Donald Trump

Alexander Butterfield

It's deja vu, all over again ...

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

In July, 1973, Alexander Butterfield, a virtually unknown White House staffer, revealed, in testimony before the Senate Special Watergate Committee, that President Nixon had installed a secret taping system in the White House, and that all of Nixon's conversations were recorded, automatically, on tape.

The White House had released a document to the Committee staff that was intended to defend the President by impugning and rebutting public testimony that Presidential Counsel John Dean had given the month before. The document contained extensive quotations from conversations between Nixon and Dean, and Committee staffers started to wonder how, exactly, these lengthy quotations were obtained. They began routinely asking interviewees whether they knew of a taping system.  When they asked Butterfield, he replied with one of the great sentences in US legal and political history: "I was wondering when you would ask that."  "Yes," he continued; "there is tape in the White House."

It is difficult to convey, to those of you too young to remember the Watergate episode, how electrifying Butterfield's revelations were.  It's one of the very few "people remember where they were when they heard …" moments that did not involve loss of life (Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy Assassination, 9-11).  At the time of his testimony, the Watergate hearings had been going on for months, and there had been charges and counter-charges and counter-counter charges involving what the President had been told, and what the President had said, in connection with the Watergate break-in.  And then suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, it turned out that there was a record of everything that people had told Nixon, and everything Nixon had told them.

It was a true bombshell.  If there is a single moment that represents the beginning of the end of Nixon's presidency, this was it. The tapes were at the center of the Saturday Night Massacre; Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox demanded their production as part of his investigation, and Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox; when Richardson refused, Nixon fired him, and ordered Deputy AG (and, at least for the moment, Acting AG) William Ruckleshaus to fire Cox; when Ruckelshaus refused, Nixon fired him, until he finally found someone in the chain of command—Robert Bork, in his first starring role—willing to do as ordered.  The Saturday Night Massacre then led directly to the House Impeachment hearings and passage of the Articles of Impeachment.

And it was Nixon's subsequent refusal, the following year, to turn over the tapes to Judge Sirica (DDC) to be used as evidence in criminal cases brought by the new Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, that led to an epic confrontation between the Executive and Judicial Branches.  On July 24, 1974 a unanimous Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes in (the aptly-named) US v. Nixon, and, fortunately for the country, he did so. Two weeks later, transcripts were released by Judge Sirica, including the famous "smoking gun": the conversation between Nixon and his top aides on June 23, 1972—six days after the Watergate break-in—in which Nixon approves the plan to try to get CIA Director Richard Helms to tell FBI Director L. Patrick Gray to halt the Bureau's investigation into the Watergate break-in on the grounds that it was a "national security matter," when it was, in fact, purely a matter of protecting Nixon's rear end.

Once the "smoking gun" transcript was made public, Nixon's political support vanished more-or-less overnight. The Republicans jumped ship en masse; the 10 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who had voted against the Articles of Impeachment (compared to the seven who had voted for impeachment) all stated publicly that they would change their vote when the Articles came up on the House Floor, and, famously, a delegation of prominent Republican senators—including Sens. Goldwater, Baker, Scott men of real character and patriotism and dignity, who understood the need to put the needs of the country before the needs of their party—visited the Oval Office and gave Nixon the bad news: they wouldn't support him anymore, and he would lose an impeachment vote in the Senate.

Is it just me, or are others starting to have that "deja vu all over again" feeling?  I'm not the only one who thinks that there just might be—might be—a more detailed account of exactly what President Trump said in that July 25th phone call, am I? I am aware that Nixon himself ordered the White House taping system dismantled, and that subsequent presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, have been loath to re-install it precisely because of the hot soup in which it had landed Nixon and could land them.  At the same time, in 2019 it is difficult to imagine—for me, at least—that the highest levels of our government rely entirely on mid-20th century stenographic technology to make a record of who said what to whom.

When the Wall Street Journal first reported on Trump's July 25th phone call, the reporters, quoting "people familiar with the matter," observed that Trump "repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son, … urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump's potential 2020 opponent."  But the "memorandum" released by the White House with a "summary" of the conversation doesn't have eight references to Biden or to Giuliani.  Makes you wonder, no?

 

NEXT: Challenging Edward Snowden  

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. about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.” But the “memorandum” released by the White House with a “summary” of the conversation doesn’t have eight references to Biden or to Giuliani. Makes you wonder, no?

    According to the non-transcript, the call lasted 30 minutes. However, if you read the non-transcript out loud, it takes about 5 minutes. Double that for translation, and it still leaves 20 minutes unaccounted for.

    1. True, but are we sure it’s the case that the thirty minutes represents actual conversation time, rather than a scheduled time period? Also, there can easily be overhead – setting up the call, waiting for someone to go to the bathroom, etc.

      Of course, there are also some ellipses in there. Wonder what that’s about?

      1. We can’t be 100% sure of anything, but the thirty minutes certainly seems to represent the actual call time, rather than a scheduled time period. It says 9:03 – 9:33, which would be an odd scheduled time period (as opposed to 9:00 – 9:30).

        It could include overhead, I guess — but I would not think that when the president of the U.S. is calling that one tells one’s secretary, “Who’s calling? POTUS? Okay, tell him to hold on for a minute while I go to the can.” I’m guessing that the arrangements are made well in advance, so that the call goes through right at the scheduled time. Still, add 5 minutes for overhead, and you’ve still got lots of extra time.

        To be sure, it’s possible that the remaining time was filled with Trump bragging about the ratings of The Apprentice and talking about the nice rack that Ivanka has, and they just judiciously omitted that from the non-transcript. But it’s also possible that there was something of substance omitted because of its damaging nature. The Washington Post had a story, before the non-transcript was released, from an official in a past administration, saying that particularly sensitive things are often omitted from these documents.

        1. It’s also possible there was something of substance omitted because it was genuinely classified. Either because it had to be secret, or because it would be bad diplomacy for the transcript to include the two of them spending 15 minutes ranting at each other about what an absolute asshole Merkle was.

          1. Brett’s sudden discovery of assuming good faith in the government is heartwarming.

            1. Assuming good faith in a trial situation is called “the presumption of innocence”. It’s on you to prove that the actual call involved threats that were redacted in the transcript. That would be your “gap on the tape”, if we’re going with a Watergate analogy. But you need to demonstrate it, not just assume it.

        2. “It could include overhead, I guess”

          Some people still think you show how powerful you are by making people wait for you. I don’t KNOW that President Trump holds this view, but I wouldn’t bet against it.

    2. It took me 5 minutes and 45 seconds to read it. Double that for translation, and it left 18 1/2 minutes unaccounted for.

      1. Reading isn’t conversing.

      2. I can read a deposition or trial transcript a whole lot faster than it took to get the testimony. So you’ve not established anything.

      3. Pearls before swine Dilan. Other than bernard they’re just a bunch of kids.

      4. Too bad we can’t upvote posts anymore.

    3. Never attribute to concealment on the part of an administration what can adequately be explained by a whistle blower relating hearsay.

  2. Not really, no, I don’t wonder. I assume all calls are recorded.

    I also see another post which fails to mention that the 8-times-urging was trying to get a corruption probe underway involving the former Vice-President, who the former President had shielded (or helped shield) from a corruption probe.

    Any post which fails to mention that there was real corruption to investigate gets an F from me. Biden may be a political opponent, but he also has something corrupt going on, not only in the corruption itself, but in the cover up.

    Hmmm, another link to Watergate. I wonder why that is ignored….

    1. My guess would be the Republican’s lie about the corruption. The entire international community, not just Joe Biden personally, wanted Shokin fired, for *not* investigating corruption, the Burisma investigation itself having been inactive at the time; not because he was investigating them at the time, much less Hunter Biden personally.

      So Trump’s supporters failed to gain back any of their already complete total credibility loss by repeatedly, endlessly, going with the talking point that getting Shokin fired was Biden’s personal vendetta to shield his son from an investigation.

