to talk about the differences between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, but I will say this: there is no good reason to talk about there being an impeachment at this point.

    There won’t be an impeachment until Nancy Pelosi calls for a vote on a bill of impeachment in the House. Nancy Pelosi can say that the president did this, the president did that, and so we will investigate it till the cows come home, but until there is a vote on impeachment in the House, there is no impeachment.

    Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi may never call for a vote in the House on a bill of impeachment, and that’s because she fears making Democrat House members who represent swing districts go on the record either for or against impeachment Trump–she certainly fears making them do that in an election year.

    Plenty of registered Democrats voted for Donald Trump, especially in the swing state rust belt, and that means there are plenty of Democrat representatives who will be seeking election in 2020 in districts where Donald Trump is popular. If she makes those representatives go on the record either for or against impeaching Trump, she risks infuriating voters in that district–and it could go either way!

    If she makes a Democrat representative go on the record for impeaching Trump, all the Trump leaning Democrats who voted for Trump because of his anti-free trade stance will vote against the Democrat in the House elections. On the other hand, if that Democrat representative votes against impeaching Trump, all the hardcore Democrats in that representative’s district will be infuriated for that reason.

    That is why Nancy Pelosi hasn’t called for a vote on impeachment. It’s because she doesn’t want to impeach Trump. The only reason she’ll ever do so is because she has no other choice, i.e., because she fears the Democrats in deep blue districts will remover her from the Speaker’s chair if she doesn’t call a vote to impeach Trump.

    I appreciate that it’s hard to talk about the prospect of impeachment without using the word “impeachment”, but we should also be clear about the fact that impeachment does not mean a bunch of House committees chasing phantom allegations by unnamed sources until November of 2020. Impeachment is when the Speaker of the House calls for a vote, and the representatives go on the record with their votes either for or against impeachment–and a majority decide to impeach the president.

    That hasn’t happened yet, and it probably will never happen–certainly not based on the information we’ve seen so far. One of the reasons it’s unlikely that Pelosi will ever impeach Trump is that (as I outlined above), doing so may hurt the Democrats badly in House elections come 2020–and impeaching Trump isn’t likely to have any upside for them at all unless Trump is actually removed from office by the Senate. And the chances of that happening, based on the information we’ve seen so far, is practically nil.

    To put it succinctly, The chances of Nancy Pelosi impeaching Trump would approximate the chances of two-thirds of the Senate voting to remove Trump from office, and that ain’t about to happen. I say “would” because Nancy Pelosi’s hand might be forced to bring impeachment to a vote under threat from AoC and other radicals from deep blue states–who threaten to replace her as the Speaker of the House if she refuses to bring a bill of impeachment to a vote.

    1. Fair analysis, Ken. Interesting times.

    2. Jeff Flake, desperately trying to remain relevant, claimed yesterday that at least 35 Republican Senators “privately” want to support Trump’s removal from office.

      Interesting that they want to see Trump gone but will vote in lock-step with the policies he pushes.

      1. 35 Senators would love to impeach President Trump–but they’re afraid of what the voters would do to them if they did that?

        In that statement, Jeff Flake seems to be alleging that democracy works. The framers really knew what they were doing.

        The only way you can overturn a presidential election is with the overwhelming support of Senators who, themselves, fear the anger of voters.

    3. Say what you want about Pelosi, she didn’t get where she is by being a political naïf. When she warns that impeachment might not be the right course, maybe you should listen.

      But Pelosi is like Mama Dog on the porch trying to corral a litter of over-eager pups who see a big fat skunk waddling by and think that skunk sure would be easy to catch. Some lessons the pups gotta learn on their own and “Your mama ain’t as dumb as you think she is” is one of them.

  30. Any immigration policy Reason opposes is likely a good one. Just as a general rule.

    1. “This should be very concerning to the administration that its policies are scaring people away”
      Feature, not a bug

  31. In this instance, I don’t get why publishing any speculative information of the whistleblower is helpful at all to the whistleblower him/herself. I thought we wanted to protect whistleblowers, and that was why Congress passed the legislation in the first place. How does NYT benefit in any way by helping identify the whistleblower?

    This is just spectacularly bad editorial judgment by NYT.

    1. Considering it isn’t really a whistleblower at all, I see no problems with it.

    2. The credibility of the whistle blower’s allegations shouldn’t depend on anything about the identity whistle blower.

      If hate filled partisans spill on their boss because they hate him and they’re partisan, that doesn’t mean they aren’t telling the truth.

