Reason Roundup

Trump's Tantrum Over Impeachment Just Got Official

Plus: FBI rebuked by FISA court, how Harris could come back, and more…


Trump won't comply with impeachment inquiry requests. On Tuesday, the president's lawyer called the inquiry "partisan and unconstitutional" and told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) that the White House "cannot participate."

In a letter to Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone said he was writing on behalf of the president that the House's impeachment investigation "violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process."

For the record, impeachment is one of the rare things the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to do, doling out to the House "the sole power" to start impeachment inquiries and to the Senate "the sole power to try all impeachments." It does not, however, specify what exactly this should look like.

Trump seems to think that as the House is trying to determine whether impeachment is even warranted—and before the White House answers any questions at all or submits to any information requests—he is entitled to the same rights as a defendant in a criminal trial. The letter accuses House Democrats of denying Trump "the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights," and asserts that this is one of the reasons Trump will not cooperate.

But as lawyer and national security analyst Mieke Eoyang points out, "the White House doesn't get to tell Congress how to conduct impeachment." Indeed, the president's "due process rights kick in when the proceedings move to the Senate" and the trial phase of impeachment begins. Any "due process concerns raised by the WH counsel's letter" can be negotiated at that stage. 

"Impeachment in the House is akin to a grand jury & indictment," notes Eoyang, and the House has already made allowances beyond what's permitted for the targets of a grand jury. In a grand jury proceeding, for instance, witnesses can't bring in personal lawyers and "the target's counsel does not get to sit and hear the evidence." But the House is allowing personal counsel for witnesses and letting all sides hear witness testimony. Overall, they're "being quite fair," tweeted Eoyang, adding:

This is all to say that the WH counsel's screed is premature, mistakes the nature of the proceedings, and is attempting to distract from the underlying accusations of wrongdoing.

Also, WH counsel has no legal basis for what he's arguing, and he knows it.

But reality has never stopped Trump or his staff from flinging wild accusations.

Trump's lawyer's letter insists "there was nothing wrong with the call" between Trump and the Ukrainian president and asserts that the impeachment inquiry is simply a ploy to "overturn the results of the 2016 election" and "influence the next election." Declaring the impeachment inquiry "unconstitutional," "unprecedented," and "naked political strategy," the letter informs House leaders that "President Trump and his Administration cannot participate" in the impeachment inquiry.

You can read the whole letter here.

"Even for the Trump White House, this memo is breathtakingly disconnected from all law, constitutional provisions, history, and facts," tweeted attorney and author Mike Godwin.

"This is best understood as a political document," suggests Keith Whittington at The Volokh Conspiracy (hosted at Reason):

Cipollone, on behalf of the president, has thrown down the gauntlet. The White House will not offer documents or testimony that might put the president's or the administration's conduct in a better light. The House can either choose to impeach the president based on what it knows or can discover without the president's cooperation, or it can move on. The president has dared the House to impeach him, and he has now chosen to mount his defense against possible removal in the Senate and in the court of public opinion.

This sets a bad precedent, even if the House is overreacting about Ukraine.

In the event that there is not "much of a fire beneath the smoke surrounding the Ukraine matter," that's for the House to investigate first, the Senate to judge, and the voters to respond to on election day, writes Whittington. But "if this president can simply issue a blanket refusal to cooperate with any congressional oversight of executive branch activities, then Congress should expect that future presidents will try to build on that example."

Pelosi has responded with a warning:

The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the President's abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.

Mr. President, you are not above the law.  You will be held accountable."

Related: a timeline of Trump's shifting defenses about Ukraine.




FiveThirtyEight takes a look at why the Kamala Harris campaign is faltering: 

At least four 2020 candidates—Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, Buttigieg and Harris—have run campaigns that echo Barack Obama's 2008 run: a youthful candidate without much Washington experience runs on charisma and personality more than a defined ideology or particular policy stands. Obama is beloved by Democrats, and his 2008 campaign was iconic, so it's natural that 2020 candidates would try to emulate him. But Harris, Booker, Buttigieg and O'Rourke are at 14 percent combined in national polls, suggesting that Democratic voters aren't looking for an Obama re-run.

In some ways, Harris has the same problem that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio had in the 2016 Republican primary, when they (wrongly) thought that the GOP would be excited about nominating a youngish, non-white standard-bearer with a solid conservative record."

But writer Perry Bacon Jr. also offers a caveat:

It's entirely possible that in December or January, Democrats feel like Biden is not inspiring enough but also that Sanders and Warren have taken too many left-wing positions and are risky bets in the general. In such a scenario, Harris, along with Buttigieg, are the best positioned candidates to rise.

But a lot would have to happen for Harris to pull off such a comeback. Right now, she seems more likely to finish behind Andrew Yang than to win the Democratic nomination.

Meanwhile, in poll results:

Yes, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is now out-polling Joe Biden. This also held for a new poll from RealClearPolitics:


NEXT: The Economy Keeps Growing, but Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump won’t comply with impeachment inquiry requests.

    Don’t negotiate with traitors.

    1. Hello.

      Oh. So now it’s a ‘tantrum’ to deal with this bull shit?


      At least you didn’t call him a ‘snowflakes’ I guess.

      Sometimes I wonder.

      1. The Shitshow continues. How did the Democraps expect him to respond?

    2. “But as lawyer and national security analyst Mieke Eoyang points out, “the White House doesn’t get to tell Congress how to conduct impeachment.” Indeed, the president’s “due process rights kick in when the proceedings move to the Senate” and the trial phase of impeachment begins. Any “due process concerns raised by the WH counsel’s letter” can be negotiated at that stage. ”

      What the lawyer fails to mention that is prior to the impeachment stage the president continues to be covered by the 4th amendment (democrats keep trying to issue subpoenas as a general fishing expedition) as well as Executive Privilege (again many of the subpoenas are unrelated to Congress’ oversight duty).

      This keeps being lost in the never trump narrative. Do we really need to link to the glaring examples from Fast and Furious under Obama? Trump has done nothing so far that other presidents have not also done.

      1. Agreed. The “the White House doesn’t get to tell Congress how to conduct impeachment.” quip was laughable.

        If they ask for impeachment with whip cream and a cherry on top then, by God, that cherry better be the tastiest fucking fruit in all creation. He doesn’t get to tell them how to impeach him!

    3. Has Congress voted on impeachment?

  2. Drumpf knows the walls are closing in. #TrumpUkraine is the beginning of the end.


  3. It’s a “tantrum” for Trump to refuse to cooperate in an impeachment “inquiry” structured in such a way that he can’t prepare the defense he’s entitled to mount?

    1. In the Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn described the mind games and trick words the Blue Caps would use to make you feel like you’r the enemy and bad guy for not wanting to comply with their demands and ultimately send you to the gulags.

      Apparently, if I read the little weasel words here correctly, a man is not entitled to hit back at an obviously corrupted and unproductive political scam lest he be told he’s throwing a ‘tantrum’.

      ‘We all know it’s just a game so why don’t you just comply as we destroy you. Please? Pretty please? HEY! No need for these tantrums snowflake!’

      I say unleash on these assholes.

    2. Did it occur to you that Trump has all the evidence already? He’s the one hiding it from us.

      1. Please sir, spare us some evidence, we’re without any

        1. Trump isn’t asking to submit evidence for us to consider he’s attempting suppress witnesses and evidence. It’s a simple truth but you’re probably incapable of understanding it. If it was a perfect call then what’s the holdup Trump?

          1. If the House wants evidence, they need to hold public hearings and have testimony. That is how it is done. They don’t want evidence. Stop fucking lying.

            1. They don’t have hold public hearings but those are comings too you stupid sob.

              1. Trump does not have to be a willing participant. Period. I believe the content presidents talking to world leaders fall under executive privilege. Even if that example is not true, executive privilege is a real thing.

              2. Many GOP members have filed formal complaints that they are being restricted in their ability to question witnesses or even view so called evidence the Democrats have already obtained.

            2. Its a bit hard to hold public testimony and hearing when the WH will not allow anyone to testify.

              1. Then issue a subpoena and compel him to allow it. Moreover, Trump has never said he wouldn’t cooperate with an impeachment proceeding. He just says the House needs to have one. So, have a vote and have one.

                1. So Trump just gets to make up rules for whether an impeachment inquiry is legitimate or not? Why not just claim the vote has to be unanimous and presided over by a leprechaun? That would have just as much basis in the Constitution, US Code, case law, and House Rules: None at all.

                  1. What rule is Trump making up?

                  2. Has the House voted to start an impeachment inquiry? Or is this all still based on the grandstanding of a couple individuals?

                    Without a vote to start the impeachment inquiry, Congress’ right to issue subpoenas is limited to their oversight role in connection with legislation. Subpoenas outside that scope are not legitimate. And, yes, Trump can make that assessment and unilaterally refuse to cooperate. So could you as a private citizen if you were subpoenaed by Congress outside their legitimate role. As a private citizen, Congress would have to take you to court to try to get their subpoena enforced. In the case of the President, Congress can solve it themselves – by holding a vote to make the impeachment inquiry official.

                    1. And before you ask, yes I would raise these objections regardless of which party held the White House. Procedure matters.

                2. they have issued subpoenas. Remember our little argument yesterday about whether or not house subpoenas are subpoenas? Trump also blocked the ambassador to Ukraine from testifying. Really above board stuff here.

                  No matter who’s “side” you are on, it is inarguable that Trump is hiding and suppressing information. Not trying to mount a defense, but prevent information from becoming public.

                  1. So desperate and pathetic

              2. If you add up claims of executive privilege trump is way behind his predecessors. Trump has allowed 3 years of testimony. Is it in your nature to be fucking stupid?

          2. It’s amazing that you went through three years of this shit, full on derangement, only to get suckered in again. I’d feel bad for you if it wasn’t so fucking funny to watch.

          3. Trump knows the longer this goes on, the better it is for him. Why should he make it easy and painless for the assholes?

          4. Pod proves here he doesnt believe in the coequal branches of our government.

            1. Pod believes in show trials and totalitarianism, so long as he can vicariously claim to be on the winning side

              1. How the fuck do you sycophants convince yourselves that supporting an executive who has literally asserted that they are above the law is the side against totalitarianism?

                1. It pisses you off, which is the best indication.

                2. He did not say he was above the law, he asked for the same process and protections his predecessors received. When they didn’t comply he stated he doesn’t view this as a legitimate impeachment. Many agree with him.

      2. I can’t believe your brain, filled with hundreds of millions of neurons, all supposedly firing to create thoughts, absorbed that comment and split out that reply.

      3. “Did it occur to you that Trump has all the evidence already?”

        Evidence of what? Being Trump?

        1. Evidence of a conspiracy to pressure a foreign govt to announce that they’ve baselessly placed Trump’s political opponent under criminal investigation in return for money to buy defensive weapons.

          1. What is the evidence of pressure being applied?

            All I have seen is people inferring, but no actual evidence.

            1. Intent is ordinarily shown by circumstantial evidence. Trump kvetched about a lack of reciprocity vis-a-vis Ukraine. Military aid that had been appropriated by Congress was being withheld. Zelensky inquired about purchasing Javelin missiles. Trump thereupon asked for favors including an investigation of his leading political rival.

              All of that evinces a corrupt intent to involve a foreign government in favor of Trump´s political endeavor, with military aid hanging in the balance.

          2. I’m thinking you dont know what the word baseless means.

          3. By the way pod…. ukraine reopened it’s own investigation into Burisma regarding payments earlier this year, before july, based on newly released documents. Still baseless?

      4. Did it occur to you that the House GOP is calling to publicly release all evidence and depositions while democrats continue to hide it?

        1. They’ve gone so far as to file formal complaints with the house ethics committee over how Schiff and Pelosi how handling this.

    3. He can mount a defense in the senate. Just like you don’t get to defend yourself in a grand jury indictment hearing. The only one violating the constitution here is the Trump whitehouse. As per usual.

  4. For the record, impeachment is one of the rare things the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to do

    Along with declaring war, setting the budget, and little things like that, but Congress has chosen not to do those things anymore.