      And by the way, if you’re all so up in arms about the Vice President getting his son a job like that, the hypocrisy in not attacking Trump’s nepotism is shocking. If you want to condemn both, I’m with you.

      1. Frankly, all politicians are so corrupt that I see little practical difference in the corruption department between any of them,

        What annoys the hell out of me is this idiotic 3 year flood of alarms, as if Trump were the first and both worst and best. Every fucking anti-Trump article paints him as the anti-Christ and ignores everything similar done by every predecessor. Every fucking pro-Trump article make shim out to be some 36DD chess expert.

        Trump has done some things right, a lot wrong. On balance he’s no worse and no better than Obama, who was no worse and no better than Bush Jr, who was no worse and no better than Clinton, and so it goes.

        The ONLY difference with Trump is that he’s a lot more open than even that most transparent of administrations, Obama’s. That’s why he won election. It had nothing to do with his policies, everything to do with his ability to say what he meant and upset all the elite politicians who had been practicing the art of saying nothing for years and got, ha ha, trumped.

        So my gripe here is the pretense that there was no Biden corruption, that Trump is just brazen and corrupt for personal gain. No one wonders how Obama could afford a $14M seaside mansion after 8 years at $400K a year. No one wonders how Biden’s son could get such a lucrative job for no reason except genealogy, or how Bush Jr got such lucrative jobs for no reason except genealogy. On and on it goes.

        At least acknowledge the other wise is corrupt! Why is that so hard? Why is everyone so goddam partisan for ignorant power-mad hacks?

        1. A few reasons:
          1. They watch TV news and think “This is about me!”. You don’t understand popular cultural delusion without understanding that people think random news events are about them in some significant way.

          2. They invested a sense of themselves — their own self-worth — in Obama and Clinton. Obama and Clinton were the good guys and their supporters became part of the good story by supporting the good guys. Naturally, the other guys are the evil villains in this story. No one involved is really a person — all are archetypes. It’s a drama — about politicians, as sad as that sounds.

          3. It’s a quasi-religion. Climate doomsday, “the arc of history”, Obama lowering the seas, intersectionality, etc. Faith requires acceptance, but it fills an otherwise unfillable hole some of them have in their lives.

          Short answer: narcissism. That’s why it’s so hard.

          1. I somehow expect better of supposedly rational Volokh conspirators. Posts like these could be written by any high schooler with a crush on Greta.

            1. Why so infantile of you?

            2. It’s actually the answer though. They love themselves, they take news events personally and progressivism/environmentalism is their substitute religion. It completely answers your question.

        2. Uh, no.

          Trump is not “no worse and no better” than Obama. To pretend otherwise is nothing but a lame attempt to justify his behavior.

          Not all Presidents are equal, as you’d like us to imagine. I did not care for Obama, but Trump is an order of magnitude less-fit to be our Chief Executive. He is a pathological liar (12,000+ deceptive or lies to the American public and counting), a malignant narcissist, a known fraud (Trump University), an un-indicted co-conspirator in a Felony investigation, etc. He threatens people on Twitter, denies even the most basic facts, promises things he has no intention or capacity to deliver (Mexico paying for the wall, releasing his tax returns), literally violates the Constitution with emoluments and asserting that the Executive can DENY Congress any oversight for any reason.

          Come back to fucking reality, man. Neither main political party cares about the law when they’re in power, but Trump’s behavior and ethics are beyond the pale.

          1. ^This

          2. Candidate Obama was 180 degrees different from President Obama. You call that honest? Trump at least hasn’t changed all his opinions.

            They all suck, just differently.

          3. Maybe you;ve forgotten Obama’s pen and phone with which to issue unconstitutional executive orders when Congress didn’t do his bidding. Maybe you’ve forgotten Libya, where he didn’t need Congressional approval. Maybe you’ve never wondered how he could afford a $14M beachfront (so much for global warming!) house after 8 years at $400K a year.

            You think Obama never threatened anybody behind the scenes? You think that invisibility makes it ok?

            Seems you’ve forgotten a lot about Obama, while being so petty as to apparently count every Trump tweet as a lie. 12,000 lies, really? Grow up. Obama deported more Mexicans than Trump. He defied Congress at every turn. Obamacare was passed through subterfuge worse than anything for Trump, and he said “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” while knowing it was a lie. How much else have you conveniently forgotten or ignored?

            1. I can understand Jason’s opinion that Trump is significantly worse, even if I do not agree with it. Trump’s constant fighting about nothing is certainly worse.

              However, Obama was consistently dishonest in his portrayal of his policies. For example, on CO2, he mocked his opposition, saying that he wasn’t going to have “jackbooted thugs” regulating all combustion. However, his tailoring rule used the “Step by Step” justification, and so literally said that essentially all combustion would be eventually covered.

              Trump is a boorish jerk who argues with everyone on social media about trivialities. However, his policies are not significantly different from his predecessors.

            2. “Maybe you’ve never wondered how he could afford a $14M beachfront (so much for global warming!) house after 8 years at $400K a year.” Unlike Trump Obama has released his tax returns so we know this! He earned 15 Million between 2006-2016 from three books alone (“The Audacity of Hope” and “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters” and “Dreams From My Father,” ). He can command $400,000 for a single talk. Unlike Trump who may be technically bankrupt if all his rotten loans are called on, Obama has been pretty transparent about where he got his cash.

              1. Book sales. Do you live in a cave?
                Are ALL Trumptards so ignorant of well-known facts? (lol)

                1. Of course we know it was book sales and speaking fees. Books sold by the pallet load, and he could have earned a fortune talking if he’d been reading the dictionary.

                  You think Trump is getting an emolument when somebody stays at his hotel, and actually spends time in the room, but don’t see a laundered bribe when somebody else gets a multi-million dollar advance on book royalties, or is paid an insane amount for spending a few minutes flapping their gums?

                  1. You’re just jealous because you’d flap your gums for free, and STILL get no takers.

            3. ” Maybe you’ve forgotten Libya, where he didn’t need Congressional approval.”

              Maybe you’ve forgotten that Libya was attacked by NATO, not the US. Remind me… did Congress approve the US entry into NATO?

          4. How about “Due Process is not Judicial Process?”

            Obama actively murdered US Citizens, by robot drones, far from any battlefield without conviction of any kind. No charges brought, no defenses allowed, in a Star Chamber with its own Kill List. G.W. Bush was so proud!

            I hate Trump, but nothing he will ever do equals the depths of evil that Obama foisted upon us when he chose to become Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

            Furthermore, the notion that no corruption was involved in placing Hunter Biden to that board is ludicrous. Hunter Biden was six months out of his discharge for crack smoking, He had no connections in the industry, no qualifications, nothing but nepotism. He left a rental car in Prescott, AZ with his crack pipe and mysteriously wasn’t prosecuted in a state where a roach will get you a year. Rosemont Seneca was a scam for spoiled rich kids to take dirty foreign money and buy up distressed real estate.

            His little Rosemont buddy boy, Devon Archer got his conviction for ripping off the poorest tribe in the US thrown out, the jury thought he was guilty, but jury verdicts exist only for those who aren’t friends of Joe Biden, I guess. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-tribalbonds/us-judge-overturns-new-york-mans-conviction-in-tribal-bond-scheme-idUSKCN1NK341

            That whole ugly crew is tied in deeply with John, Jason and Derek Galanis, Jason Sugarman, Garry Hirst, and Bevan Cooley, to name a few, among countless other scumbags that it stinks to high heaven and it is long past the time that somebody investigates it.

        3. “The ONLY difference with Trump is that he’s a lot more open”

          President Trump is certainly extremely open to admitting that he’s in favor of anything that benefits Donald Trump, and he openly says what he wants. What he doesn’t say, as a general rule, is exactly HOW he should get what he wants… He has no clue, and leaves that to subordinates, who either A) do whatever it takes to deliver, or B) just wait until he wants something else.