      We should judge the truth based on whether the allegations can be confirmed by other sources–not by some ad hominem bullshit.

      Smoking causes cancer or not regardless of whether Adolph Hitler said it does and regardless of his motives.

      All that being said, the facts I’ve seen so far don’t seem to have confirmed any of the whistle blowers allegations. Furthermore, I haven’t seen anything being alleged that I think would justify making a duly elected president ineligible for public office.

      Instead of an impeachment, how ’bout we let the facts come out and hold an election in November of 2020?

      1. Ken, ultimately that is the answer. The people will need to settle the question at the ballot box in November 2020. I agree completely.

        But man, I would be incensed with NYT if I were the whistleblower.

      2. The credibility of someone without any single shred of evidence or even first hand knowledge should all depend on who that person is. That is the only form of analysis we have.

        1. Yes, if the only thing we had was the testimony of the whistle blower, then the credibility of the allegations would be highly dependent on the credibility of the whistle blower.

          We don’t have that problem here. I don’t have to believe the whistle blower when I can read the text of the phone conversation myself. I see what the whistle blower was alleging, and it’s not a big deal to me.

          Score at Halftime – Boy Who Cried Wolf: zero

          At some point, the credibility of the Boy Who Cried Wolf becomes so damaged that his claims aren’t even worth investigating anymore, but we’re still assessing his claims based on whether or not they’re true–not whether or not he’s credible.

          He got our attention with his claims. The fact is that I don’t see any wolf.

          1. Speaking of boy who cried wolf. I found this funny. The 86 times wolf has been cried against trump.

            https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-said-trump-could-be-impeached

          2. “At some point, the credibility of the Boy Who Cried Wolf becomes so damaged that his claims aren’t even worth investigating anymore, but we’re still assessing his claims based on whether or not they’re true–not whether or not he’s credible.”

            The boy who cried wolf isn’t just one guy, it’s the collective of people who prepared and framed this entire non-issue. This was planned out weeks in advance.

      3. I disagree to a point. Questioning the motivation of a witness is valid, especially when the witness wasn’t actually participating in the alleged incident. At this point it is a he said she said situation, and the whistleblowers motives are just as pertinent as Trump’s motives.

        1. See what I wrote above.

          If the only available evidence was his testimony, his credibility would be more important.

          We can see what he was talking about in the text of that phone call, but it doesn’t appear to be what he said.

          I might judge the credibility of his claims on the basis of his personal credibility if that were the only evidence available.

          So far, his claims have been refuted by the facts–a much better standard–so it doesn’t matter who he is or what his motives were.

          If his motives were explicitly partisan and the transcript of the phone conversation had shown Trump promising to give the Ukrainian president millions in a Swiss bank account in exchange for launching an investigation against Hunter Biden, the motive of the whistle blower wouldn’t matter either.

          The important thing is that the facts have not supported the allegations so far–regardless of the personal attributes of the person who made the allegation.

          1. You’re forgetting the whistleblowers second allegation of coverup.

            1. I’ll judge that allegation based on the facts when they come out.

              In the meantime, because the facts haven’t supported the first allegation, I’m not about to take his word for anything.

              If the question of whether to remove Trump from office comes down to a question of whether we should take the word of an unnamed source whose earlier allegations were proven to be less than advertised by the facts, then I’ll oppose Trump being removed from office on that basis.

              Regardless, it isn’t the personal attributes of someone that tells us whether their allegations are true–not when the claims can be substantiated or invalidated by evidence. As those claims fail that validation test of being in harmony with the evidence, the credibility of further claims begins to suffer on that basis–rather than on the basis of the personal qualities of the accuser.

              Consistently making claims that are invalidated by the evidence is a great reason not to take further claims from that person too seriously. At some point, he or she will need to show me the evidence before I ever waste my time looking into the claim.

              1. It looks like his second charge is also questionable, at least that Trump covered this one up specific. The WhiteHouse appears to be classifying all calls since after the leaks in regard to the Mexican President and Australian Prime Minister. Considering how diplomatically embarrassing those were, I can’t really blame them v

        2. Except that with the release of the call transcript, and the comments by call participants themselves…the “He said, she said” aspect is now gone. We know what was said.

          So now we are left with: Did the whistleblower act with pure intentions, in good conscience? We just don’t know. But I think the IG is in a better place than most to make that assessment. He testified yesterday.

          But seriously, the NYT is doing more to undermine whistleblowers (as well as the willingness to be a future whistleblower) than anything else I am reading about. It was just hugely bad editorial judgment. I still shake my head at this.