    1. And they have chosen not to do impeachment either. Impeachment proceedings must be voted on by the entire body. This farce has never been voted on by a committee much less the entire House.

      1. Cite what you think requires Democrats to vote on deciding to consider whether to vote to impeach.

        1. The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the
          impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of
          impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.

          None of those things have happened. If the Judiciary Committee wants to hold public hearings and start drafting articles, good luck. But that is not what is happening here. There is no such thing as an informal inquiry where the members of one party conduct an investigation. The investigation is done by the full committee.

          1. Did you even read it, John? It says in the past they’ve done investigative work before deciding to launch the impeachment markup and in any event the procedural order is decided by the Speaker of the House.

            1. Yes, they do that by having hearings in committee. Again, if the committee wants to have formal hearings and launch an investigation that is their right. But they are not doing that.

              Trump is free to tell them to fuck off. If they don’t like that, hold a hearing, issue subpoenas and try and hold him in contempt if he doesn’t follow them. Sorry dipshit but no one is buying the Democratic star chamber. it is a fucking joke and everyone knows it. Trump is just saying what everyone knows out loud.

              1. We don’t need anything else from Trump anyway. He’s already confessed and revealed the memo of the transcript. We want the evidence from his co-conspirators and those fuckers can be held in contempt and prosecuted. Trump’s indictments will be waiting for him when he leaves office.

                1. Tell us where he touched you, Pod.

                2. Everyone saw the transcript and no one gives a shit. If they did, the House would be willing to vote on an impeachment inquiry.

                  1. 58% of Americans have a problem with it. It’s a crime to collude with a foreign govt to frame your political opponent.

                    1. That poll is bullshit. If it wasn’t, the Democrats would not be so terrified to have a vote.

                    2. It’s a crime to collude with a foreign govt to frame your political opponent.

                      So when’s Hillary going to jail?

                    3. “”58% of Americans have a problem with it. It’s a crime to collude with a foreign govt to frame your political opponent.””

                      We don’t decide guilt based on public opinion.

                      “”We don’t need anything else from Trump anyway.””

                      Then what’s the problem?

                3. Confessed to what?

      2. Right, the “House” isn’t doing anything. A bunch of Committee Leaders are sending letters. They haven’t voted to do anything- which you know, has been the method of every house to begin impeachment proceedings in the past. If that was the way they did it before, why not just do it that way this time?

        1. Well for starters the lack of legal requirement and no actual House rules saying so.

      3. I actually agree with the author that this is Trump daring them to impeach. They’ve been threatening it since before he was even elected, and I suspect Trump wants this impeachment to finally happen now that 2020 is approaching.

        It’s risky as hell in some ways, but at the same time it could be the biggest gift Democrats could give him since Biden is already suffering. Trump would probably win versus a Warren, which was probably his plan all along. Biden was likely the biggest threat given how nutballs the rest of the field is.

        1. Biden is by far his more formidable opponent in the general election. And this whole thing has destroyed his campaign. Meanwhile Trump and the RNC are setting fundraising records.

          But remember, Trump is the dumb one.

          1. You’re so full of shit. Biden pummels Trump in a head to head matchup.

            I know you hate polls (remember when you guaranteed a Romney win in 2012?) but your perspective is wacky due to your GOP slobbering.

            1. You’re so full of shit. Biden pummels Trump in a head to head matchup.

              Which just makes my point that he is Trump’s most formidable opponent. Thanks to this Biden is no longer killing Warren and is no longer the favorite to win the nomination.

              All of the child porn you have watched has made you dumber than you were before as amazing as that is.

              1. As stupid as Democrats are tend to nominate the perceived centrist.

                Bill Clinton, Kerry over Dean, Obama, and Hil-Dog over Bernie.

                And you said his campaign had been “destroyed”.

                1. His campaign has been destroyed. He is done. He is not winning the nomination.

                2. Biden and Sanders’s campaign needs to be destroyed to make way for America’s first Native American president.

                3. If you take it as read that Democrats nominate a perceived centrist, that would in fact explain Trump attacking Biden specifically so I don’t really understand your point here.

                  It would appear Democrats and the media did the stupid thing by revealing Biden’s past actions that could have remained safely buried which would have helped his election, not hurt it as it has. Keep in mind this Ukraine scandal was supposed to kill Trump’s prospects in 2020, but so far it seems to have only sunk Biden. That’s impressive.

                  The icing on the cake will be if it turns out Trump’s actions were perfectly legal, and Democrats cut the head off the only one who could have won versus Trump in their rabid objection to Trump. This is also one reason out of many that they must now impeach Trump. They didn’t leave themselves any other option in the general election.

                  Also, if Democrats manage to sink Biden and Trump what are they left with? A Warren type, who has little chance of beating a non-Trump Republican in the general.

              2. The Chiefs are still undefeated
                Because they were favored to beat the Colts by 7.5

          2. I don’t believe Biden’s campaign was destroyed. But if it’s even damaged it evidence of Trump attempting to use foreign money and resources to benefit his own campaign — which is a crime you moron. You would understand it had you understood the Mueller report. Don Jr was almost indicted for attempting to accept the offer of help from the Russians.

            1. Biden has been shown to be a crook. And the your and the other angry retard’s response to that is that Trump is somehow guilty of something because the told the people Biden was ripping off they might want to look into it.

              You are making a national issue out of the President doing something about Demcorat corruption. Trump couldn’t be more fortunate in his enemies if they all worked for him.

              1. If Biden was a crook and you had evidence of that (which you don’t hence the need to pressure a foreign leader) Trump or whoever could have submitted that evidence to the FBI and they would have considered and.gone to a judge to get a warrant if warranted. But because there is no real evidence Trump needed to coerce a foreign govt into doing his dirty work which is a crime and betrayal of this country.

                1. The wingnuts are desperately trying to Swift-boat Biden.

                  His clean 40 years of service must be attacked like they attacked Kerry’s record as a veteran over the draft dodger Bush.

                  1. “The wingnuts are desperately trying to Swift-boat Biden.”

                    turd, you are one stupid piece of shit; Biden has already done the job:
                    ” Former US vice president Joe Biden boasted that he had a word to say in another state’s internal affairs, admitting to have pressured the Ukrainian government into sacking a prosecutor general in just a few hours.
                    “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden said during a meeting of the US Council on Foreign Relations. He was referring to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and former Ukrainian prime minister Arseny Yatsenyuk. Biden added that the prosecutor was then fired.
                    Read more
                    Biden told ex-Ukraine President Yanukovich to resign, former VP reveals in memoirs Biden told ex-Ukraine President Yanukovich to resign, former VP reveals in memoirs
                    “Well, son of a b***h. (Laughter.) He got fired.”

                    1. Wingnut nonsense.

                      Biden, the US, the IMF, NATO all said that prosecutor should go.

                    2. He admitted it in a video. It is right there to see. Just because you are a disgusting pervert pedophile retard doesn’t mean everyone else is and isn’t smart enough to understand what is going on.

                    3. “‘“I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’”””

                      You can see a video where Biden says this. He also mention that one of them said “We’ll call the President”, and Biden says “Call him”

                      This is video evidence. Funny how the dems and liberal have become so screw up to think hearsay is quality evidence, but a video is not worthy.

                2. We have evidence of it. His drug addict son didn’t make all that money from the Chinese and Ukrainians for nothing. There is no innocent explanation for that. Biden was selling influence and using his son to launder the money.

                  1. You misspelled Trump.

                    1. Trump’s son wasn’t working for the Ukrainians. Trump’s son didn’t get a 1.5 billion dollar investment contract from the Chinese government on a trip he took in Air Force II with his father.

                      Biden is a crook. Everyone knows it.

                  2. Presumption of innocence, John.
                    Presumption of innocence.

                    Or does that standard only apply to Kavanaugh?

                    1. Oi vey.

                      Of course it applies. But in Biden and his son’s case, it also warrants investigation which as far as I can tell has always been the implication. Even by Trump.

                    2. Well then perhaps someone should tell John that “there is no innocent explanation for that” isn’t proof of guilt.

                      John, and Nardz, and the other right-wing bootlickers around here were completely full of shit when they were pushing the whole “innocent until proven guilty!!!” argument in defense of Kavanaugh. And their treatment of Joe & Hunter Biden now proves it.

                      The correct standard, IMO, is that people in positions of authority and power ought to be held to a higher standard than merely “not guilty in a court of law”. If something looks fishy, then they ought to be investigated for that. Because they are going to be wielding power over all of us in one form or another, and it’s not enough to simply not be a criminal. We’d like to know that our leaders are better people than that. This applies equally well to Kavanaugh, Biden, Trump, Hillary, everyone.

                      Perhaps one day John et al. will come to a consistent principled standard on this, but I won’t hold my breath.

                    3. According to John’s former standard, Hunter Biden is no more guilty of corruption than Brett Kavanaugh is of rape.

                      I wonder what Current John would tell Past John about what the standard ought to be towards Kavanaugh.

                    4. It only applies to Biden.

                    5. In the case of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden we have dollars that changed hands and questions regarding how or why that happened. In Trump’s case, we have him asking Ukraine to find out the how and why of those transfers on their end which has the appearance of hurting the Biden campaign. The reason why it might hurt the Biden campaign? Because it looks really bad for a sitting Vice President’s son to be paid tons of cash for nothing when his father is deciding issues regarding the Ukraine.

                      Lots of people are saying Trump asking a good question in an impolitic way is worse than the thing that seems to warrant actual criminal investigation. Does that sound right if one is being somewhat impartial?

                    6. Jeff, no one is saying Hunter Biden should go to jail. They are saying there is very good reason to think he is corrupt and Trump was absolutely right in telling the Ukrainians to look into it.

                      Presumption of innocence doesn’t get out of being investigated. Stop moving the goal posts and make an honest argument.

                      Moreover, the legal presumption of innocence in now way makes it wrong to make a reasonable conclusion based on the facts at hand. And again, there is no innocent and plausible explanation for his wealth. It is perfectly reasonable and proper to conclude he is a crook. Concluding that doesn’t send him to jail. It just disqualifies his equally corrupt father from high office.

                    7. Biden is on video declaring and bragging about his guilt.

                      One is not required to presume anything after such actions are taken.

                3. Oh come now, Pod.
                  John spent weeks right here at Reason lecturing us all that all people must be treated with a presumption of innocence even outside of a court of law. So Biden is OF COURSE not a crook. To even contemplate that Biden is a crook is to subvert the entire American judicial and legal system. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

                  1. Wow, collectivistjeff continues to embarrass himself.
                    At least he’s consistent

                    1. Yeah, we all knew you weren’t serious with the “innocent until proven guilty” argument in defense of Kavanaugh either.

                    2. Did you forget all the claims John made regarding standards of evidence in the Kavanaugh case? Guess so. Seems you only remember one specific argument since you figure you can torture it to say what you want.

                    3. He’s thick as a brick. And dishonest to boot.

                  2. You’re not REALLY pretending the two are comparable in this regard, right? REALLY?

                    It’s documented fact vs. non-credible decades-old uncorroborated allegation.

                    Hunter Biden

                    – cokehead with no Ukrainian or energy experience gets a 600k job with a Ukrainian energy firm while his dad is Vice President and in charge of US-Ukraine policy
                    – his dad brags on video years later that he used his position to force Ukraine to fire a prosecutor
                    – that same prosecutor was investigating that same energy firm

                    Brett Kavanaugh

                    – 30-year-old accusation of assault not supported by any of the people supposedly involved or present
                    – no part of the accusation was ever affirmatively corroborated
                    – every part that WAS provable ended up being wrong, causing changes to the narrative
                    – accusation was presented at the last second after Democrats failed to derail and stop the confirmation hearings with innuendo and rumor-mongering

                4. “Trump or whoever could have submitted that evidence to the FBI and they would have considered and.gone to a judge to get a warrant…”

                  …and Democrats would have accused Trump of using his executive office for political purposes.