          The main problem is that proper Constitutional functioning requires the President to recognize, and honor, limits on the President’s power. Trump no do that.

    2. Actually, there is no evidence that these calls with foreign leaders are ever recorded. And likely haven’t been since this system of simultaneous written transcription by multiple IC personnel was instituted apparently by the Obama Administration. Probably much earlier.

      My guess is that the reason for this is that there are likely implicit, if not explicit, agreements between the parties not to record. This allows the national leaders to be more candid with each other. This use of 4-6 simultaneous IC transcribers (and here, probably translators) appears to me to be a way to get around this international agreement. Also, if one of the transcriptions is leaked, it is probably going to be fairly easy to identify the leaker based on which exact version was leaked (and the leak would, like here, probably be a violation of the Espionage Act).

  3. It’s just you. Nixon didn’t get in trouble from recordings. He got in trouble for having a team in his employ committing crimes.

    Without the crimes, recordings don’t mean squat.

    1. Of course, Nixon would not have been in trouble if he hadn’t authorized the White House plumbers to destroy Nixon’s opponents. But, he likely would have gotten away with it without the tapes.

      1. Maybe. Maybe not. There’s more than one way a crime can come out, but there’s no way people can find out about a crime that didn’t happen.

        Absent the crime, Nixon’s tapes would have cost him nothing. I am SO sick of people solemnly reciting “The cover-up is worse than the crime.” and thinking they’re being profound.

        1. Nixon should have just destroyed them, personally. Just like Hillary did when she wiped her hard drive “like what, with a cloth”.

        2. ” there’s no way people can find out about a crime that didn’t happen.”

          Never heard of urban legend? You know every Democrat in America personally molested children in the basement of a pizza restaurant that doesn’t have a basement, right?

    2. “It’s just you. Nixon didn’t get in trouble from recordings. He got in trouble for having a team in his employ committing crimes.”

      That explains why he was pressured to resign by his own party as soon as he formed the “dirty tricks” squad.

      The crime was bad. The clumsy cover-up was worse. Being criminal was the reason Nixon shouldn’t have been President. Losing the support of the “common man” was what actually cost Nixon his job.

  4. Well played And it’s not just David Post.
    Trump is done, washed up, finished. That’s why his cult are scurrying around like cockroaches, trying to snuff out a forest fire and failing.

    But …. why all the bul;shit about a quid pro quo??? We don’ need evidence of Trump issuing a threat or a bribe.

    We have UNDENIABLE proof. that he invited a foreign government to interfere in our 2020 election, and that his administration would help and support the effort (Barr and his personal attorney)

    Likewise, he publicly invited Russia to interfere in 2016, and Russia hacked the DNC server less than 12 hours later.

    1. “Likewise, he publicly invited Russia to interfere in 2016, and Russia hacked the DNC server less than 12 hours later.”

      Do you have any credible reason to believe that Russia would need an invitation to interfere in an American election? I’m pretty sure America chooses which elections to interfere with based on what’s in our best interest, not based on who gives us an invitation, and I suspect other countries act much the same.

      Also, doesn’t 12 hours seem a little fast for Russian intelligence to receive Trump’s “request,” decide to act on it, put together a team, pick a target, and hack in to the DNC server? And if they really were responding to Trump’s request to find Clinton’s emails, which I believe is the invitation in question, isn’t the DNC server an odd place to look?

      1. Do you have any credible reason to believe that Russia would need an invitation to interfere in an American election?

        Evasion. Irrelevant. He did it.
        You never saw him invitinmg them?

        I’m pretty sure America chooses which elections to interfere with based on what’s in our best interest, not based on who gives us an invitation, and I suspect other countries act much the same.

        Evasion. Irrelevant. And lame.

        Stay on topic. No evasions. Why do you defend our President inviting a foreign government to interfere in our elections? Full stop.

        Also, doesn’t 12 hours seem a little fast for Russian intelligence to receive Trump’s “request,” decide to act on it, put together a team, pick a target, and hack in to the DNC server?

        You forgot to say “Fake News.” And you ass-ume all that had to occur, with NO basis.

        And if they really were responding to Trump’s request to find Clinton’s emails, which I believe is the invitation in question, isn’t the DNC server an odd place to look?

        (lol) That’s what TRUMP says happened.

        1. “(lol) That’s what TRUMP says happened.”

          The “request” for the Russians to find Hillary’s missing emails was an off-hand on camera comment made at a televised campaign rally.

          If you want to claim that he asked the Russians for something else, at a different time, that’s something for which the burden of proof falls on you.

          1. “If you want to claim that he asked the Russians for something else, at a different time, that’s something for which the burden of proof falls on you.”

            You mean like a televised interview in which he said he’d be happy to take a meeting with a foreign government that wanted to provide dirt on political rivals? In which he specifically said he would NOT call the FBI? How about when his personal attorney said several times that he did know about meetings his campaign staff had with the Russians who wanted to collude with his campaign? That sort of evidence what you’re looking for?

          2. The “request” for the Russians to find Hillary’s missing emails was an off-hand on camera comment made at a televised campaign rally.

            That would be fucking lame … even if you were not a lying sack of shit.
            1) It was at a full-blown press conference.
            2) It was in direct response to a question
            3) Here’s the full and complete context, to jam it it up your ass.

            And it was NOT “offhand,” you slimy weasel, because he reinforced it on Twitter, AFTER THE HACK.

            Some Trump surrogates suggested his comments were a joke, but the Manhattan mogul immediately doubled down on Twitter. “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!,” he tweeted.

            HE ALSO SAID HE DIDN’T KNOW WHO PUTIN IS!!!

            “I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me,” Trump said. “I never met Putin.”

            SHAME ON YOU

            1. Have you forgotten that pretending not to be Hihn involves laying off the capitalizing and bolding?

              1. This is Hihn? I thought it was Pollock.

                1. Because you are stupid? For future reference, you can identify the things I write by the fact that they have my name above them.

      2. “Evasion. Irrelevant. He did it.”

        Not at all. You and David Post are attempting to connect Trump’s statement and the Russian’s hacking of the DNC server. I’m suggesting a couple of reasons to think that’s silly.

        1. Most notably, it was a joke told to a laughing and appreciative audience in the middle of a campaign appearance, asking if the Russians had Hillary’s emails and to please provide them if they did. He couldn’t have known at the time, that, yes they likely did, because we know now the Chinese had hacked the server and the Russians likely did as well.

          While I am not the staunchest Trump supporter, it’s crazytown to think that Trumps very public joke was some sort of invitation for collusion with Russia.

          1. I agree. Yet every post David Post points to that joke, and the subsequent hacking, as a smoking gun.

            1. That would be fucking lame … even if jph12 was not a brainwashed puppet. .
              1) It was at a full-blown press conference.
              2) It was in direct response to a question
              3) Here’s the full and complete context, to jam it it up your ass.

              And it was NOT “offhand,” you slimy weasel, because he reinforced it on Twitter, AFTER THE HACK.

              Some Trump surrogates suggested his comments were a joke, but the Manhattan mogul immediately doubled down on Twitter. “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!,” he tweeted.

              HE ALSO SAID HE DIDN’T KNOW WHO PUTIN IS!!!

              “I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me,” Trump said. “I never met Putin.”

              SHAME ON YOU DISGUSTING TRUMPTARDS … FOR SELLING OUT AMERICA TO THE POLITICAL ELITES.

              1. Bold, italics, all caps, and underlining all in one post? How gauche.

                1. At least he edited his comment to MatthewSlyfield and personalized it for you, jph12, before posting it. Edited and personalized very slightly, but it’s still not as gauche as though TLTT had screamed out a previous lover’s name in throws of passion. That would be tres gauche.

          2. “While I am not the staunchest Trump supporter, it’s crazytown to think that Trumps very public joke was some sort of invitation for collusion with Russia.”