          1. If you noticed liberals shifted to the second complaint in the whistleblower story. Covering up the phone call by classifying the call. The credibility of the whistleblower is now in play. We know he already got contents of the call and who was a participant in the room wrong. So now we are left proving hisnallegations of coverup are wrong, which are more difficult.

            It is extremely important to find out hisnidentotu to see if the complaint itself was formed put of bias with ill intent (it was, let’s be honest).

            1. The classification issue is notable, although it will probably be ignored. What the fuck are these officials supposedly doing leaking info on a classified phone call to a CIA spook who doesn’t have need-to-know, instead of “whistleblowing” themselves?

              1. IIRC, one of the first things Trump did as President was to call the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Australia – and the contents of those calls were promptly leaked to the media. Wouldn’t it be prudent for Trump to move his phone calls to a higher level of security to minimize the number of people privy to the call? Did he move just this one single call to a higher security level or does he have a general policy of doing that?

              2. It’s not even notable of it is standard practice. It’s not like we have a history of transcript leaks under trump to the media. Of course these actions were merely accidents and not a deep state according to idiot jeffrey.

      4. “The credibility of the whistle blower’s allegations shouldn’t depend on anything about the identity whistle blower”

        Uh uh. Impeachment is a political process.

        1. Yeah, and I don’t think the American people will support invalidating the election of a president on the basis of testimony by an unnamed source in the CIA.

          If you want the American people (and their representatives in the Senate) to support that, then you better have more evidence than the unverified account of an unnamed source.

    3. Imagine thinking the new york times is doing this to sabotage the impeachment proceedings.

      1. They overplayed their hand and have to throw Nancy a lifeline?

  32. National Lampoon could not be published anymore:

    “‘OK’ hand gesture, ‘Bowlcut’ added to hate symbols database”
    […]
    “COLLEGE PARK, Md. —
    The “OK” hand gesture, a mass killer’s bowl-style haircut and an anthropomorphic moon wearing sunglasses are among 36 new entries in a Jewish civil rights group’s online database of hate symbols used by white supremacists and other far-right extremists.
    […]
    The New York City-based group launched the database in 2000 to help law enforcement officers, school officials and others recognize signs of extremist activity. It has grown to include nearly 200 entries.”
    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-09-27/ok-gesture-bowl-haircut-added-hate-symbols-jewish-database

    Once it bccomes laughable, isn’t it self-defeating?

    1. Wait….didn’t Moe from the Three Stooges have a bowl haircut? 🙂

      1. And that woman in the Obama administration!

    2. My understanding was that in Brazil, giving people the “okay” hand sign meant you were calling them an asshole.

      1. If it is in response to a thumbs up …

        1. Or the two-finger “peace” sign with the palm of the hand turned inward?

  33. Is there any reason to assume that because the person is from the CIA that they are above reproach. I think not the CIA does more harm to more countries through lies just like they lied about Valarie Plame and Iraq

    1. The CIA is a like having a girlfriend who’s a pathological liar.

      You listen to what they say, but nothing they say should be believed or disbelieved.

    2. The head of the CIA literally lied to Congress about spying on americans. Why cant we trust them this time?

      1. Why do you have to be such a stickler?

      2. The Lefties think that flashing a CIA officer did the whistleblowing somehow makes it more credible.

        These Democrats live in a fantasy land as much of America considers the Deep State bureaucrats less credible.

  34. Is it strange to anyone else that John Kerry and Joe Biden’s sons ran an “investment firm” that took not millions but billions of dollars in from various foreign governments and corporations and this wasn’t deemed news worthy until now?

    1. and even now it’s more or less an addendum in articles to frame up a drumf story line?

    2. Not only that but apparently Kerry’s son was working directly with State department officials, with multiple reports of him talking with State about deals, while his dad was Secretary.

      1. Billions of dollars. Billions. not thousands, not millions, billions.

        1. Yeah, but Trump said “favor” and “though”

        2. Depends on what your meaning of the word “billions” is.

    3. and this wasn’t deemed news worthy until now?

      It’s still not deemed news worthy.

      1. well it’s newsworthy in that it sets the scene.

        1. Look you! Hillary was going to tie up all those loose ends with selling Ukraine out to Russia but then she lost to Trump. Now Trump is asking questions while trying to rekindle a good political relationship with Ukraine?

          The moment where the Democrat candidate never wins again in national politics is quickly approaching. They cannot let that happen without some kind of Commie scorched earth agenda.