                5. “”If Biden was a crook and you had evidence of that “”

                  Would it matter to Biden defenders? There is video evidence of his inappropriate touching which does meet today’s definition of sexual harassment. Biden defenders don’t care.

                6. Hey dumbfuck. The same polls you claim say america wants trump impeached are even worse for biden on the question on if his son should be investigated.

            2. Biden’s campaign hasn’t been destroyed, I’d agree there, it’s simply been damaged enough for Warren to finally out-poll him which was essentially the entire point for Trump.

              On the ‘foreign money and resources’ point, if it’s illegal that would be news to the Clinton campaign as well as every other Presidential campaign in living memory. Recall that information provided to her campaign came from Kremlin sources and was then used as part of a FISA investigation into an opposing candidate? Recall how Obama received campaign contributions from unknown sources that they didn’t disclose?

              The main differences between Trump and other politicians seems to be that he’s doing in the open what other politicians try and hide behind smoke screens. That doesn’t make him ‘better’ necessarily, it just means that he’s more transparent.

            3. “”attempting to use foreign money and resources to benefit his own campaign — which is a crime you moron.””

              The Steele dossier was to benefit Hillary against Trump.

              1. The difference is that Hillary and the Republicans before her “paid” Steele for his investigative services which is the opposite of accepting a thing of value.

                1. So paying a British Intelligence agent to contract Russian intelligence agents to make up dirt about your opponent is okay but asking telling the Ukrainian government about Joe Biden’s corruption is not.

                  Yeah, that makes sense.

                2. Of course, by this logic as long as Trump pays for information it’s totes legal. That is obviously false given that it would be instantly labeled a campaign finance issue.

                  If you want to personally test your own bias, try inserting a politician from the opposite side into the ‘Trump’ slot and see if a thing still holds true for you. It’s a basic reason test.

                  Personally if Obama had said what Trump said in a Ukraine phone call I don’t think it would justify impeaching him since it seems there is at least the appearance of actual misdeed by Bidens son (insert Trump’s son, if that helps). It’s little surprise I don’t think it warrants Trump being impeached either, but again that’s just me.

                  Now, if Trump wanted to investigate Biden’s son without the cover of there being an appearance of potential misdeed that’s another story.

                3. The thing of value is the dirt is produced. The value of dirt is the central argument that the dems are using against Trump.

            4. “Almost indicted” lulz

          3. I do think Trump is something of a political neophyte, but I’m finding myself in agreement with Scott Adams when it comes to Trump’s actual skill set. I’ve always thought Scott was kind of ditzy and bizarre, but he’s been making surprisingly good arguments for years now.

            Either way, someone finally gave Trump some good advice. Make Congress impeach him to finally make them go on record. They’ve survived on accusations for years, and they either need to put up or shut up at this point.

            We’ve already had impeachment theater for three or four years. Pretending Democrats haven’t had their knives out for his entire Presidency is to be blind.

            1. One thing you can say about Trump is that he seems to be smart and thorough enough to never give his enemies the sword with which to kill him. Trump has been the subject of the full wrath of the Democratic Party, the national media, the FBI, and the intelligence community for over three years and this bullshit is the best they can come up with.

              Think about it. This is pathetic. It is amazing to think that they have been going to any and all lengths to get the guy for over three years and the best they have come up with is the pussy grabbing tape and that he told the Ukrainians they might want to look into the Biden boys robbing them blind.

              1. The problem seems to be that Democrats are projecting the notion that Trump is corrupt so therefore there must be evidence of corruption. That’s because they know, like all politicians, that they have skeletons in their closets so they assume Trump must also have skeletons to find. Normally that strategy works when it’s a politician, but a celebrity billionaire not so much.

                The thing they don’t seem to understand is that everyone is pretty well aware of what those skeletons are for Trump, and that they aren’t surprising anyone with their gotcha’s. Hence the endless fishing expeditions for things that aren’t already on full display.

                What is surprising to me is that Democrats are willing to slit their own throats time and time again when it comes to Trump. They are so sure of their moral mission they never stop and wonder if maybe the dirt they’re digging for doesn’t damage them more than it damages Trump. So far all their efforts have backfired badly, and when Pelosi is the voice of reason in your party there is reason to be concerned.

                1. I think you are right about that. That has always been my theory of the Russia hoax. They knew they were not going to find anything about Russia but figured Trump had to be as crooked as they were and thus they would find something and when they did people would forget that the whole thing was started based on a lie.

                  The problem was they didn’t find anything. And now they are grasping at straws trying to cover up what they did.

                  1. The most surprising thing about modern politics is the sudden claim from the left that Russia are bad guys when Democrats have spent the past few decades trying to reform Russias past actions. I mean, for fucks sake they tried to reform Stalins image.

                    Now they sound just like cold war warriors that they railed against in the past. Go figure.

                  2. Remember the ‘reset’ button on Russia relations under Obama? I don’t recall Democrats claiming that was treason at the time, even while it went exactly as badly as everyone thought it would.

                    I’m also reminded of Democrats blasting Romney for claiming Russia was still one of our biggest geopolitical foes. Gee, was Romney especially prescient?

                  3. We should all take over the phrase ” the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” It was good enough for Obama, which in light of everything that’s happened since he said that it makes his incompetence even more obvious in hindsight…right?

                    1. I was at a get together a while back and some smug prog broke out with the “Moscow Mitch” routine. I told him the 80s had called and wanted their foreign policy back. He didn’t think that was very funny for some reason.

                    2. He didn’t think that was very funny for some reason.

                      There is perhaps nothing more hated to a Progressive as pointing out when a Republican they burned for being stupid turned out to be absolutely correct by their new unreasoned position.

                      Next thing we know, Progressives might acknowledge that Stalin was a monster. That would be something new and different for them. I thought Stalin was just misunderstood and reacting to Allied distrust and aggression!?

          4. I’ve definitely never bought the notion that Trump is somehow a secret 5d chessmaster genius – it’s pretty obvious he isn’t. But he definitely has a cunning way with people that has translated well into politics. I think his smartest instinct is to always make it personal. No matter who the person or what they’re suggesting, he always casts it into terms of a single axis: “This person/issue/etc. is pro/anti Trump.” Once he welded the allegiance of his supporters into a personal one instead of one based on issues, he gained the ability to do literally anything he wanted as long as he could keep the supporters’ numbers a little higher than his detractors.

            Interestingly, his opponents have been completely willing to play this on his terms, having their little freakouts when he calls them childish names in the press, and expressing their tireless opposition to proposals he makes that would’ve been perfectly at home in moderate democrat circles had they not been made by the great orange satan. I think I’m inclined to agree that Biden could probably beat him, since in broad terms they have nearly the same policy instincts, which the campaign season would’ve made apparent. Instead he’s managed to goad the political chattering class into egging the primary candidates towards literal socialism.

            The thing about politics is that it’s not smart and never has been, so Trump being dumb but cunning works to his favor where smarter candidates have been hoist by trying to apply things like “principles” and “logic” and “the rule of law.” I’m extremely curious to see what happens after his second term: will the blue team realize how they fucked up here, or will they see it as their third try at the 2016 election?

    2. So throw out the constitution, eh? Under the “use it or lose it” clause?

      1. As if some Brockoturf sock puppet cares about the Constitution.

  5. Trump doesn’t have to comply. It is not an impeachment proceeding. It is an informal inquiry. It has never been voted on by the House and is being conducted in secret.

    To call refusing to cooperate with such a farce a “tantrum” is pathetic on ENB’s part. If the House wants to impeach Trump, then they need to have a vote and launch the proceedings. They haven’t done that because voting for impeachment is likely political suicide for Democrats from moderate districts and thus they don’t have the votes. Reason’s position here seems to be that the President is required to cooperate with an informal secret inquiry being run by a minority in one house of Congress.

    1. What John just said.

    2. Impotence signalling is so much funnier than virtue signalling.
      -Michael Malice

      I’ll be using this phrase a lot over the next five years

    3. 58% of Americans support the inquiry so again your beliefs have no basis. It’s an inquiry to decide whether to hold an impeachment vote by the way.

      1. Pod, you insufferable shill, if so many Americans support the inquiry, then why don’t the Dems just vote to have the inquiry like every single house has done in the past? It’s simple. Have a vote to start the impeachment proceedings. Why suddenly change precedent after hundreds of years of this process?

        1. The Democrats won’t cast a vote for such a popular idea out of kindness I guess.

        2. It’s coming. Trump will be impeached and then indicted when he leaves office. Prepare yourselves for it.

          1. No he is not. Trump is going to win re-election. Even if he doesn’t, he is not going to be removed from office nor indicted. You are a delusional idiot.

            1. Have any of you guys thought ahead to what a dem president with this level of disregard for oversight will do?

              1. Have any of you guys thought ahead to what a dem president with this level of disregard for oversight will do?

                This is SOP for Dems. Not just dem presidents. ALL of them. The complicit, media, academia, and bureaucracy make it simple.

              2. Thought ahead? Why not just look to the past?

              3. Have any of you guys thought ahead to what a dem president with this level of disregard for oversight will do?

                Yes, and we warned about it under Obama yet no one cared. Now that a Republican is in office, regardless of who that Republican is, they suddenly want to twaddle on about ‘oversight’ that they’ve not only ignored but actively sought to neuter for decades. And they want to use that ‘oversight’ for specious reasons and endless investigations with no action: in short business as usual for Congress.

                It’s interesting that suddenly a President can’t undo other Presidents executive orders when by definition that is their purview. Such oversight by Democrats. How could we ever have doubted their beneficence?

                The fact of the matter is that Democrats have done so much damage to their brand over just the past few years that it’s impossible to take them at their word. Their delay on impeachment is infinitely telling given how ‘sure’ everyone is of his guilt. This time. As opposed to all those other times they were equally ‘sure’ of his misconduct.

          2. Yeah, but I remember when you told me Hillary Clinton would get to be president.

            Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…

          3. “”It’s coming. Trump will be impeached and then indicted when he leaves office. Prepare yourselves for it.”””

            We heard this for two years regarding the indictments that would come forth from the Mueller report. No one can play you for a fool better than yourself.

      2. If so many Americans support it, then the Democrats should be dying to put it to a vote and get on record supporting it. Yet, they are doing everything they can to avoid it.

        I am going to believe my lying eyes and say impeachment isn’t popular over you lying push poll.

      3. All aboard the Democrat impeachment railroad, I’m Pod, your conductor.

        1. The funny part is that the railroad is like the one you would see in a mall around Christmas time.

    4. What John said,
      Nut up or shut up Democrats.
      I really hope Trump wins again in 2020. Four more years of watching these people meltdown would be glorious. The last 3 have been the best present ever.

    5. I’m not an expert on Constitutional law, but it seems to me John (and Trump) are correct on this point.

  6. “The House can either choose to impeach the president based on what it knows or can discover without the president’s cooperation, or it can move on. ”

    Sucks to suck ENB

  7. More bad economic news.

    Our billionaire benefactor Charles Koch lost half a billion dollars yesterday.

    In fact, the top 12 richest people on the planet all lost money yesterday. Koch / Reason libertarianism exists to increase the net worths of these individuals — which is exactly what happened under President Obama, and what would be happening under President Clinton. President Drumpf, in contrast, has crashed the global economy with his tariffs and immigration restrictions.


    1. Damn that guy. By the time Warren is elected he won’t have anything left for her to take. Who’s gonna pay for my health care if Koch runs out of money!!!!!

      1. When Democrats retake the White House and implement the Koch / Reason open borders agenda, I’m confident the world’s richest people will quickly recover their wealth. Expect Mr. Koch’s net worth to reach $70 billion during the first year of the next administration.

        1. And then Warren with confiscate all his money?

          1. Something kinda funny is that there is a David Koch wing at NY Presbyterian Hospital.

  8. The Democrats in the House are saying the whistle blower must remain anonymous because he is getting death threats. If he is anonymous, how is he getting death threats?

    They really are not even trying anymore. They can’t possibly believe the country will support impeaching a President based on testimony the public didn’t see made by someone whose identity they don’t know. Yet, they seem to believe exactly that.