            There’s two parts to collusion. Party A has to be willing to collude with party B, and party B has to be willing to collude with party A. We know that Trump was (is) willing to collude with foreigners if it benefits him. My assessment is the Russkies probably figured out they’d be more effective in their tampering if they left him out of the loop, and proceeded to do so.

            1. Actually there are three parts to collusion. You left out the “actually happening” part; Party A and party B could be perfectly willing collude, but if they never actually get together on doing something, it still didn’t happen.

              “We know that Trump was (is) willing to collude with foreigners if it benefits him. ”

              That’s that presumption of bad intent that I’ve mentioned; Of course you’re going to find impeachable conduct if evil intent is a starting premise, not a conclusion.

              1. “That’s that presumption of bad intent that I’ve mentioned”

                No. It’s what Mr. Trump said. On multiple occasions. No presumption required.

          3. That would be fucking lame … even if mad_kalak was not a lying sack of shit.
            1) It was at a full-blown press conference.
            2) It was in direct response to a question
            3) Here’s the full and complete context, to jam it it up your ass.

            And it was NOT “offhand,” you slimy weasel, because he reinforced it on Twitter, AFTER THE HACK.

            Some Trump surrogates suggested his comments were a joke, but the Manhattan mogul immediately doubled down on Twitter. “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!,” he tweeted.

            HE ALSO SAID HE DIDN’T KNOW WHO PUTIN IS!!!

            “I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me,” Trump said. “I never met Putin.”

            SHAME ON YOU DISGUSTING TRUMPTARDS … FOR SELLING OUT AMERICA TO THE POLITICAL ELITES.

        2. jph12
          Not at all. You and David Post are attempting to connect Trump’s statement and the Russian’s hacking of the DNC server. I’m suggesting a couple of reasons to think that’s silly.

          WHEN? (snort)


          The same day Trump asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails, Russians tried to hack Clinton-affiliated emails

          Find DOZENS more on Google!

          WHINY PUPPETS, DANCING ON THE STRING OF A TYRANT.
          All of them a DISGRACE to America, and a threat to individual liberty.

      3. “Do you have any credible reason to believe that Russia would need an invitation to interfere in an American election?”

        Yes. They might prefer a friendlier relationship, and one way you get there is not deliberately annoying your counterpart.

        1. Do you have any reason to believe that they wanted a friendlier relationship and thought that the best way to achieve that was to intervene on the side of the underdog in an election? Seems like a high risk, limited reward choice to me.

          1. “Do you have any reason to believe that they wanted a friendlier relationship and thought that the best way to achieve that was to intervene on the side of the underdog in an election?”

            No, which is why I did not advance such a theory. It’s high-risk, high-reward, so it feels Russian. You might be on to something there.

            1. That’s exactly the theory you advanced.

              1. How mich bullshit can you spew, in a single subthread?

              2. “That’s exactly the theory you advanced.”

                No, twit, it isn’t. You came up with that.

                1. No moron, this is all you. “Yes. They might prefer a friendlier relationship, and one way you get there is not deliberately annoying your counterpart.”

                  1. No moron, “they wanted a friendlier relationship and thought that the best way to achieve that was to intervene on the side of the underdog in an election?” is all you.

                    B’bye, now.

        2. Ignores the fact that they have been trying (not particularly successfully) to interfere in our elections for decades.

          1. “Ignores the fact that they have been trying (not particularly successfully) to interfere in our elections for decades.”

            Ignores nothing. The fact that we’ve been openly hostile in the past does not impose a state of open hostility for eternity. We were actual military allies, once, while we were against the Italians, Germans, and Japanese. Now we’re such good friends we can send our President over to their countries and have our President barf right on their Chief of State. I’m not saying we’re quite to that point with the Russians, or even going to get there… Mr. Putin does not seem to be the “barf-upon” type of world leader… but better relations are possible, if both sides want it. The Republican leadership aren’t afraid of the “bear in the woods” any more, now that there are terrorists and illegals to scare the loyal voters with.

          2. MatthewSlyfeld
            Ignores the fact that they have been trying (not particularly successfully) to interfere in our elections for decades.

            COWARDLY evasion … following Slyfeld’s OUTRAGEOUS LIE above.

            TRUMP’S brownshirts, loyal surrogates, eagerly brainwashed in service of the Fatherland

      4. “And if they really were responding to Trump’s request to find Clinton’s emails, which I believe is the invitation in question, isn’t the DNC server an odd place to look?”

        Emails can be found in two places… email servers, and email clients. So the top places to find HRC’s emails would be A) on her server, B) HRC’s email client device(s), or C) on the servers of whoever she’s exchanging email with, then D) the email client device(s) of whoever she’s exchanging email with.

        So, yeah, the third-most-likely place to find them would be an odd place to look, now that you mention it.

        1. What makes you think the 30,000 emails people were talking about were ones sent to the DNC?

          1. What makes me think HRC was sending emails to people at the DNC? Srsly?

            1. No, dumbass, “[w]hat makes you think the 30,000 emails people were talking about were ones sent to the DNC?”

              1. Yeah. You’re right. No way HRC would have sent any email to anyone at the DNC. What a stupid suggestion. What would they have to talk about with each other?

    2. Similarly, we have even stronger evidence that the Obama Administration requested that Russia, Ukraine, Great Britain, Australia, Italy, and likely other countries, interfere with our 2016 election. And they did.

      1. PROVE IT, PSYCHO.

  5. I am definitely having deja vu. It’s like I’ve read “Trump will really be removed this time” every day for the last 3 years.

    1. For how long have you been so delusional?
      Shame on you for defending Trump asking a foreign country to interfere in our 2020 election?

      Are you also proud that he PUBLICLY invited Russia to do so in 2016, less than 12 hours before they hacked the DNC?

      Do you have any standards? Any at all?

      1. Who is defending Trump? I am not a fan, I am simply observing that for the last 3 years I have heard all about the absolutely foolproof ways to get rid of him. It started with faithless electors (remember those?). Then there was Russia, now we have Ukraine, and all the reasons in between.

        Personally I think its silly to try to impeach 12 months before an election. McConnell will drag out the trial and maximize the political impact – for the Republicans. It will suck all the oxygen out of the Democrats message. A very remote possibility, but lets say Trump is removed and Pence become President. He will run and wipe the floor with WarrenSanders. There are no scenarios where the Dems win an impeachment fight in an election year, lol. It simply makes them look like they cant win an election. Trump has been goading the Dems into impeachment for 3 years, and The Dems were dumb enough to give it to him.

        1. dwb68, I do not know whether or not you are right about the Republicans winning in 2020. Neither do you. But what changed suddenly with publication of the Ukraine information is that senior Democrats lost their (already-beleaguered) faith that they could get a square shot at that election. Hence the need to impeach before the election.

          1. nah, what changed is that the House was back in session and we are entering the prime time political silly season. It was impossible to ignore Tom Steyer’s Need To Impeach campaign, now that he’s on the debate stage. Whatever media press release was nearby, Pelosi was going to latch onto. She had no choice, she could not resist any longer.

            Her wish for a “Narrow” and “Quick” impeachment inquiry is already being sabotaged by various committee heads egos, who need to be seen in the spotlight for the 2020 primary campaign. 2/3 of the House wants to include the Mueller probe. They will get their wish. They had a lot more on Clinton (who, for the record, I voted for twice and I did not support his impeachment either), but in the end tried to get him for lying about sex in the Oval Office. Republicans are simply going to replay “Democrats have wanted to impeach for 3 years for fill in the blank reasons).” … independents determine elections, and they will buy it because its basically true.

            What Dems don’t seem to get (except maybe the few moderates who are nervous about this) is that if you come at the king, you best not miss. Their best bet of removing Trump was the 2020 election and they blew it.

            1. “They had a lot more on Clinton (who, for the record, I voted for twice and I did not support his impeachment either), but in the end tried to get him for lying about sex in the Oval Office.”

              Actually, I’m pretty sure it was for lying about sex on the witness stand. If he’d only lied about it in the Oval Office, he’d have been fine.