    4. Look, in America, laws don’t apply to democrats. If you’re a liberal democrat you can take money from foreign governments, spy on and dig up dirt on your political opponents, heck if you’re the Clintons you can even murder people like Seth Rich and his lawyer in cold blood.

      All these actions are only criminal and impeachable offense if you’re a non-liberal republican.

    5. “…and this wasn’t deemed news worthy until now?”

      Well, if they told you then then you might recognize why they are all so pissed off about the Hag losing.

  35. Since when is “CIA officer” a thing? Isn’t it “CIA agent”?

    What’s his rank? G-Man First Class?

    1. But improper use of hyphen!

      1. Calling an apostrophe a hyphen isn’t improper use of hyphen.

        It’s illiteracy.

        1. I love when you take the mockery of your position seriously and look worse as a result lololol

        2. And technically, you’re wrong.

          It IS the improper use of “hyphen.”

          The WORD hyphen. So YOU WERENT EVEN TECHNICALLY CORRECT AND YOU GOT ALL BUTTHURT AHAHAHAHAHAAHAJ. LOOK CLOSER DUMBFUCK THERE’S NO ARTICLE BEFORE HYPHEN AHAHAHAHAHA HE OWMDE YOU AHAAHAHAJAJA HE DIDNT SAY “A” HYPHEN HE SAID “improper use of hyphen!”

          Ahahahahahahah YOU read it wrong and then whine about illiteracy ahahahahahajajjjaajajjajahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh

      2. And technically, you’re wrong.

        It IS the improper use of “hyphen.”

        The WORD hyphen. So YOU WERENT EVEN TECHNICALLY CORRECT AND YOU GOT ALL BUTTHURT AHAHAHAHAHAAHAJ. LOOK CLOSER DUMBFUCK THERE’S NO ARTICLE BEFORE HYPHEN AHAHAHAHAHA HE OWMDE YOU AHAAHAHAJAJA HE DIDNT SAY “A” HYPHEN HE SAID “improper use of hyphen!”

        Ahahahahahahah YOU read it wrong and then whine about illiteracy ahahahahahajajjjaajajjajahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahh

  36. So if some kind of reverse Watergate thing happens where all of the Democrat candidates burglarize Trump’s house, Trump can’t call the cops on them because that would be an abuse of his power and lead to impeachment.

    1. Your not allowed to investigate political opponents says the organization that has been running countless of investigations on political opponents.

    2. The real watergate scandal must be how congress got to keep their jobs.

    3. Keep in mind that “the Watergate thing” included an anonymous whistle-blower known only as Deep Throat whose anonymity was protected by Woodward and Bernstein. Had it been known that this anonymous leaker was Mark Felt, the #2 at the FBI and arguably bitter about being passed over for the Director position, would it perhaps have led to some questions being raised about his motives and his credibility? How hard do you think Woodward and Bernstein really struggled with the question of maintaining Felt’s anonymity? Does this lead to some valid questions about Woodward and Bernstein’s own motives and credibility?

  37. MLS is now allowing Iron Cross flags, antifa, at league matches but still banning US flags.

  38. Let me get this straight:

    As far as foreigners go, there’s a clear line between “us” and “them” when it comes to politics. If they have any influence on our politics, that’s a declaration of war, or treason on behalf of the beneficiaries.

    But if you don’t like open boarders, you’re xenophobic.

    Sounds legit.

    1. There really is a central contradiction about democracy in there, somewhere.

      In a democracy, do only citizens get to vote?

      Progressives might say “no”.

      In a democracy, shouldn’t voters decide how people become citizens?

      Progressives might say “no”.

      If progressives are offended about foreigners influencing or participating in our elections, then that would seem to be the exception that proves the rule.

      You can’t claim that there’s an exception to the rule (that foreigners can’t influence or participate in our elections) and also claim that there’s no rule that says you need to be a citizen if you want to participate in elections.

      And if there’s a rule that says you must be a citizen to participate in elections, then it might follow naturally that citizens decide how people go from being foreigners to becoming citizens and participating in elections.

      1. Forget it, Ken: it’s PartisanTown.

        1. PartisanTown is booming. Has been over populated for decades.

  39. Pissed off that the democrats in america are making democrats in England look less insane, liberals in england seek to end the scourge of pointy knifes.

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/27/pointed-kitchen-knives-should-be-illegal-says-church-england/

  40. Who was outted?

    Being I can’t put a name on it, I’m going with nobody.

    I have a sneaky suspicion that the CIA was listening on the call, which is how he/she would know that a transcript is inaccurate. I suspect that the story he/she was told by other people is parallel construction.