    1. Maybe the death threats are for an unrelated reason and we could narrow it down that way. I remember a few years back the “in thing” was for feminist writers to say they were getting constant death threats. Could the whistleblower be Jessica Valenti?

      1. Christine Blessy Ford.

      2. Maybe the death threats are coming from a dissociative identity.

      3. I wouldn;t be surprised if the whistle blower was Valerie Plame on a groucho mask.

    2. The Democrats in the House are saying the whistle blower must remain anonymous because he is getting death threats. If he is anonymous, how is he getting death threats?

      Logically speaking that is possible. One can threaten death upon an unknown foe, which would rationally lead to the notion that the person being threatened shouldn’t become public since that would focus the threats.

      That said, death threats shouldn’t necessarily mean that a whistle blower should be allowed to retain their anonymous status to the investigators. And, in an impeachment inquiry specifically, they shouldn’t be allowed to retain their anonymous status to the public either since it’s definitely a matter of important public political interest.

      So, in short, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong of Democrats to keep this CIA guy in the shadows until they actually vote on impeachment. That being said, that they haven’t yet done so means that whatever the CIA guy said wasn’t a big enough deal to instantly justify impeachment. Even to people who baseline believe Trump should be impeached no matter what.

      That’s logic, baby.

      1. It’s already known that Nunes leaks everything to the whitehouse. If they let the whistleblowers name out, then it will come out publicly. There is no reason for anyone to know the identity of the whistleblower. The only reason republicans want it is to smear him, as they have done many times in the recent past.

        1. Oh no, a partisan spook might be exposed as a partisan spook!

        2. There is no reason for anyone to know the identity of the whistleblower.

          This is patently false for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is being able to tell if the person knows anything about the subject in the first place. Although in this case, it’s also moot given that the transcript was released so…there is nothing left to blow a whistle on. The administration even released it of their own accord, with little pressuring. Strange for such a ‘dynamite’ claim.

          What’s more important are the reasons behind loosening the guidelines for blowing whistles while this whistle was being practice-blown behind the scenes. A lot of bureaucratic shuffling appears to have occurred in order to enable this specific complaint. Charitably, it’s obvious that the changed regulations would also mean a lot more whistles will be blown with much less evidence required so maybe this is an effect rather than the cause.

          Is hearsay acceptable for blowing whistles? I’m of two minds about it personally, but seeing how it’s already being used I’m starting to think it’s actually worse than before. Allegations should probably require direct knowledge of events rather than second hand speculation.

    3. He created another email address and is mailing them to himself. This ensures he can get death threats while still remaining anonymous.

    4. I don’t see how that it is so implausible that the whistleblower might be getting death threats.

      Just because the general public doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, doesn’t mean nobody knows. Or someone might be assuming they know who the whistleblower is, and assuming correctly.

  9. This is actually hilarious. The House has nothing to impeach on so they’re begging to continue investigating the guy they already investigated for three years. They’re complaining that he won’t just bend over and take it. This clown show is amazing to watch.

    And reading ENB’s obvious bias makes it so much more satisfying.

    Impotence signalling is so much funnier than virtue signalling.

    1. She should go work for the NBA.

  10. Seems ENB is taking the same position as Neera Tanden, which is odd given that this is a libertarian website.

    Guilty people obstruct. Innocent people cooperate.

    1. What about people who erase 33,000 emails from their private server and destroy their government phone with a hammer. Who are those people?

      1. People who would try to hide the server in a friggin bathroom. That’s who.

      2. Those people are just careless. Poor Hillary was just trying to fix her deck when she just kept on hitting her phone.

      3. Once again whataboutism proving that you don’t give a damn about the law at all- but rather just use whatever to defend your “side.”


        1. Trump has not destroyed any evidence. If he runs a private server full of classified information in the basement of one of his hotels, be sure to tell us because that will be a problem.

          This isn’t “whataboutism”. There is no what about because Trump is not guilty of multiple felonies the way Hillary was.

          1. You nutcases are leaving out how Hil-dog murdered Vince Foster and the Benghazi fake scandal.

            Get back to Bratfart for your remedial work, john!

            (and is that cocksucker still dead?) Didn’t Hillary have Andrew killed too?

            1. Hillary admitted to having a server and storing TS and above information on it. It was all in the FBI report.

              Everyone knows that. Lying about it doesn’t help.

            2. Still sour over Mueller Claus delivering that stocking of coal, hicklib?

            3. “”You nutcases are leaving out how Hil-dog murdered Vince Foster and the Benghazi fake scandal.””

              Red herring. No one was talking about that.

              That’s how dishonest Hillary fans are about her transgressions.

              1. BTW Red Herring is Elizabeth Warren’s birth name.

                1. That sound like it could be a Native American name.

            4. ‘Fake scandal’. Yeh that’s why they went out of their way to blame a video and use some shmuck as a pawn throwing him in prison.

            5. “You nutcases are leaving out how Hil-dog murdered Vince Foster and the Benghazi fake scandal.’

              It is not possible for turd to post without lying.

          2. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator to a felony crime for which Michael Cohen is currently serving a prison sentence. The only reason Trump wasn’t impeached back then is because today’s republicans have 1/10 the dignity of Nixon era Republicans.


            1. The only reason Trump wasn’t impeached back then is because today’s republicans have 1/10 the dignity of Nixon era Republicans.

              Hilarious fan fiction.

            2. Of course he’s unindicted. You can’t indict a sitting President, like it or hate it. They can indict him after he leaves office, which would require an impeachment.

              Why then are Democrats not voting today to impeach Trump? According to you, it’s settled that he’s a co-conspirator which means it’s a slam dunk. Curious they haven’t made a move yet, unless we’re saying it’s more important for Democrats to stay in office than it is to remove a corrupt President.

        2. When people bring up “whataboutism,” it’s typically because they don’t want to face their own shortcomings.

          1. Accusations of “whataboutism” are a red herring anyway.

            It’s useful and instructive to point out the glaring hypocrisy of your opponents.

          2. Disagree. wearingit had a good point, until he took it too far and accused John of having a side. I’m not sure there is sufficient evidence that John is on Trump’s side.

            1. Take it all back. John has flown off the handle and accused me of being a liberal troll just because I said unflattering things about Trump.

              I always thought of John as being better than that, but guess not. Disappointed.

            2. The only point wearingaduncecap ever makes is whining about how unfair it is that Republicans are getting away with the same shit that Democrats have been getting away with.

        3. “””Once again whataboutism proving that you don’t give a damn about the law at all- but rather just use whatever to defend your “side.”


          Funny you think that’s pathetic. You demonstrating not giving a damn about the law when you give Hillary a pass.

          1. wearingit didn’t bring up Hillary. John did.

            How do you have any idea what wearingit thinks about Hillary?

            1. John did bring up Hillary. But wearingit called that whataboutism.

              “”How do you have any idea what wearingit thinks about Hillary?””

              Wearingit is tipping his hand when he cried whataboutism instead of acknowledging that Hillary’s deletion of emails are a real problem.

              1. Why should wearingit agree to go off on a tangent and discuss Hillary Clinton when he’s in the middle of a discussion about the Trump impeachment inquiry.

                1. Sure it was wrong for Hillary, and it’s wrong for Trump. How far off tangent do you think that is?

                  1. It’s exactly what wearingit called it: “whataboutism”.

                    It’s as simple as something we should have all learned in kindergarten. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We were discussing whether Trump has done something impeachable; that Hillary Clinton may have done wrong things is going off on a digression.

                    1. There was no whataboutism because John was not in a discussion about Trump with his reply, nor was the comment used in a two wrong things context.

                    2. What do you mean he wasn’t in a discussion about Trump’s impeachment? The first comment in the thread was clearly referring to ENB’s post today, which was about Trump’s impeachment.

                2. The discussion wasn’t about Trump.

                  John replied to
                  “Seems ENB is taking the same position as Neera Tanden, which is odd given that this is a libertarian website.

                  Guilty people obstruct. Innocent people cooperate.

                  John replied with the comment about Hillary and her emails. John comment is not about Trump but about Guilty people obstructing.

                  1. The context was clearly: “Seems ENB is taking the same position [in the context of speaking about Trump’s impeachment inquiry] as Neera Tanden, …”

                  2. So, John’s point is that Trump is obstructing just like Hillary did?

      4. Losers who will never hold a public office again.

    2. ENB is more libertarian than the Trump Trash that infests this comment section.

      1. Thank god, the white knight is here to stick up for ENB and the FBI

      2. No one here is going to trade child porn with you Shreek. Forget it.

      3. ENB’s bag is blabbering on about “sex workers”. Maybe that’s why she’s all in on Nancy and the democratix. They gonna fuck you good.

      4. In fairness, the worst offender, loveconstitution1789, ain’t present here today.

    3. “this is a libertarian website”

      I come here every day hoping it returns to one.

      But today I came here and read that ENB thinks you should let the FBI search your house if you have nothing to hide.

      So. Much. Libertarian-ing

      1. The hilarious thing here is that, honestly, a Libertarian should be standing back and laughing at the kids playing like adults here.

        This is a political game. There is no one 100% in the right or wrong here. There is no black or white principle here. This is a bunch of messy sausage making in an inherently political process.

        To be sure, there is plenty to talk about WRT actual actions Trump has done- some have been more or less libertarian than others. But to try and analyze the byzantine kabuki chess of the lower chamber and come up with who is “right” here is to just signal your politics.

        1. If you want to impeach him for war crimes then go ahead. There’s plenty there. But then they’d also have to go after their brown god Obama.

          But if we’re going to sit back and watch Trump Season 3, I’m going to cheer on the guy who makes the establishment look like a bunch of clowns. Beltway progressives (and neo-cons) are far and away the most insufferable assholes in the game, their beating is long overdue.

        2. Agreed. I don’t see how a “true” libertarian could get too worked up about defending the Democrats or the Republicans.

      2. If you’ve got nothing to hide….amirite?

      3. Where did ENB say that?

    4. ENB didn’t say that. You are putting words in her mouth.

    5. I mean, the WH legal counsel’s argument is pretty nonsensical. I think characterizing that desperate document as a tantrum is reasonable. I agree that he isn’t compelled to cooperate with the inquiry (until he’s supoenaed, at least, which seems to have happened already). But the House is free to vote on impeachment in whatever fashion it likes, on whatever evidence it deems relevant.

  11. “This sets a bad precedent, even if the House is overreacting about Ukraine.”

    Ugh. Really?

    No a bad precedent is the majority party of the House undertaking a bunch of demands for information without ever having a formal vote on it. They are claiming to have subpoena power, but not using the traditional powers that happen via a vote. And why? Because doing so would allow the minority party to participate in that process.

    For crying out loud, I get that ENB does not like Trump, but she COULD just take a minute to consider the devil’s advocate position here. Rather than rushing out to find lawyers who agree with her, she could go try to find the actual reasoning of people on the other side of the spectrum. Instead, it is “Wow, Dems are doing something that has never ever been done before, but since these leftist lawyers say it is ok, works for me. Case settled. Er go, TEMPER TANTRUM!”


    I have a new respect for Tim Duncan and Kwai Leonard and the other players who were a part of the great Spurs teams. They won all of those titles with a coach who appears to be one of the dumbest human beings on earth. Here are his remarks on the whole China thing

    I guess I can go at it this way. Adam is a very progressive leader. We all remember how he handled the situation with the former owner of the Clippers. It made everybody proud because it was the right thing to do. A couple of years ago, I was walking the streets in New York City during the gay pride parade. I turned around and here comes a float, and Adam is standing on a float with a big sign in support of LGBTQ. And I felt great again, just like I did with the Clipper deal.

    “He came out strongly for freedom of speech (today). I felt great again. He’s been a heck of a leader in that respect and very courageous. Then you compare it to what we’ve had to live through the past three years, it’s a big difference. A big gap there, leadership-wise and courage-wise. It wasn’t easy for him to say. He said that in an environment fraught with possible economic peril. But he sided with the principles that we all hold dearly, or most of us did until the last three years. I’m thrilled with what he said. The courage and leadership displayed is off the charts by comparison.