              Basically what happened there is that the House held a very controversial vote on whether to just go with the Starr report as it was, or to investigate and bring every available charge. Investigate and bring every available charge won the day.

              Then Clinton dumped his blackmail files on the House managers through a cutout, Livingston ended up resigning, and was replaced with a very easy to blackmail pedophile, Hastert, and suddenly they decided to skip the investigation, throw out most of the charges Starr had referred to them, and go straight to a Senate trial with the easiest to demagogue set of charges.

              It was a straight up dive by House managers who were terrified of pissing off Clinton any further, but who didn’t dare at least pretend to try to remove him.

          2. Impeachment before the 2020 election is pointless.

            It won’t affect any significant number of Trumps supporters and they aren’t going to get a conviction unless the Democrats win no just a bare majority, but a near 2/3rds majoirty in the Senate in 2020.

            If Trump wins re-election, I think it unlikely that the GOP will loose control of the Senate.

            1. “Impeachment before the 2020 election is pointless. ”

              Agreed. Which is why there wasn’t one this year.

              But… it might have served one purpose… IF the R’s wanted to try to re-elect Pence more than they wanted to try to re-elect Trump.

        2. ?Who is defending Trump? I am not a fan, I am simply observing that for the last 3 years I have heard all about the absolutely foolproof ways to get rid of him. Diversion. Not even remotely responsive to what I asked.

          Your remaining fantasies for 2020 are pure GOP tribalism.

          I’ll give you another chance.

          Shame on you for defending Trump asking a foreign country to interfere in our 2020 election.

          Are you also proud that he PUBLICLY invited Russia to do so in 2016, less than 12 hours before they hacked the DNC?

          If you run away from the questions again … I’ll still know what evasions and diversions are.

          1. “?Who is defending Trump? I am not a fan, I am simply observing that for the last 3 years I have heard all about the absolutely foolproof ways to get rid of him. Diversion. Not even remotely responsive to what I asked.”

            One of the ways to get rid of him is to wait. You know, the choice that Ms. Pelosi has endorsed.

            1. Relevance?

        3. Less than 4% unemployment is cool. I’m a fan of that.

          We shouldn’t have to give that up because a bunch of vain people who don’t like America much have status anxiety.

          1. “Less than 4% unemployment is cool. I’m a fan of that.”

            Depends. You can get less than 4% unemployment by just stopping counting them. Like they do for people who use up their eligibility for unemployment insurance, and still aren’t working.

        4. @Stephen

          Yes, let’s invalidate the results of the last election before we lose the next one.

      2. He asked Russia to provide Clinton’s 30k deleted (at the time, under subpoena) emails from her illegal personal server, since they very likely had them (as well as esp the Chinese who apparently had bugged her email server, to forward her emails to them in real time), and the Obama/Lynch DOJ and FBI had allowed Clinton to turn over to them whatever she wanted to. It was a joke, putting together these two strands, of the DOJ allowing the deletions, and the security of her email server being so weak and out of date that it was likely that our enemies had probably hacked her server (they almost assuredly had, as indicated by the recently disclosed Chinese Trojan Horse, as well as other indications that her system had been repeatedly compromised).

        It was funny to maybe half the voting public because it brought together several different threads. One was that the FBI’s investigation of her illegal use of a private email server, instead of the required secure government supplied email systems, was a whitewash. The second is that she would chose to expose classified information to our enemies, in order to avoid leaving an official record of her work as Secretary of State. And the third is that she did it so badly that it was likely that those enemies (as well as, probably, some teenaged hackers in Eastern Europe) probably did hack her email server (they apparently did).

        Let me suggest that your apparent failure to understand Trump’s joke, which was obvious to tens of millions of Americans when he told it, is likely more a function of your partisanship than anything else.

        1. Due to the deliberate destruction, it seems that the only complete set of Clinton’s records would be in the Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies.

          I’m reminded of information about the British Double-Cross spy team during World War 2. They successfully captured or turned every single German spy in the country. However, they failed so spectacularly at catching Soviet moles that not only did the Soviets have in some way better records than the British on the matter, but the timestamps on Stalin’s reports were often earlier than Churchill’s.

          1. No, I’m pretty sure the NSA would have had a compete set, too.

        2. The emails were not under subpoena, and the server was not illegal.

          1. Wrong and wrong.

            Here’s the subpoena.

            The server *could* have been legal, if it had been configured to back up to the government system. But it wasn’t.

            1. No, Brett. You don’t understand how the legal system works. The subpoena does not say, “Turn over all emails on your server.” It says, “Turn over all emails related to Libya.” Unless you’ve seen the other emails and know that any of them fit that description, they were not under subpoena.

              And no law forbid the use of the server.

              1. Yeah, that’s how the law works: You’re under an order to preserve evidence, you burn your house down, and the only defense you need is, “There wasn’t any relevant evidence in the house, honest!” and you’re home free, they take your word for it.

                And I did say she could have legally used the server, if it had been configured to back up to the government system. It wasn’t so configured. It’s like, you can legally drive a car, but only if it’s street legal.

                1. Yeah, that’s how the law works:

                  It really is. You are a living Dunning Kruger.

                  And the server was legal, period. Whether she should’ve been preserving work-related things on the server is a different and independent question from whether the server was illegal.

                2. “And I did say she could have legally used the server”

                  It’s not illegal to operate an email server. So, uh, yeah.

        3. (posted in self-defense of shameless bullshit by an a typical enslaved TrumpTARD)
          ANOTHER MINDLESS DRONE: BRUCE HAYDEN

          Let me suggest that your apparent failure to understand Trump’s joke … is likely more a function of your partisanship than anything else.

          Let me PROVE you’re a manipulated tool of the ruling class

          1) It was at a full-blown, formal press conference.
          2) It was in direct response to a question
          3) Here’s the full and complete context, to jam it it up your ass.

          It was NOT a “joke,” you slimy weasel, because he reinforced it on Twitter, AFTER THE HACK.

          Some Trump surrogates suggested his comments were a joke, but the Manhattan mogul immediately doubled down on Twitter. “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!,” he tweeted.

          HE ALSO SAID HE DIDN’T KNOW WHO PUTIN IS!!!

          “I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me,” Trump said. “I never met Putin.”

          Sell your very soul for tribal politics? Disgusting.

    2. 3 years down, 5 (maybe nine?) to go.

      1. Trump bragged that he was so popular, he could shoot someone on a NY public street and get away with it. Well, he’s also so UNpopular that someone could shoot him on NY public street and get away with it. (Note for the FBI and Secret Service: I am not advocating that either of these things should happen.)

  6. It is difficult to convey, to those of you too young to remember the Watergate episode, how electrifying Butterfield’s revelations were. It’s one of the very few “people remember where they were when they heard …” moments that did not involve loss of life (Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy Assassination, 9-11).

    Professor Post….Now I was around for that; I was a youth while that sorry saga unfolded. The “electrifying revelations” you describe had NOWHERE near the impact that the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. you can make your case without extreme exaggeration.

    1. I agree.

      Pearl Harbor was before my time, but the Kennedy assassination, and obviously 9/11, weren’t.

      The immediate impact of those two events – I can tell you where I was when I heard – was orders of immeasurably greater than that of Butterfield’s testimony. I can only guess where I was for that.

    2. The “electrifying revelations” you describe had NOWHERE near the impact that the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. you can make your case without extreme exaggeration.

      MORE of your bullshit!!!
      He didn’t say a word about “impact.” Do you have NO shame at all?
      And such a disgrace to the standards of “Atlas Shrugged.”

      1. “It is difficult to convey, to those of you too young to remember the Watergate episode, how electrifying Butterfield’s revelations were. It’s one of the very few “people remember where they were when they heard …” moments that did not involve loss of life (Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy Assassination, 9-11).”

        I think if I felt electrified by something, I’d feel impacted.