    1. But there is no deep state spying on Trump.
      It is known.

      1. They only ever spied on Dianne Feinstein that one time. As far as you know.

  41. ” “The coming year’s 18,000-person cap will be the lowest since the refugee resettlement program began in 1980, a major shift from the 110,000 refugee admissions former President Barack Obama proposed for fiscal year 2017,” Politico points out. ”

    Cutting the refugee cap by more than 80 percent? That is some bigly bigotry signalling.

    Add the practical bit — a big chunk will be reserved for Christians claiming persecution because they were asked to comply with generally applicable laws about homeschooling or vaccination or something similar — and the hypocritical depravity of the clingers becomes vivid.

    1. Of course, the federal government is specifically prohibited from discriminating against refugees (or anyone else) because of their religion by the First Amendment, which clearly begins, “Congress shall make no law . . . “, but it’s interesting that your bigoted reasoning is centered around bemoaning the idea that the benefits of being granted asylum might sometimes help Christians.

      Bigotry appears to be central to your being.

      1. “The explosions hit three churches and hotels known for foreign visitors in or near the capital of Colombo. At this writing at least 207 had been killed and several hundred injured. At least 27 foreigners were among the dead, including “several” Americans, according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.” WSJ 04/21/2019

        Like this sort of “generally accepted” laws or “something similar?”

        1. Was this intended for someone else?

          I’m not seeing the connect to what I wrote.

          1. I meant to reply to “bladders” above in respond to it’s usual bone headed provocation. It would be better to just ignore trolls but sometimes I just cannot resist when it’s so transparent how absurd they are.

      2. What is the reason for cutting the refugee program so drastically, if not bigotry. Why did Miller and Trump decide to start deporting Vietnamese refugees who have been settled here since the war? Why would they separate children from families, claim it is for child safety, then have to walk it back when a memo is released citing deterrence (purposeful cruelty) as the reason for the policy?

        It is painfully obvious that this president and his cult are energized by small minded xenophobia.

        One of my interpreters almost lost his life because of the muslim ban. (Was at an airport in another country en route to the US when it was announced. He ended up getting to the US where he now lives, but barely. He hadn’t left his cousin’s apartment in Kabul for over year before taking the trip, due to death threats.) These policies have real consequences, and we should consider those consequences before hand.

        1. What is the Reason for this stupid sock jeff? Got tired of being reminded you want to import rapists?

        2. “”What is the reason for cutting the refugee program so drastically, if not bigotry.””

          Do you really expect us to believe that a super smart, talented, experience person such as yourself can’t come up with more than one reason?

          1. I’m curious to see what the justifications are from supporters of these policies. Can you answer my question?

        3. In the past, when Trump first started going after the asylum program, there were some legitimate concerns about terrorists using the asylum program to infiltrate the U.S. and launch terrorist attacks in the United States–much like they did in Europe. Even then, the Trump administration had to justify their travel ban as a function of terrorism rather than religion. The countries that made it on the travel ban list were largely countries in which anti-American terrorist activity was rampant. It was especially a concern when ISIS started collapsing and plenty of fighters started retreating from Iraq and Syria under the cover of refugees.

          Apart from being bigoted against people of a certain religion or racist, asylum seekers are a net expense, and a lot of Americans don’t see the benefit to the security of the U.S. or their take home income in bringing more and more refugees into the U.S. for that reason. You might add to that, the asylum seekers who flooded our southern border from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras has meant that the average American’s support for all asylum seekers has waned–rightly or wrongly, I don’t think that’s about racism or bigotry so much as it’s about their own paychecks and caring about the rule of law.

          Incidentally, part of being in a democracy is accepting that the majority doesn’t always want the right thing–but we have to tolerate the wrong policies anyway, just because that’s what the people want! I happen to believe that naturalization is one area where democracy is entirely appropriate–so long as the Congress doesn’t write laws regarding naturalization that violate any asylum seeker’s rights or that violate the treaties the Senate has duly ratified regarding refugees.

          Sometimes democracy means fighting wars that I oppose.

          Sometimes democracy means ignoring treaties that I think we should ratify.

          Sometimes democracy means I disagree with popular policies on naturalization.

          If you want to change people’s opinions on something like naturalization policy, I strongly suggest you avoid denouncing them all as bigots–and try persuading them to see things your way instead. The chances of you persuading people to want a better asylum policy by denouncing democracy in regards to asylum policy is very low. There are some people who can’t be persuade by facts and logic, but nobody was born with an opinion on these matters. Somehow, all of them have been persuaded by someone to hold whatever opinion they have now.