    “We’ve all talked about or heard about all the talking heads have and everybody for the last three years, ‘What kind of country do you want to be? Who are we? Where do we want to go?’ Adam said something that helps you understand what direction you need to go in, rather than the cowardice of not being able to respond to something of the murder of Mr. (Jamal) Khashoggi. There are many, many incidents like that where leadership and courage mean nothing. It’s all about personal aggrandizement. I was thrilled.”

    The merits of the NBA’s behavior aside, what the hell is that nonsense even supposed to mean?

    1. Stockholm Syndrome.

      1. I haven’t seen the video. Maybe he was blinking “SOS” in Morse code while he was saying it.

        1. So, according to him, a “Muslim ban” is bad but Muslim GENOCIDE is peachy keen and progressive.

          Because that is what China is doing.

        2. Popovich reminds me a lot of Cato the Younger–a supposedly principled individual defending a puerile, corrupt institution to the death solely out of hatred for a single individual.

          1. Yep.
            Cato was a bitch

    2. Says the guy who drove the NBA’s best player to sit out an entire year then go win a championship for fn Toronto

      1. i used to think Leonard was a flake. But, this has made me reconsider that. Leonard knew something the rest of us didn’t until now.

    3. Holy shit this actually angers me. Quite the faux-intellectual asshole in the head.

      Silver is a leader for sucking commie China talk?

      The hypocrisy of NBA personalities is astonishing in its arrogance and breathtaking in their ignorance.

      Fucken clown world.

      1. commie China cock.

        1. Why are people in the comments saying he came out in favour of free speech?

          The NBA’s initial response was to condemn the guy with the Rockets and proceeded to suck China dick. Same with the Nets owner and his bull shit comments. Like we know how 1.4 billion Chinese feel since, you know, they’re speech is suppressed.

  13. Don’t tempt me. Do your job.

    If Trump actually manages to goad Hillary into running, the Democrats will completely blow themselves up.

    No way that Warren, Biden, Gabbard, or Buttigieg do anything other than put Hillary on blast for waltzing in at the last minute. Sanders is a bitch jobber and will squawk for a bit before falling in line like a good soldier, but the others are going to blow their stacks. Especially Biden, who gracefully deferred to her in 2016 even though he would have probably won in a walk.


    1. It’s very likely that at this point Hilary’s Parkinsonism has worsened to the point that her running would be impossible. It’s a progressive condition.

    2. The Democrats don’t seem to have a good hand to play, Hillary or not.

  14. Don’t tempt me.

    Guess who Trump will definitely be tweeting at all week. But I guess she is a believer in 3rd times a charm.

    1. Why not, it eventually worked out for Nixon…

      1. Is that how we finally get it to where we won’t have a Clinton to kick around anymore? Because if that is the case, I may have to re-evaluate my stance on voting for her.

        1. It seems the aforementioned Nixon impeachment was the result of Nixon being generally unpopular, but Clinton wasn’t a very popular woman either so there is a world where Hillary Clinton would have been elected but subsequently impeached.

          Lord knows Hillary is just about as paranoid and bizarre as Nixon was and being a paranoid guy is what actually got Nixon out of office. He believed he had to cheat to win, and I’m pretty sure Hillary is the same way. There was a vast right wing conspiracy against her and her husband, don’t you know. It’s why she had to avoid all those FOIA requests.

    2. It’s always appeared to me that Hillary has a staffer handle her Tweets, so I wonder if she is even the person who posted that.

  15. Can’t wait for all the sycophants to yet again defend their dear leader. It’s ok if he’s corrupt to root out corruption (of which he does on a daily basis for no good reason), it’s ok if he asks foreign countries for interference on political rivals, and it’s ok that he decides what is and isn’t Congress’s position of power.

    Want to find someone dumber than Trump? Just ask if they support him.

    1. Yes it is okay for the President to ask for cooperation from other countries in investigating corruption. That is how it is supposed to work you half wit.

    2. If Trump wins in 2020, please kill yourself so your misery doesn’t infect the rest of humanity.

    3. You misspelled “colluded with Russians”

      oh wait, that was Trump Season 2… my bad. You’ll surely get him this time!

      1. The walls are closing in!

    4. For years, libertarians were derided as just “Republicans who smoke pot”.

      Now, it seems, the libertarians around here are just “Republicans who smoke pot and are anti-war”.

      But, in the end, still Republicans.

      1. If being a Republican who smokes pot is derision toward Libertarians, than what would we call Reason magazine to be derisive?

        My Answer: Libertarian.

        1. I think Reason Magazine presents a more balanced view of libertarian thought, which irks the right-wingers around here to no end.

          It’s not just the Milton Friedman purely academic libertarianism, it’s not just the Murray Rothbard “fuck the state” libertarianism, it’s not just the Ron Paul “libertarians who just conveniently vote for Republicans 99% of the time” libertarianism, it brings voice to all of those views to one degree or another.

          1. I think Reason is a more balanced view of left wing politics than most other outlets, but that’s about all I can say for them. By today’s standards I guess that’s centrist.

          2. “”which irks the right-wingers around here to no end.”‘

            You probably think many non-right-wingers are right-wingers on this site.

    5. I would love for our “libertarians” around here, who spend all day every day defending Trump and bashing Democrats, to come up with even three issues that would be absolute deal-breakers for them when it comes to siding with Team Red. Are there even three issues for which they would say “That’s it, Republicans have gone too far this time, there is no way I can continue to support them”? Even further, are there any issues whatsoever for which they will say “That’s it, Republicans have not just gone too far, but are actually dangerous, and I will vote for Democrats in order to stop the Republican recklessness”?

      I don’t think there are any in that last category, frankly. They are Republicans who smoke pot and hate war, and will side with Team Red 99% of the time.

      1. 1. Medicare for all
        2. Open borders without welfare reform
        3. Green New Deal

        “I will vote for Democrats in order to stop the Republican recklessness”…. oh, wait

      2. “Republicans who smoke pot and hate war”

        As opposed to democrats who now love war because Trump is trying to pull out troops?

        Until another party shows up I don’t see the point. Nick Sarwark is a complete and utter embarrassment and a beltway progressive, but I repeat myself

        1. So there is absolutely no issue for you that you think Republicans could go way too far and would justify a vote for Democrats in order to stop Republican perfidy. Got it.

          The GOP has your vote in its back pocket.

          1. 1. Medicare for all
            2. Open borders without welfare reform
            3. Green New Deal

            and 4. Attacking the second amendment

            1. A Guide to Progressivism:

              Step 1: Define the non-progressive position as ‘recklessness’ in all cases regardless of merit.

              Step 2: Ignore all recklessness of a far higher magnitude in the opposition party you control.

              Step 3: Say you aren’t a partisan and are above the political fray while supporting progressive claims as the baseline truth in every discussion.

              Step 4: Moralize and emote as much as possible. Reject all claims based on reason, unless they agree with your current position.

              Remember, Comrade: If it feels good to you in particular, it must therefore be good for everyone. If someone disagrees, it’s because they are nefarious plotters against the common good!

              1. “A Guide to Progressivism:”

                What you meant is, “A Guide to People I Don’t Like”

                You don’t think non-progressives are capable of doing the things that you describe?

      3. Maybe more people are willing to side with Republicans now because they didn’t decide to take a headfirst dive into the deep end of the fucking loony pool like Democrats did. More and more the Democrats are starting to make me think of 1984.

      4. The only theme I see from the people you seem pissed off about is that they hate the idea that a bureaucracy attempted to overthrow an elected official, and that Reason continues to play stupid about it.

        There’s plenty to disagree on, but if you can’t see that obvious reality then I can’t help you

    6. Hey Psychopants, Hillary’s colostomy bag ain’t gonna change itself. Chop chop.

    7. I think John (and Trump) might be right about Congress not following the precedent for impeachment process.

      On the other hand, I can’t get how anyone can be anything but embarrassed to ever have been a Trump supporter after seeing his “great and unmatched wisdom” tweet.

      1. Maybe you should sit the next few plays out, Mike.
        Don’t embarrass yourself further

        1. So, you are fine with what Trump posted about his “great and unmatched wisdom”?

          1. Nardz is fine with whatever makes libruls cry.

  16. …the House’s impeachment inquiry “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.”

    Congress is so out of practice with its duty on checks and balances that when they try it, for whatever partisan reasons, it seems weird.

    1. Yeah, the number of people flipping out over this don’t seem to recall how the Clinton pre-impeachment hearings and supoenas went. Personally I expect the same outcome, eventual impeachment with no chance of removal. It’s possible they’ll demur on the impeachment, even, because the blue team thinks (probably correctly) that this will hurt them in moderate districts. I also think that if by some miracle they did succeed in removing him the blowback would be ten times worse for them. All in all, it’s another political tale played by idiots, full of sound bites and fury, signifying nothing (but a bigger government).

  17. Mr. President, you are not above the law. You will be held accountable.

    Ignore all evidence of the past decade to the contrary.

    1. Past 2 decades but whose counting.

  18. I think that Crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race to try and steal it away from Uber Left Elizabeth Warren. Only one condition. The Crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors including how & why she deleted 33,000 Emails AFTER getting “C” Subpoena!

    Hilarious – we have a troll is a President! He’s not wrong, damn that guy tweets more than a 16 year old girl with tourette’s!

    1. He’s not wrong. But Hillary fans will never believe Hillary is wrong. If Trump did the same thing it would be an offense worth of removing him from office.

      1. I so badly want Trump Season 5 or 6 to include a private Trump server, with classified information, that goes missing or is erased.

        1. He could also sell political access for bribes (oops; “contributions to my foundation!”)

        2. I hear ya, but the “But her Emails” crowd will not see the hypocrisy.

      2. Trump is not wrong, but, as Conchfritters said, Trump IS a troll.

    2. Nothing he says in that tweet is untrue. The only reason the media and the Democrats get so angry about it is that the truth is to them what holy water is to a vampire.

      1. I don’t disagree, I just think it’s the style that shocks most people, over the substance. We have literally never had a President who communicates like this. And I am sure that it’s his style that endears many of his supporters to him. But it’s also the reason why many people who otherwise agree with most of what he supports think he’s a fucking douche bag, and would rather stay at home. 11,000 tweets since Inauguration Day?? Holy shit!

        1. We have literally never had a President who communicates like this.

          Andrew Jackson was pretty notorious for shit-talking his enemies. Trump doesn’t have his portrait hanging up in the Oval Office for no reason.

          1. Trump is a 21st Century Jackson in many ways.

          2. Not to mention FDR’s ‘fireside chats’ were looked on much like Trump’s use of Twitter today.

            Politicians seem to get edgy when a President uses new technology to bypass the media for some reason.

            1. Some day, some historian is going to have to spend months doing nothing but reading those tweets trying to figure out what was going on and what he meant. God, talk about a terrible job.

              1. That would be my dream job, actually. Future Historian, that is.

            2. Also if you count the Adams and Jefferson backed newspapers of the day as the Twitter of old, they were notorious for putting out all kinds of unseemly vitriol.

              1. Unseemly vitriol is all American news and politics has ever been.

                They just knew more words back then so it sounded more betterer.

                1. Once Washington left office and the real politics started, the Founders fought like wild animals. They said things about each other that would make Trump and Pelosi blush.

                  If there is a dumber idea than that politics are somehow more course and dirtier today than in the past, I am hard pressed to think of it.

                  1. They literally shot in each other in duels on occasion, so yeah. That tracks. I wish they still did sometimes. It would be more honest.

                    1. It is amazing that Jefferson and Adams never decided to settle it with pistols at ten paces.

                    2. Too vulgar for Jefferson and Adams. Even in their day, dueling was considered redneck by refined men.

  19. “”The committee wrote that IRA social media disinformation efforts were part of a “broader, sophisticated, and ongoing information warfare campaign designed to sow discord in American politics and society,” and noted that IRA activity involved in spreading malicious content on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube increased after Election Day 2016.””