    3. Agreed. I remember both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 (I am a little to young to remember Pearl Harbor), and the Butterfield testimony (I had forgotten the name Butterfield, although I remember it now that someone says it) had nothing like the same impact. Post is basically lying; you can go around your office tomorrow and ask everyone over 60 “Do you remember where you are when you heard about the Kennedy assassination or 9/11/” and compare what happens when you ask “Do you remember Butterfield’s testimony?” and prove how dishonest he is.

      1. Your own dishonesty assumes they’d have to know it was “Butterfield’s testimony.” You admit forgetting the name, then include the same name you forgot. So, overall, you come closer to agreeing with Post And your “lie” is far more evident, as I’ve shown.

        Only a total jerk would say either of you “lied.”
        Or a Trumpster.

      2. Try to characterize it appropriately and look like less of a shithead.

        “Do you remember where you were when you found out Nixon had secret tapes in the White House?”

        He said “Butterfields revelations” not “when he gave his testimony.” One is a timeline, the other is information gleaned.

        1. whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh
          So lame. He mentioned time for NONE of them. (smirk)

  7. It might be noted here that the obstruction of justice revealed by the “smoking gun” tape was far outdone by Trump and freely admitted by him in the Lester Holt interview.

    It’s as if Nixon had directly fired L. Patrick Gray and boasted on national TV that he did it to stop the Watergate break-in investigation.

    1. How? Specifically, and please provide statute and clause.

      I ask this because the assertion of Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report was based on a contrived statutory interpretation that was specifically rejected by the AG, DAG, and DOJ OLC, and has never been adopted or accepted by any court in this country. It was never the law of the land, and would have violated DOJ rules and regulations if ever utilized (for one thing, because it is counter to the OLC interpretation).

      1. I ask this because the assertion of Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report was based on a contrived statutory interpretation that was specifically rejected by the AG, DAG, and DOJ OLCThat’s as shameful as your earlier bullshit above

        https://reason.com/2019/09/30/alexander-butterfield/#comment-7954523

        (I’m only allowed one link)

    2. The Democratic caucus in the Senate in 1999 unanimously declared that it is the President’s right to obstruct justice in matters where there’s no underlying crime. Only a fanatical right-wing extremist would suggest they were wrong to do so.

      1. “The Democratic caucus in the Senate in 1999 unanimously declared that it is the President’s right to obstruct justice in matters where there’s no underlying crime”

        Yeah, and the R’s in 1999 said they couldn’t tolerate a President who cheated on his wife. How shocking to find out they didn’t really mean it, either.

      2. Ummm, DRM,
        If there’s no crime, there’s no justice to obstruct.
        So, who’s the fanatical extremist?

  8. I’m sure Trump will be taken down this time. I’m just so sure of it. No way he comes back from this one. There’s just no way.

    Just teasing. I’ve heard iterations of the above since July 2015. My money’s on Trump surviving.

    1. Catch up on the polling.

    2. How? All they did was make sure he gets another 4 years. these idiots in the DNC. Honestly, the DNC needs to clean house and get rid of everyone over 50.

      1. Catch up on the polling.
        Stop being so easily manipulated.
        He’s one. Then the jail.

  9. Ridiculing Trump’s bullshit has NEVER been more FUN!

    Intelligence community watchdog debunks whistleblower conspiracy pushed by Trump and other Republicans

    The intelligence community inspector general is forcefully pushing back against assertions made by President Donald Trump and several Republican lawmakers about the whistleblower complaint that has rocked Washington.

    In a rare statement released Monday, the inspector general addressed a false claim pushed by Trump and some of his allies on Capitol Hill, including House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, that the whistleblower lacked firsthand knowledge of the conduct outlined in the complaint and therefore the allegations were based on “hearsay.” But the statement from the inspector general made clear that the whistleblower was not simply communicating secondhand knowledge.

    “The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information,” the statement read. “The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. “

    The whistleblower NAMED all the other first hand sources, but we don’t know how many (if any) became whistleblowers also.

    DAMN. Trump IS bringing down the GOP.

    Left – Right = Zero

  10. The section about Nixon was fascinating. What I took away is that the Trump impeachment is like the Nixon impeachment, except that the ending is reversed so Trump goes on to be vindicated after re-election and the impeachers are humiliated.

    1. Catch up on the polling
      Knowledge beats blind tribal loyalty every time.

    2. It’s sort of like Nixon, except there’s no gap in the tape, and no break in, and when they play the tape they’ve just got Nixon discussing the need to investigate a specific and embarrassingly crude instance of Democratic corruption.

      Aside from all that, it’s identical!

      1. Your interpretation of the tape you haven’t heard is electrifying.

        1. At least the transcript backs up my version of events. Your version requires assuming facts not in evidence.

          1. “Your version requires assuming facts not in evidence.”

            Your analysis of the “version” I haven’t advanced is as fascinating as your analysis of the tape you haven’t heard.

  11. Did Nixon and those other guys have people like you making up fantasy stories about what someone imagines they might have done? That seems to be the difference here: actual facts about events that actually happened in Nixon’s case versus sad, deranged imaginings in Trump’s.

    Is this really what your life is about?

    If you want to write fiction, try something less desperate and more entertaining.

    1. How many times can you deny reality on this?
      But I’ve grown tired of proving you wrong, so you get a pass.
      For now.

      1. Hey funnytard, do you get paid by the word, or by the post?

        1. By the snarky, infantile, assholes I crush
          I just earned another five bucks.
          Usually 10 – 15 , but this one is a slam dunk.

          NOW do you feel manly?

    2. That’s the issue. So much of this case relies on evidence that we don’t have and actions that might not have happened.

      With the phone call, every person directly involved, including Trump, the Ukranians, and the transcriber, agrees on what was said. The corruption allegations hinge completely on either implication or accusation that everyone involved is lying.

      This amounts to a conviction based on evidence that does not exist on the presumption that it must exist. While I can definitely see that the pressure could have happened, there is no actual evidence that it occurred.

      1. “That’s the issue. So much of this case relies on evidence that we don’t have and actions that might not have happened.”

        That’s the difference. Nixon’s fans were reality-based, and Trump’s aren’t constrained by reality. So when the details of Nixon’s misconduct came out, the Nixon fans reluctantly changed their opinion. Trump fans won’t.

        1. Except the details are out. They support the narrative that Trump’s request was not pressured. He asked them to resume a corruption investigation that was suspended in suspicious circumstances. Anyone who says that the circumstances are not suspicious is being absurd. The transcript clearly shows appropriate behavior. The “whistleblower” report clearly shows nothing of value. It’s all rumor or anonymous hearsay.

          It is the opposition that is saying “the transcript must be fake” and presupposing what is in it. For all we know, the redacted parts (if they exist) could be filled with anything from awkward pauses to bad jokes or talk about grandkids to secret military alliances or espionage. It could be inane, it could be important to this, or it could be important on a different topic.

          1. I SAID Trump fans wouldn’t be affected, and you’re proving me right.

  12. Off topic but this is hilarious. Biden denied ever discussing Hunters foreign business dealings. Now there is a picture of both of them golfing together with one of Hunters fellow Burisma bd members.

    1. Why do you people swallow the wackiest bullshit, without a shred of evidence. Desperation, we understand.

      1. No, there really is a picture.

        1. A picture of people playing golf implies guilt?

          I have bad news for you. Trump claims to be GOOD at golf, and has been photographed pretending that.

          1. Biden lied. And it’s a real doozy.

            It’s not illegal to lie. But why would he tell such an egregious lie covering up such a sensitive subject?

            “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden insisted. “I know Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic norm of a president. You should be asking him why is he on the phone with a foreign leader, trying to intimidate a foreign leader. You should be looking at Trump.”

            1. “Biden lied. And it’s a real doozy.”

              Shocking. I suppose that means he can’t count on your vote?

              1. Unfortunately for Biden he may very well lose the primary over this issue.

                1. Unfortunately for Biden, he was never going to win the primary in the first place. His “Me and B” tour was big on nostalgia, but not much else.