          1. Evidently 2018 saw only 200k immigrants become documented residents down from 1M in years previous.

    2. The country could use more South African farmers, hicklib.

    3. Ahahahah I made you stop using disaffected again ahahahahjaja

  42. “The city claims his family has no standing, because as an undocumented immigrant, **he had no constitutional rights.”

    WTF? What kind of moron actually believes this, much less would say it? An illegal immigrant is defined as a “person” under the constitution, and certainly DOES have constitutionally-protected rights. And, if such person has been in the country awhile, he has all the protection as one of “the people”: “‘the people” [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”’ Pp. 264-266. (UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

    No rights? Hardly.

    1. “What kind of moron actually believes this,”

      A Mississippi prosecutor. So, not a stretch at all really.

      1. A simple caveman lawyer would. “When I see a solar eclipse, like the one I went to last year in Hawaii, I think ‘Oh no! Is the moon eating the sun?’ I don’t know. Because I’m a caveman — that’s the way I think.”

        1. And technically, you’re wrong.

          It IS the improper use of “hyphen.”

          The WORD hyphen. So YOU WERENT EVEN TECHNICALLY CORRECT AND YOU GOT ALL BUTTHURT AHAHAHAHAHAAHAJ. LOOK CLOSER DUMBFUCK THERE’S NO ARTICLE BEFORE HYPHEN AHAHAHAHAHA HE OWMDE YOU AHAAHAHAJAJA HE DIDNT SAY “A” HYPHEN HE SAID “improper use of hyphen!”

          Ahahahahahahah YOU read it wrong and then whine about illiteracy ahahahahahajajjjaajajjajahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh

          1. Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

            Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

            Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

            At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

            Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reasom.com .

            Thank You! -Reason Staff

  43. “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”
    “The public has a right to know.”
    I for one am tired of all the behind the scenes stuff. If there’s any testimony from a whistle blower it should be public. The source should also be public. Otherwise, the public is just being jerked around.

  44. One of the progs here, yesterday, mentioned that the “whistleblower” named a name of a witness to the call. A Mr. Ulrich Brechbull.

    As it turns out, Ulrich Brechbull. was not on the call.

    so we have LITERALLY zero evidence of anything.

    1. Well, we have evidence the CIA, most likely with support from others, fabricated and submitted a false allegation and abused the whistleblower statues in doing so.

    2. Mark Levin has some pointed remarks:

      Meanwhile, the rogue CIA operative is clearly a political partisan (just read his screed), his lawyer is a political partisan, he witnessed absolutely nothing, his screed was written with direction and assistance by lawyers…

      … his screed makes over the top allegations relating to policy, and his identity is concealed (how convenient). Some “courageous” whistleblower!

      1. I still don’t get how he is a “whistleblower” when he literally had zero first hand info.

        1. The CIA et al might regret turning the Right wholesale against them. The Left has always disliked them while the Right viewed them as a necessary evil.

          Now…many on the Right hate them as well.

          Kill off the CIA. Fire all of the spooks.

        2. I have an updated post at the end of how he is one. Deep State is real folks. Very, very real.

  45. Immigrant Population Growth in the U.S. Slows to a Trickle

    The net increase of immigrants in the American population dropped to about 200,000 people in 2018, a decline of more than 70 percent from the year before, according to William Frey, chief demographer at the Brookings Institution, who conducted the analysis.

    As Trump was elected to accomplish. Thanks Mr. President!

  46. Ohio city agrees to $450G settlement with Stormy Daniels over strip club arrest

    Good, that is almost as much as she owe’s Trump for violating the NDA.

    1. That’s an impressive level of sycophancy, even for a Trump supporter. You know the president is an unindicted co-conspirator to a felony crime for that one, right? For which his former personal attorney is currently in prison for? Just checking.

      1. …yet Stormy has to pay HIS legal fees. Weird.

  47. Hmm….interesting.

    The requirements for whistleblowers, for years, was that they must provide first-hand info.

    That was changed, secretly…well, LAST MONTH.

    Odd, huh? This is, apparently, the first complaint to use the dramatically looser requirements.

    And, as James Rosen asks: Why was this filed with the ICIG in the first place? The call was a DIPLOMATIC call. Trump nor Zelenskiy are assets or operators. The IC had zero place in being involved.

    1. That was changed, secretly…well, LAST MONTH.

      It was? Where is your citation for this?

    2. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Please to post comments