    The intent is to sow discord. We are all being played as fools. The Trump haters are doing more to help the Russians with that objective than anyone else. The hate towards Trump is exactly what the Russians wanted. They increase their campaign after he was elected. They wanted Trump to win because they know it would be easy to manipulate the American people towards hate with him in office. That’s the benefit to the Russians. It’s not that Trump will somehow enrich them or do their bidding. They don’t need Trump for that.

    1. The best defense to the Russian propaganda is to step back, quit hating, and not be manipulated by social media.

    2. The Russians want a divided country and a weak President. But the media and the Democrats don’t give a shit about the country. They just want power and revenge.

      1. “”They just want power and revenge.””

        Even if it means the Russians win.

    3. Russia is a red herring.
      The discord is entirely on progressives and their infantile, totalitarian desires

      1. I agree. At best they’re playing a bit part.

      2. Red Herring is Lizzie Warren’s birth name. Look it up.

  20. The House can either choose to impeach the president based on what it knows or can discover without the president’s cooperation, or it can move on.

    There will be no coup cooperation. NO COUPERATION!

    1. +1 for pun.
      +1 in agreement.

  21. The FBI’s use of a controversial foreign surveillance tool violated Americans’ constitutional privacy rights, FISA Court finds, dealing a rare rebuke to U.S. spying activities.

    We have finally wet our fingers and used them to gauge America’s wind.

    1. “”We have finally wet our fingers and used them to gauge America’s wind.””

      I have a suspicion that Snowden isn’t really a person, but is part of a campaign to judge America’s feelings on a very powerful surveillance state. They told us point blank what they were doing, and we acted like we didn’t care. Now they know that can kick it up a few notches without rebellion.

      1. They can “kick it up” as far as they like. Americans today don’t have the balls for rebellion. Only starvation would send them to the barricades.

        1. I dunno, man. I think a lot of the big city progressive types probably wouldn’t, if only because a boot on everyone’s neck is what they’ve always longed for. But I think there’s a pretty substantial contingent of americans who’d surprise you. I doubt they’re gonna be the first to revolt, but all it takes is a few of the real nuts to start a fire that the rest can start pitching their local government onto.

  22. The areas tech touches (televisions, software, phones) have experienced hyperdeflation.

    The areas subsidized or regulated by the state (healthcare, education) have experienced real price increases.

    Whip interference (in the markets) now!

  23. …suggesting that Democratic voters aren’t looking for an Obama re-run.

    Michelle could always take a crack at it.

    1. I’m kinda surprised the Democratic Party hasn’t gone with Chelsea.

  24. US State Dept. announces visa restrictions on Chinese government and Communist Party officials “who are believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, the detention or abuse of Uighurs, Kazakhs, or other members of Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, China.”

    State is hoping the Uighurs, Kazakhs and other members of Muslim minority groups in China can be persuaded to replace the Kurds on America’s front lines.

  25. The Supreme Court won’t consider an appeal of a Section 230 case involving the app Grindr.

    Swipe left.

  26. The executive branch is coordinate, not subordinate, to the legislative branch.

    There is nothing in the Constitution, a document enshrining limited positive rights granted to the federal branches, which imbues the House of Representatives with a superseding power to compel executive participation in an “impeachment inquiry” as a predicate to passing formal articles of impeachment.

    Although impeachment is clearly a political, not a criminal process, what Democrats are proposing is something akin to a prosecutor compelling an individual suspected of having committed a crime to submit evidence against himself which will then be used in the drafting of an indictment. Just as a prosecutor cannot compel a suspect to testify or submit evidence against himself (in other words, to cooperate in his own prosecution), the House should not be presumed to have the power to demand such cooperation from the executive branch in the pursuit of impeachment.

    The more important question, however, is what process, if any, is available to resolve these disputes. If impeachment is a purely political mechanism – and, as Democrats argue, not strictly a legal process and not strictly a criminal process – then the judicial branch cannot resolve conflicts arising between the executive and legislative branches. The disputes over the subpoenas, therefore, are non-justiciable political questions.

    In short, by pigeonholing the impeachment process into a legal grey zone, House Democrats have only magnified their impotence. Certainly, they can hold the Trump administration in contempt, but cannot plausibly expect the administration to prosecute its own subordinate officers.

    If the Democrats are serious about impeachment, they should do what the Constitution empower them to do as a majority in the House – that is, vote upon articles of impeachment. Anything short of that is nothing more than hot air.

    1. If the Democrats are serious about impeachment, they should do what the Constitution empower them to do as a majority in the House – that is, vote upon articles of impeachment. Anything short of that is nothing more than hot air.

      They are not going to do that because they know it is a loser and no one is buying it. They are in this case a victim of their retarded base who have been fed bullshit for three years.

      1. Amen.

    2. Not to mention, they are requesting priveleged information on private discussions with world leaders that they know will be leaked and disseminated to the press. That has a direct affect on the faith and trust our allies have in conducting foreign policy with the US.

      1. That is correct. This halfhearted impeachment push, or putsch (depending on one’s perspective), is effectively an attempt to “criminalize” disagreements with the executive branch over foreign policy.

        This has the potential to be very detrimental if, moving forward, our allies and other cooperating nations begin operating with the understanding that negotiating or establishing relations with the United States will regularly result in the launching of impeachment proceedings, or other investigative processes, during the course of which sensitive information shared with the expectation of confidentiality will be aired for the whole world to see.

        Cooperation among sovereign nations cannot exist without constancy and reliability. The Democrats position, if permitted to come to fruition, would cripple the United States in its dealings with other states and world leaders.

        1. “The Democrats position, if permitted to come to fruition, would cripple the United States”

          No need to go on

    3. It’s quite clear that Congress has oversight powers into the behavior of the executive branch. To claim that being compelled to turn over information about the operation of the government and its agents is tantamount to self-incrimination is as absurd as it is revealing.

      If Congress was attempting to supoena the orange in chief himself to testify about how he ran someone over while driving his personal car drunk, he’d easily defeat that on 5th amendment grounds. But the House has a clear constitutional grant to require the federal government to submit whatever records and testimony they require of it regarding its operations.

  27. More details on Russian influence attempts in a bipartisan Senate report.

    More Trump with Jesus guiding his hand memes?

  28. Don’t tempt me. Do your job.

    I wonder what her definition of that job is and how it differs from Trump’s.

  29. Pelosi has responded with a warning: … “You will be held accountable.”

    “I, of course, will not be.”

  30. “”But “if this president can simply issue a blanket refusal to cooperate with any congressional oversight of executive branch activities, then Congress should expect that future presidents will try to build on that example.””‘

    Holder refusing to comply with oversight regarding the fast and furious operation is an example which Trump is building upon.

    Should Trump build upon Obama’s pen and phone tactics too?

    When this was happening I was telling people that the next president is the benefactor of the BS the Obama admin was doing. This is part of the reason establishment dems are thinking twice about how hard they will actually go after Trump. They will talk the talk, but doing the walk may reduce the bulllshit a future democrat president can get away with.

    1. “When this was happening I was telling people that the next president is the benefactor of the BS the Obama admin was doing.”

      Just wait for the private Trump server. Heads are going to explode

      1. In his personal bathroom at Mar-a-Largo

        1. It’s gold plated.

  31. “Trump won’t comply with impeachment inquiry requests . . . . For the record, impeachment is one of the rare things the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to do, doling out to the House “the sole power” to start impeachment inquiries and to the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” It does not, however, specify what exactly this should look like.”

    Several days ago, I wrote that if I were Trump’s adviser, I’d tell him not to comply with the investigation until the House goes on the record for impeachment.

    The most obvious reasons why Pelosi hasn’t called for impeachment is because 1) she may not have the votes and 2) she fears that making Democrats in swing districts go on the record for impeaching Trump will threaten Democrat control of the House come November of 2020. Because of that, Pelosi won’t actually hold a vote on impeachment until the Democrats have either dredged up enough evidence or have no other choice. In order to stop Pelosi from dragging this out indefinitely, Trump should refuse to cooperate with the investigation until Pelosi formally calls a vote and makes every Democrat in a swing district go on the record for or against impeachment.

    From a constitutional perspective, executive privilege is often abused, but just like anything else, just because something can be abused doesn’t mean it’s being abused every time it’s used. In fact, executive privilege is an important aspect of the separation of powers. If the framers had wanted to put the House of Representatives in charge of diplomacy (or overseeing the president’s interactions with foreign leaders), then it would have done so. Instead, they chose to give that power to the President.

    If the House wants to oversee or dismiss the President because they disapprove of his interactions with a foreign leader, then they can do so through the impeachment process, but the impeachment process requires more than the Speaker of the House declaring that there’s an impeachment investigation going on. Once the House holds a vote on an impeachment bill, and a majority of Representatives vote for it, the president is compelled by the Constitution to cooperate with that proceeding.

    Until a majority in House votes to impeach the president, there is no impeachment proceeding. Incidentally, the Constitution also doesn’t specify that they need actual evidence in order to hold a vote in the House on whether to impeach the president, which cuts both ways. On the one hand, they don’t need evidence in order to impeach the president and send his trial to the Senate. On the other hand, if they can’t muster the courage to impeach the president with the evidence they have, then that’s a great reason not to impeach the president.

    Incidentally, if they don’t like the text of the Constitution, there’s a way to change that, but that process also requires politicians to go on the record with their votes. Politicians not being allowed to inflict their will on us without going on the record with their votes is a feature–not a bug–and I have no sympathy for authoritarians like Nancy Pelosi calling Donald Trump a dictator because he won’t bow to her authority without her even being willing to go on the record and exercising the legitimate power she’s given in the Constitution.

    It’s time to take a vote, Nancy.

    1. There is a great saying that in politics if it takes you more than 30 seconds to explain your position you have lost. This is a perfect example of that maxim. Trump’s position is that if you want to impeach men have a vote and do so. The Democrats’ position is some vague list of reasons why they need to have an “inquiry” whatever that is and can’t do that or something.

      It is obvious who is going to win that fight with the public. The Democrats are in a hell of a bind. Vote on impeachment and they risk losing the vote or winning it at the cost of destroying their majority. Not vote on impeachment and the President tells them to fuck off and the country just ignores the whole thing while their lunatic base gets angrier and angrier nothing has happened.

      1. I’d be the biggest hypocrite in the world if I said no one should need more than 30 second to make a valid point, but, yeah, it comes down to what you said.

        1) Pelosi is reluctant to take a vote on the evidence we have because she fears the political repercussions at the ballot box.

        This is the way the impeachment process is designed. If you can’t get more than 50% of the House to vote for impeachment, then there shouldn’t be an impeachment.

        2) The longer this drags on without more evidence, the less people will support the impeachment.

        Without more evidence, there will not be more support for impeachment in the future than there is right now, and that support is likely to start eroding by the day without new evidence.

        3) Pelosi is between a rock and a hard place. If she thought holding a vote were a winning move, she’d have already brought it to the floor. If she can’t drum up more “evidence” by getting the Trump administration to testify against itself in her witch hunt, the support for Democrats in swing districts is likely to erode with the support for these allegations.

        It may be in Pelosi’s best interest to call for a vote if Trump won’t cooperate–just to get this issue and the deep blue district radicals like AOC off her back. If there’s any upside to this impeachment proceeding for the Democrats in swing districts, it’s probably the unintentional benefit of distracting voters from the crazy ass, socialist shit the Democrat candidates for president are saying about the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

        1. That is true Ken. If the Democrats were not talking about impeachment, they would be talking about how they want to ban everyone’s cars, control what we can eat, and tax everyone to give welfare and free healthcare to anyone who wants to come over the border. So maybe Pelosi is smarter than I give her credit for being.

    2. “It’s time to take a vote, Nancy.”

      The longer they drag this investigation out, the more rope Trump will furnish. Last week he was appealing to China for help in his re-election. Pure gold. Another whistleblower has appeared. Pure gold. Nancy doesn’t need Trump’s cooperation, his obstinacy will do just as well.