          2. Biden plead ignorance, now he can’t. Interesting how the accusers lie and dodge and censure and sue but the accused keeps providing information and vigorously defends itself.

            1. “Biden plead ignorance, now he can’t”

              Um… why not? Because it can be proven that he’s played golf?

              1. Because he met with other Burisma board members (several of whom were convicted of securities fraud and were under investigation at Burisma prior to Hunter Biden joining) frequently enough for actual journalists to dig up photographic evidence within a few days.

                1. You still have the problem that meeting with criminals doesn’t mean you are guilty of crimes.
                  Come up with evidence of crimes beyond “was photographed playing golf”, and then come back.

                  1. Just like you have the problem that asking for something doesn’t mean you’re guilty of extorting it. Come back with evidence of crimes beyond, “Yes, he did talk with the President of Ukraine.”.

                    One standard, that’s all we’re asking for here.

                    1. Come back with evidence of crimes beyond, “Yes, he did talk with the President of Ukraine.”.

                      How about a summary of that talk? That sounds like something a little beyond the mere fact that they talked.

                    2. “Just like you have the problem that asking for something doesn’t mean you’re guilty of extorting it.”

                      In what way is that a problem for me?

  13. As with Bill Clinton, the motivation is to get rid of a political opponent, not grave concern over this or that thing.

    Since we’re playing a game of “old enough to remember”, few of you sorry sacks are actually remembering, to Clinton, and indeed all the way back to the founding where stopping things like this was put into the Constitution.

  14. But this time it was just some CIA plant, instructed by a Clinton legal firm. So fake. This time it’s fake and nothing like Watergate at all. For instance, this time there’s no crime at all.

    1. Severe denial is a mental affliction.

      1. How about rebutting the message instead of the messenger? Your messages are nothing but insults.

        1. “How about rebutting the message instead of the messenger?”

          How do you rebut a delusional fantasy?

          1. By actually demonstrating it to be delusional, rather than merely asserting it.

            1. This is why you can’t be taken seriously.

            2. some CIA plant, instructed by a Clinton legal firm. So fake.

              Burden is on the guy claiming it’s a CIA plant in league with the Clintons to show this isn’t the tin foil it looks like.

              1. At this point we do know that the “whistle blower” is CIA. And we do know he(?) was in discussions with the DNC before filing the complaint. And that he was a Clinton supporter in 2016.

                That he was in league with the Clintons, specifically, is inference, and not one I’d make, either. More likely with Schiff, we do know that Schiff had the complaint before it was filed.

                1. And we do know he(?) was in discussions with the DNC before filing the complaint.

                  No.

                  And that he was a Clinton supporter in 2016.

                  No.

                  we do know that Schiff had the complaint before it was filed.

                  Also no.

                  Pretty much everything you “know” isn’t true. But you certainly have a weird standard for knowledge, given your position that you don’t know whether Obama was born in the U.S. because you weren’t in the delivery room.

  15. In the past two weeks,

    15 percent of America stopped wanting impeachment. Yup. This not only did not work, this fantasy helped him.

    1. You are TOTALLY full of shit backwards. It’s only now a majority
      Why are you people do compelled to make a public fool of yourself?
      Reality dwells OUTSIDE both deep tribal caves. Trump has betrayed your faith in him. Discover salvation.

  16. When I was sixteen, I was at a summer program for high school students at Georgetown University. I knew that the Watergate hearings were historic, so a friend of mine and I got in line at 5:00 a.m. for the 9 (or 10 — I don’t remember) start time. They were giving out numbers–I got number 50. We thought no one would be there at 5. When they let us in, it was standing room only. Chairs were for press. The Senate Caucus room was smaller than it looked on television. It was hot. We saw General Walters, CIA deputy director testify that Haldeman ordered him to tell L. Patrick Grey at the FBI that agents should stop trying to trace the checks (from Mexico) used to pay the burglars because it would reveal unspecified activities there. The Director, Helms, countermanded the order. Later, Dean tried to get Waters to pay off the burglars with secret CIA funds, but Waters said he would resign before doing so.
    The Watergate hearings and the impeachment, are, I suppose what got me interested in politics. Though too young to vote, I watched the hearings and read the newspaper every day.
    Haldeman’s testimony was that he had told Walters to investigate suspected CIA involvement in the break-in, citing the burglars’ involvement with the Bay of Pigs, and McCord’s 20-year service at the CIA. But, really, who would believe that the CIA had nothing better to do than engage in partisan politics in some kind of deep state conspiracy? A lot of people–that is, until the tapes came out, where Haldeman met with Nixon to tell him that Mitchell and Dean concurred that the best way to shut down the FBI investigation was to have the CIA tell the FBI to end it as a matter of National Security. Nixon agreed. I mean, who could believe a President would use National Security to cover up a crime?
    I expect to watch the hearings, but I doubt I will go to Washington to stand in line at 5 am. Everything looks bigger on T.V. anyway. And I have air conditioning.

    1. You seem like someone who was following Watergate fairly closely. Do you remember where you were when you heard about Butterfield’s statement? Do you remember it being as electric as David Post claims?

      I’m not denying it’s importance, but I’m having a hard time believing it was on the same level of memorableness as things like Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, or 9-11.

  17. “Makes you wonder, no?”

    Keep hope alive!

    Reminds me of this:
    “Well, I’d like to see ol Donny Trump wriggle his way out of THIS jam!
    *Trump wriggles his way out of the jam easily
    Ah! Well. Nevertheless,”

    1. Trump the matador holds up the red cape and the bull charges again and again.

      1. Meh. Gives him something to do.

        1. Very true. At the most basic level, these deep state coup efforts don’t need to succeed in removing Trump to be successful. They’ve already derailed his entire first term to a large degree. As long as they help to distract from and retard Trump’s popular, populist agenda, particularly immigration reform, then the real aims of the fundamental driving forces behind this are achieved.

          1. “They’ve already derailed his entire first term to a large degree.”

            Another interpretation is that Trump has demonstrated that he doesn’t actually know how to get anything done.

          2. I think you have to look at it from a larger perspective than just what objectives have been achieved to date. For better or worse there is a sharper divide on the issues than we have seen in a very long time. Also we now have about half the country that believes correctly that the ruling elite hates and despises them.

            Does anyone remember what the issues were in the ’08 and ’12 elections? Obama ran on Bush hate in ’08 and Romney ran on, well what in ’12? Things are very different now. The Dems are out and proud now: running on open borders, gun confiscation, massive tax increases to pay for delusional schemes and huge wealth redistribution. And they are banking on the impeachment news scattering the opposition.

            Trump and his supporters must stay on offense. Roll out the indictments, expose the coup attempts, force the Dems to defend their crazy policies, and hate them as much as they hate you.

            1. we now have about half the country that believes correctly that the ruling elite hates and despises them.”
              and we also now have the other half of the country that believes, also correctly, that half#1 hates them and despises them.
              It is a terrible state of affairs. I don’t care which half you’re in – it’s tearing the country apart. No one person is responsible for it. We need to find a way out. “Hating them as much as they hate you” is not a way out.

              1. I think the only way out is for one side or the other to win the war of ideas. The left seems to think that they are poised to do this and to achieve permanent control of government and other key institutions. They may be right, they have made a lot of progress in the long march through the institutions. I think that if that happens it will mean the end of most of what is good about this country, so those of us who think this way should try to prevent it. “Hate them” is too strong I guess. Hate what they are trying to do is better.

                1. One party looks to the future, and one party looks to the past. Time isn’t flowing to carry us closer to the past.

                  You don’t have to LIKE change, but it’s coming, whether you prefer it that way, or not.

                  1. “One party looks to the future, and one party looks to the past. Time isn’t flowing to carry us closer to the past.”

                    It seems to me that neither party looks to the future very well. But one is actively working to make the future worse, by embracing socialism and increased government power, nursing grievances, and using propaganda to foment race-based division among Americans.