      1. Another whistle blower who claims to know something about a conversation that is already public and who is so credible the Democrats won’t even tell the public who they are.

        Yeah, that is going to convince so many people. Trump must have done something wonderful in a previous life to be blessed with enemies as stupid as you people are.

        1. ” the Democrats won’t even tell the public who they are. ”

          If the Democrats won’t tell, maybe the Chinese will. Trump should ask them for help.

          1. Why would he? It is not like anyone believes this nonsense.

            1. “Why would he?”

              He has to say something.

      2. Is this the beginning of the end, trueman?

      3. So you’re saying that Trump will hang Nancy on a rope of gold? Very insightful.

      4. “”the more rope Trump will furnish.””

        What are you going to do with eight years of rope?

  32. “”The most obvious reasons why Pelosi hasn’t called for impeachment is because 1) she may not have the votes and 2) she fears that making Democrats in swing districts go on the record for impeaching Trump will threaten Democrat control of the House come November of 2020.””

    3) Current accusations play well in the media, but would not hold up well under cross examination.

  33. So President Trump is accused of….asking a foreign state to reopen a criminsl investifation.

    This is wrong because…

    1. It’s wrong because… IT WAS HER TURN! You’re just not keeping up, are you?

      Because sleeping with an impeached serial sexual harasser and president ENTITLES a woman to the presidency. It really does. Just ask Hillary.

  34. “Once the House holds a vote on an impeachment bill, and a majority of Representatives vote for it, the president is compelled by the Constitution to cooperate with that proceeding.”

    Is that actually the case? I’ve been plumbing this issue for quite some time, but I have never been able to uncover any settled authority, or Constitutional mandate, that requires the executive branch to cooperate with a House impeachment “inquiry” or in any subsequent process once articles of impeachment are passed.

    Based on my understanding, the executive branch does not have to do anything.

    1. No it is not the case. If Trump refused to cooperate, the only remedy is Impeachment. And if there was not the votes in the Senate to remove him from office, then there would be no remedy.

      1. That is certainly my understanding. It may be politically risky not to cooperate – however, if the President has the support of the senate, and the chances of a conviction are slim, then there isn’t much to be done in the event of executive non-compliance. Presidential term limits and elections exist for a reason.

        1. Trump has never cooperated and he never will no matter if the Democrats were to acquiesce to his baseless demands. You might be a fucking moron with the awareness of a lizard but I’m not and I understand where we are and where we’ve been. Here’s what is going to happen. If Trump loses his election the new AG is going to indict the fuck out of this administration. If Trump wins his election will then maybe the statute of limitations bails him out or maybe not.

          1. I don’t understand why you had to call me a “fucking moron” in the process of making a point with which I would otherwise agree.

            1. He called you a fucking moron because he is an idiot troll with nothing to add.

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          2. Trump’s demands are entirely reasonable: hold a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry

            Here’s what is going to happen. If Trump loses his election the new AG is going to indict the fuck out of this administration.

            IOW, if Trump loses this election, Democrats are going to destroy this country and turn it into a socialist police state. In that case, everybody with the means to leave is best advised to leave. Monaco is pretty nice, so is Liechtenstein. Or one of the Carribean nations.

            1. The Democrats plan to throw all of their political opponents in jail and punish everyone who voted for them if they ever take power. But it is Trump who is destroying the Republic.

          3. ” I understand where we are and where we’ve been.”


          4. “” If Trump loses his election the new AG is going to indict the fuck out of this administration. “”

            Spoiler alert. New admins usually drop the idea when they get elected. Remember how Obama’s admin indicted the fuck out of the Bush admin?

    2. “Based on my understanding, the executive branch does not have to do anything.”

      Point taken. I suspect the President might still be compelled to comply with a subpoena, and Bill Clinton, certainly, at least felt compelled to testify in court.

      “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”

      —-Bill Clinton on the witness stand

      Regardless, I hope my point is still getting across–that if the president isn’t compelled to comply with an actual impeachment proceeding, he certainly isn’t compelled to comply with an impeachment proceeding that hasn’t even been initiated yet.

      1. I agree that he’s not legally bound to comply with anything short of a subpoena prior to the actual articles of impeachment getting voted through the House. My understanding was that this particular statement was released in response to a subpoena, however. Is it? I could’ve sworn I’d seen a prior mention of some documents related to this being subpoenaed. While he can claim executive privilege for stuff like meeting notes with his cabinet members and such, conversations with foreign ambassadors or heads of state are definitely not protected by executive privilege, and that is what they’re after in the heart of this.

  35. Bankrupt Donnie calls the Bushpig’s Middle East policy “the worst decision ever made”.


    How I recall all the GOP bootlickers defending Bush’s Iraq.Middle East policies.

    Now they love the Dotard.

    1. Did Trump’s decision to leave Syria interrupt your supply of child porn or something?

    2. “…Bankrupt Donnie…”

      Lefty ‘tards must spend half their lives devising ‘clever’ nick-names not even their mommies find amusing.

      1. ‘Donnie bankrupt’ rolls off the tongue easier. Mommies find it more amusing.

        1. You want to bankrupt and imprison anyone who dares object to your political agenda. You are a real libertarian like that.

  36. There is a legal definition of whistleblower and the term today is being abused. If you hear a rumor and spread it, you are a gossip. Sooner or later we will find out who the gossips are. To find out if they are whistleblowers all the press has to do is ask one question. Why is CIA still on Windows which half the teenagers worldwide can hack? If they answer, I take it back. They really are whistleblowers. If they don’t, they are agents on a mission.
    The House is trying to become a law enforcement agency. I read the subpoenas. What a joke. These are speeches disguised as subpoenas.
    Of course they weren’t written to the people they were aimed at, they are grandstanding and showing off. More proof the Democrats have not been able to leave 20th century propaganda behind. IT’S THE COMPUTER AGE.
    Me? I would file a “declaratory judgement” to have the courts decide if Democrats can demand anything from an inquiry that doesn’t exist.
    Pursuant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, we are hereby transmitting a subpoena that compels you to produce documents set forth in the accompanying schedule by October 18, 2019.
    The Committees are investigating the extent to which President Trump jeopardized national security by pressing Ukraine to interfere with our 2020 election and by withholding security assistance provided by congress to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression, as well as any efforts to cover up these matters.
    * * *
    The Committees are investigating the extent to which President Trump jeopardized national security by pressing Ukraine to interfere with our 2020 election and by withholding security assistance provided by congress to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression, as well as any efforts to cover up these matters.
    Folks the speaker of the house holding a press conference is not an impeachment inquiry. You don’t go fishing unless you have nothing ( and are operating under rumors. Which is exactly what these prove, as I have been saying). Unlike Mueller, the House can’t go looking for reasons to impeach. For all the demands the past 2 /12 years for impeachment without having any reason for it is frankly, a sign of rage without strategy, bullying without cause, THEY HAD 2 1/2 YEARS TO COMPILE REASONS TO IMPEACH. THEY DEMANDED IT! But now they want to find a reason? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

    1. Slightly off topic:

      Anyone remember the Awans?
      Whatever happened to those guys?
      Back in Pakistan perhaps

  37. “Mr. President, you are not above the law. You will be held accountable.”

    Please. Pelosi is posturing just like Trump is. It’s all theater and we all know it.

    1. It’s not theater. It’s real. Trump will be indicted for this scheme.

      1. Hahahahahahaha

      2. Just like Hilary got locked up!

      3. Even if he were to be impeached, he would not be indicted, ever, for any action undertaken with the office of the president. It’s called absolute immunity, friend. It’s the reason why impeachment exists: otherwise there’d be no way to rid yourself of the criminals prior to election day.

  38. The Turks and their ISIS allies are now attacking the Kurds thanks to Trump. How do we profit from this? The Turks are aligned with the ISIS. Why the hell would we turn over North East Syria to Turkey and ISIS when we could have held it with minimal effort and expense with the help of our Kurdish friends? I don’t understand this.

    1. If you’re all that broken up about it, grab a gun and go over there. The SDF will happily take mercs.

    2. “The Turks and their ISIS allies are now attacking the Kurds thanks to Trump. ”

      It’s tragic and unfortunate. There are numerous OTHER places with tragic and unfortunate problems. We cannot fix all of them.

  39. “Obama is beloved by Democrats, and his 2008 campaign was iconic, so it’s natural that 2020 candidates would try to emulate him. But Harris, Booker, Buttigieg and O’Rourke are at 14 percent combined in national polls, suggesting that Democratic voters aren’t looking for an Obama re-run.

    In some ways, Harris has the same problem that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio had in the 2016 Republican primary, when they (wrongly) thought that the GOP would be excited about nominating a youngish, non-white standard-bearer with a solid conservative record.”

    In 2008, the banking system was a smoldering crater, millions of Americans were staring at foreclosure, and the economy was about to take a terrible hit. Talk about Obama’s charismatic youthfulness should be measured against that backdrop.

    Also of note, there’s this thing called “novelty” and it wears off over time. No one can be the first black president of the U.S. ever again. That barrier can ever benefit from the novelty of breaking that barrier for the first time again.

    1. I said this at the time and I stand by it. People voted for Obama thinking doing so would help race relations in this country. And had Obama been up to the job, it would have. Instead, Obama turned out to be a leftist race baiter and the Democrats incapable of defending him without accusing anyone who criticized him of being a racist. So everything got worse under Obama. As a result, you will not see another black President in our lifetimes. The public isn’t going to vote for another black candidate and face the prospect of every criticism of the President being called racist again.

      1. I think people might still vote for a Republican Black candidate, because we’d need to admit that still hasn’t happened yet. Given how Kanye had everyone flip on him because of Trump, maybe not.

        I’ll admit I know virtually nothing about Kanye West though, so maybe there are other reasons to flip on him and that was the last straw.

        1. My impression of West is that he is nuts. Not nuts in a dangerous or bad way but in that he doesn’t think or act like the rest of the world. I don’t listen to his music, but given his success he is clearly some for of genius and geniuses are often a bit nuts.

          Regardless, you have to give him credit for being his own man. He says what he thinks and doesn’t seem to give a shit what anyone else thinks he should do. That is a quality worthy of respect no matter what you think of his opinions.

    2. Well, we could elect the first straight black president.

      Whaaat? C’mon, y’all were thinkin’ it, I just said it!

      1. So you are telling me that Cory Booker won’t win the White House?

    3. There was also the LONG-STANDING feud between McCain and, you know, the Republican Party. Palin kept a lot of GOP voters from just walking. If McCain had picked Lieberman as he allegedly wanted, it would have been a 50 state blowout.

  40. Let’s do the same math that Nancy Pelosi is doing.

    There are 10 Democrats in the House who haven’t endorsed impeaching Trump yet. Apparently, they’re all representing districts that went for Trump.

    There are 435 seats in the House, so to control the House, the Democrats need 218 of them.

    The Democrats currently hold 235 of them.

    235-218 = 17 seats the Democrats need to keep from flipping to the Republicans if the Democrats want to maintain control of the House.

    If the Democrats lose all ten that were pro-Trump in 2016 because they impeached Trump (and the Republican controlled Senate voted not to remove him), that would take the number of seats the Democrats would need to defend down to seven.

    A seven seat swing in the house could happen because of bad weather. If Republican voters in other swing districts become enraged over the Democrats’ vote to impeach Trump, the Republicans are likely to retake the House.

    That is why Nancy Pelosi hasn’t taken a vote to impeach Trump.

    The main reason she pushed impeachment this far is probably because she feared her own party pushing her out of the Speaker’s chair if she didn’t.

    Everything else is bullshit.

    1. Your analysis is likely correct.

      Note how all of it revolves around “Democrats must hold on to power”, and “Pelosi must hold on to power”. Doing the right thing just never enters the picture.

  41. Dems: “We heard a story that Trump did some bad things on a phone call! WE NEED TO INTERVIEW SOME GUYS TO FIND OUT IF IT’S TRUE!”