                    “You don’t have to LIKE change, but it’s coming, whether you prefer it that way, or not.”

                    Indeed. I like change though. But nobody likes the wrong kind of change, like a cancer diagnosis for example. Meanwhile everyone loves a winning lotto ticket.

                    1. “It seems to me that neither party looks to the future very well.”

                      True enough. For one of them, this is because always in motion the future is, difficult to see clearly. For the other one, they can’t see the future because they’re too busy actively trying to make it be 1958 again.

                      Here’s another way to tell them apart.
                      One of the parties wants to regulate who you can have sex with, while leaving your business dealings entirely unregulated, and the other one wants to regulate who you can/must do business with, while leaving your sex life unregulated.

                      One party wants to take YOUR money away from you, and give it to people who are poorer than you are. The other wants to take YOUR money away from you, and give it to people who are richer than you are.

                      One doesn’t want to tell you that they’re going to raise your taxes to pay for their massively increased spending, and the other will tell you they’re going to cut your taxes before they raise your taxes to pay for their massively increased spending.

                  2. And leftists like to apply the “arc of the moral universe” to themselves and their dystopian plans. The sense of their inevitability seems to be a common thread among them.

                2. Prevent it, ideally, but also have an exit strategy if they win, because history says that, after the left wins, they tend to go looking for their former foes to take revenge, before they start on each other.

                  1. ” history says that, after the left wins, they tend to go looking for their former foes to take revenge, before they start on each other.”

                    Whereas when the right wins, they tend to go looking for their former foes to take revenge, before they start on each other. Totally different, though.

                    Heck, I’d bet that even when non-partisans win, they’ll go looking to settle scores near the top of the “to-do” list.

                3. in reply to donojack
                  I appreciate your willingness to think some more about the question. I’d add one point: you suggest that the left is poised to win the war of ideas and “achieve permanent control of government and other institutions.” Maybe. But “permanent control” is awfully difficult in a country that has free elections. That’s precisely why gerrymandering is such a threat, because it can’t be corrected at the ballot box. And I would suggest that while it is not a technique used exclusively by the Republicans, it is the one they seem to be pressing more vigorously and more egregiously than the Democrats.

                  1. A few thoughts.

                    1 “Winning the war of ideas” doesn’t mean merely obtaining political power but actually convincing the other side of your views. The war of ideas transcends Trump and the war of particular people, politicians, and parties.

                    2 There is give and take. While it seems that only one side can win on a given issue or issues, there is still room for the other side to win on other issues.

                    Illustrating both of the above, most of my friends and colleagues are “liberal” and I find it very, very easy to find common ground with them and agree with them on a few points, while also convincing them of some basic points on immigration, trade, nationalism vs globalism, and other topics. It’s almost surprisingly easy to get even pretty far left folks in your every day life to acknowledge the economics of immigration and wages, for instance.

              2. Typical partisans… dividing the nation into “us” and “the other guys”.

                It’s closer to thirds… Brand X party, Brand Y party, and people who wish the partisans would go away and STFU.

                1. I like how you try to pretend you’re not a partisan, while at the same time making extremely partisan (and really dumb) comments like “One party looks to the future, and one party looks to the past.”

                  1. I’m not a member of a political party. That doesn’t mean I think they’re equal.

  18. Future Jeopardy transcript:
    Contestant: “I will take Peach-y for $1000.”
    Alex Trebek’s Hologram: “The only President to have been re-elected after having been impeached.”
    Contestant: “Who is Donald Trump?”

  19. Ahhh, the stupidity.

    Trump holds the office that obligates him to execute the laws of the united States of America, which include criminal laws against corruption – of the kind that Biden bragged about when he demanded that the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden be fired in order for Ukraine to receive the aid that the US Congress had allocated for it.

    Just because the Trump campaign and Trump personally would benefit from Trump enforcing such statutes does NOT create an impeachable offence.

    Besides, there is a treaty with Ukraine covering such mutual cooperation in criminal matters.

    Trump has many, MANY flaws, and has committed many impeachable offenses, but NONE of the bullshit that the Democrat party and their left wing progtard allies scream about incessantly constitute any of them. I am very, VERY suspicious of any so called “libertarian” that endorses any of these [clearly] biased “reasons”.

    This is a classic example of Freudian projection.

    1. “This is a classic example of Freudian projection.”

      Could be. On the one hand, self-diagnosis is rarely completely accurate. On the other hand, you’d know better than anyone else what’s going on in your mind.

  20. Interesting how there’s still no responses to this point; how do you investigate corruption of a former administration if members of that administration are seeking election against you? The logic provided by the impeachment crowd does not allow for any such investigation. The same logic also would have justified impeachment of Obama and, in all likelihood, every single US President, past, present and future.

    1. First, your question is not on point since it begs the question about whether there was corruption. It looks a lot like there was not. Indeed, it’s looking a lot like there’s a pattern of Trump’s foreign policy being based largely around benefiting and defending Trump.

      Second, check out what Obama did about Trump and Russia without disrupting the campaign. Going through proper channels, keeping it quiet until after the election, etc. The right got all het up about it, as they will, but given the Mueller report and associated indictments/convictions, it wasn’t started for no reason, and the proof is in the pudding about whether it interfered with the election.

      Third, one thing you DON’T do is send your personal attorney to
      go through foreign governments to investigate an individual who was maaaybe going to be called as a witness.

      In other words, crowing that no one has answered your crappy hypo is proof that no one is buying your scenario, not that you’ve really owned the libs this time.

      1. ” It looks a lot like there was not.”

        If you define “Recently discharged drug user with no relevant experience getting very remunerative no work job on the basis of his dad being VP and in charge of policy concerning that country.” as non-corrupt.

        Which most people don’t view as non-corrupt, even if it is, horribly, a common form of corruption.

        Now, I’ll grant you that it’s at least possible all the corruption is on the part of Biden’s son and his employer, and the father was oblivious to why his druggy son got this nice job. Not terribly likely, but possible.

        But that there was corruption involved is scarcely in doubt.

        1. “If you define “Recently discharged drug user with no relevant experience getting very remunerative no work job on the basis of his dad being VP and in charge of policy concerning that country.” as non-corrupt”

          Corrupt is one of the possibilities. So is totally non-corrupt. And yet another possibility is “non corrupt, but we hope to use it for corrupt purposes”.

          “But that there was corruption involved is scarcely in doubt.”

          The ability to be so SURE, so CERTAIN, without waiting for evidence.
          In any case, however, Mr. Biden is currently a private citizen. Controlling his son grants no leverage over the US government. So what’s the rush? Rip into the matter after the election, and suddenly it doesn’t look at ALL like the President is using his control of the government to preserve his control of the government. That’s the sort of thing that most people agree about, as well.

    2. The answer is that you don’t worry about the fact that your enemies aren’t going to like the fact that you are coming after them. You just come after them. The current whistleblower business is likely preemptive action against the coming indictments and the exposure of the coup attempts.

      1. Right. The coup attempts. Yeah.

  21. This one-sided piece neglects the key fact: Joe Biden appears to have misappropriated US foreign aid funds, via a shell company in Ukraine, to benefit himself and his son — after threatening officials in Ukraine that their country wouldn’t get the money unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden for all this.

    These are crimes in both the US and Ukraine, and Trump has every right either to investigate them, or to help Ukrainian officials investigate them.

    Like the rest of the Democrats’ charges against Trump, this whole impeachment campaign has been trumped-up to save THEM from their just deserts. But I don’t think it’s going to save them.

  22. “This one-sided piece neglects the key fact: Joe Biden appears to have misappropriated US foreign aid funds, via a shell company in Ukraine, to benefit himself and his son — after threatening officials in Ukraine that their country wouldn’t get the money unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden for all this.”

    Perhaps it neglected this “key fact” on the basis of it not actually being a fact.

    1. I mean, it’s stone-hard fact if you’re a Republican, but for the rest of us…

Please to post comments