    Trump: “You don’t need to interview those guys. I’ll just give you the transcript of the call. See, nothing you heard is true. ”


    Trump: “No. I don’t have to. This is stupid. Go away.”


    1. “You don’t need to interview those guys. I’ll just give you the transcript of the call. See, nothing you heard is true.”
      “But…this confirms everything the whistleblower said. You just gave us evidence against you.”
      “FAKE NEWS!”

  42. ENB’s professional, non-partisan view is to call opposing the unprecedented, partisan, single-party impeachment inquiry based on hearsay reported by a Democratic operative a “tantrum”. Good to know where you stand ENB.

  43. The Constitution also doesn’t say the President has to cooperate with an inquiry.

    1. It’s right next to where it says the 2A only covers muskets.

  44. I like how every single criticism about Trump over the last 3 years has centered its utility for removal of Trump.

    1. The funny thing is that Trump is not an ideological Republican and got elected in no small part because he promised to be a deal maker. Had the Democrats not gone insane and let their angry retard base run the party, they likely could have dealt with Trump and gotten a lot done that they could have never gotten done with another Republican President.

      It is so obvious that the way to handle Trump is to kill him with kindness and reasonableness. Do that and all of his bluster just seems reckless and stupid. The guy is the greatest counterpuncher in the history of politics. So, the last thing you want to do is attack him directly.

      As I keep saying, Trump is the luckiest man alive in his enemies. He is the perfect foil for the sort of angry deranged retard that the typical Democrat has become.

      1. …they likely could have dealt with Trump and gotten a lot done that they could have never gotten done with another Republican President.

        A zillion times this. They don’t want to legislate cooperatively though, they want to rule by fiat. They know their bases agenda is too extreme to be passed cooperatively which is why they moved focus to the executive and judicial branches. They already neutered congress to a large extent over the past 100 years, and now want to solely control the levers of unchecked power they created. And by ‘they’ I mean Progressives in both parties.

        1. I think the Democrats really believed that they would never lose the White House again. After 2010, however, I think they realized the Republicans would still control one or both of the Houses of Congress occasionally.

          So, they spent the last six years of Obama’s administration ceding as much power to the Presidency as possible. The Democrats figured out that a Democratic President could do virtually anything as long as the Democrats either controlled one house or had a large enough minority in the Senate to prevent him from being impeached and removed from office. Time and again Obama told Congress to fuck off and broke the law and there was nothing that the Republicans could do about it. The Obama DOJ was never going to prosecute anyone in the administration. And the Democratic majority or later minority in the Senate was never going to remove Obama or anyone else from office. So what was the remedy? There wasn’t one. This is why they got rid of the filibuster of judges in the Senate. Why not? A Republican was never going to appoint any judges again as they saw it.

          Then Hillary lost. And now they are screwed at least temporarily as Trump undoes everything Obama did and he and McConnell fill the bench with Republican judges.

          1. It’s also worth mentioning that most of the scandals the Trump administration has weathered appear to have ties to the Obama administration prior, which is something that seems to be forgotten in the crush of accusations.

            The construction of Russian collusion appears to have been a product of the Obama administration in conjunction with the Clinton campaign, for example. The ties weren’t well investigated, so we’ll probably never know the truth and those theories will remain firmly in the ‘conspiracy theory’ basket. Biden’s situation is another left over scandal from the Obama administration. Go figure.

            1. And just to say this, I don’t know if I can really lay any blame on Obama specifically either even while it was his administration.

              This is more of a product of our permanent bureaucratic state than it is of any one politician anymore. As long as you’re in line with them, you’re administration ticks along fine. Go against them, and we’re starting to see the results.

      2. It also means that the next Republican President will be “unreasonable, even moreso than Trump was”.

        I love this assumption that Trump is uniquely bad. As if impeachment attempts on Bush weren’t done and progs didn’t go nuts about him regularly.

        1. In all seriousness, Trump IS uniquely bad. He is, quite objectively, crazy as a shithouse rat.

          1. In all seriousness, people who say shit like this sound like lunatics themselves. There is no objective facts to back up such assertions. You don’t like Trump fine. But understand, he is just another President and you are just another partisan American who doesn’t like him. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not 1943, you are not in France, and you are most certainly not in any Resistance. You are just another partisan idiot with an overactive imagination. Grow up and find something else to give you a sense of meaning and self worth because politics is a stupid way to do it.

            1. Actually, I am quite non-partisan. But how can anyone objectively deny that he is boorish, frighteningly friendless and lonely, egocentric, unpredictable in his behavior, not very bright, not very well educated, a liar about his past successes in business.

          2. He is, quite objectively, crazy as a shithouse rat.

            Just as a counterpoint, if this is true what does that say about Democrats and their inability to nail him down? If he’s truly a nutcase, he must be the most savvy nutcase on the planet. A rain-man level of autistic ability when it comes to being crooked.

            At a certain point, you’d need to weigh that opinion versus the evidence at hand. I had to do so, and I came to the conclusion that the endless media narrative had colored my opinion.

            It would be more believable if people tried to sell the ‘evil genius’ angle, but apparently that pill is too large for anyone to swallow so they rely on a universe of lucky breaks to explain things.

            1. Other than talking a lot, he hasn’t actually done that much as President. The Democrats keep pointing at his words, but it’s not clear he is impeachable because he hasn’t actually done many things as President.

              1. This seems evasive on the point of if Trump is actually mentally deficient though. Unless I suppose the implication is that crazy people don’t get much done, but I’m also unsure if that really follows. I guess it depends what kind of mental illness you think Trump has.

                1. I don’t think he is mentally deficient, per se. I think he is amoral, completely unpredictable, subject to fits of rage and paranoia, seems to be unable to form friendships, has delusions of grandeur, is a spoiled brat, etc. but not necessarily mentally deficient.

                  He lies about his business acumen. Truth is he has a long history of f’ing up business deals, and has benefited from eminent domain and other sweetheart deals with local governments (as Reason first wrote about decades ago).

                  1. So he’s not a nice guy, but also not terribly different from the typical person to hold the office either. Perhaps our definition of the word ‘uniquely’ is just as different as our definitions of crazy.

          3. Trump has done a better job than any President since Reagan in the last 50 years.

            I’ll take crazy over inept.

            1. But that’s not a denial that he is crazy (which is what I said).

              1. “Crazy” is a pointless slur.

                The Wright Brothers were “crazy”.

                1. Just saying “crazy” is pointless. But I elaborated in more detail in follow-up comments to make it clear I meant that I think he is crazy in bad ways.

      3. Yeah, I have to agree. If the blue team just kept the focus on issues, especially if they took the time to make sure all of them could spell out their policy briefs clearly and concisely, they’d be able to look like the mythical “adults in the room” compared to the orange gorilla. If they also just straight up ignored his bluster on social media, and talked about the offers they’ve made to the administration to cooperate on legislation, they could’ve cut him off at the knees. Instead they threw real, actual tantrums about nonsense that let him show his base that he was making those guys they hate really mad, which is what they elected him for.

        I mean, realistically I’m glad they didn’t, because I think Trump on the whole was probably a slightly better prospect for liberty than Hillary, provided you don’t have a hispanic accent. But nothing either team has done in the 21st century makes me inclined to award them a vote in any case.

  45. nobody focus-grouped this new Impeachment sitcom it’s boring.

    1. It’s more of a comedy than a documentary. But the laughs are one sided.

  46. I don’t get Reason anymore. This inquiry, so far, is the equivalent of a cop showing up at your door asking to be let inside to search for evidence of… something.

    The committees need to issue actual subpoena’s (not just strongly worded notes), have the courts arbitrate between the legislative right of oversight vs. executive privilege of foreign affairs, and then hold public hearings. Anything less than that is just theater on both sides.

    1. They are not trying to impeach some yahoo federal judge in BFE. They are trying to impeach the President. I don’t think it is much to ask that they only do so after a vote of the full House and in as transparent way as possible. And I don’t think the public outside of the rabid Dem base is going to tolerate them trying to do it in any other way.

      1. Hell, they don’t want anybody to know WHO the whistleblower…who has a professional relationship with at least one Dem candidate for President…IS, but want to use this person as the lynchpin for an impeachment.

        And reading more about Rosenstein and the 25th Amendment BS, fuck was Jeff Sessions an embarrassing choice.

    2. The post everyone is responding to here in the comments consists of Elizabeth Nolan Brown’s words, not some Reason editorial position.

      1. True, but when every post on this blog about this is basically indistinguishable from every other post regardless of the author, an editorial pattern emerges. So far I’ve only seen one that was even close to being a balanced look from a libertarian perspective as opposed to one that could be a carbon copy of an article from Vox.

        1. I believe the only editorial pattern is that Reason allows their staff members to express their personal opinions on the Reason blog.

          The content of the print magazine has a lot more editorial control.

          1. More talking points from another reflexively progressive moron

            1. I’m not a Progressive. You have no evidence for that.

              In fact, I am an impartial libertarian observer and not a supporter of the Democrats or Republicans.

  47. Can’t they impeach Trump without his cooperation?

    1. …or… is this going to turn into another Democrat shit-show where they’ll cry to their TDS base and claim they TRIED to impeach Trump, but he just wouldn’t play ball?

      1. I think that is what is going to happen. Unless there is some kind of seismic shift in public opinion, there is now way the House can vote to impeach without it killing the careers of the freshman reps who won in swing districts to give them they majority. So, they are going to run this shit show for as long as they can to appease their base before they finally give up and say they would have had Trump had it not been for the evil GOP and Fox News or something.

        1. This is one of multiple reasons the so-called impeachment inquiry will never advance further.

          Under existing rules of the House of Representatives, if the House were to vote to start an impeachment investigation (which has not yet happened) it would mean giving the Republican members subpoena power. This would mean all of Spygate and related cases of corruption by Democrats will come out in front of C-SPAN cameras, where the fake news media can no longer pretend it didn’t happen. Even Nancy Pelosi isn’t that stupid, though AOC and her friends may be able to force it to happen anyway.

          1. That is a very good point. But it gets even better than that. If impeachment articles were ever voted out of the House and tried in the Senate, the Republican majority in the Senate would make all the rules of evidence. That means there would be no way they could prevent the President’s defense team from putting on all of the evidence you list and then some.

            This thing is going nowhere.

            1. And all these players would be questioned under oath. No more unnamed sources, no more hearsay. It has to have real weight. Perhaps that’s why the house can’t come up with articles of impeachment. They have to find something that will hold up under cross examination.

              1. And something that will not implicate Democratic criminality. That is a pretty tall order.

            2. Nothing smells like innocence like trying to exclude all evidence.

              1. Exclude all evidence from what specific impeachment hearing?

                1. Trump is going to be impeached. When he does, just like they are doing now, they are going to try exclude evidence. They are already obstructing. Why?

                  1. So you’re accusing Trump of future crimes, got it.

  48. New Quinnipiac NATIONAL poll (counts for the November debate)
    Warren 29%
    Biden 26%
    Sanders 16%
    Buttigieg 4%
    Harris 3%
    Yang 3%
    Everyone else at or below 2 percent

    Why does the Democratic Party still hold state primaries and caucuses when their candidate is chosen by national popular vote? Their candidate is chosen by national popular vote, right? I mean, it would be pretty damn hypocritical of them to assign delegates based on some sort of apportioning process like the (totally undemocratic) Electoral College, wouldn’t it?

    1. Looks like Pelosi has succeeded in removing Biden from frontrunner status; his corruption would have tripped him up big time in the general election.

      Unfortunately, Warren is even less electable.

  49. In hindsight, I kinda wish Romney fought Obama with a FRACTION of the energy he spends fighting his own party.

    1. Same goes for McCain. The last 3 Republican nominees (and it could probably be argued more) have been squishes and poor representatives of conservatism. The difference is that Trump fires off against all of his opponents rather than focusing all of his fire on his own side. Similar to Reason, the focus of Romney and guys like Flake and Amash is against people and actions that are much closer to their stated ideals than the opposition

      1. McCain was the neocon’s dream candidate–a basic bitch Republican who loved warmongering and tax cuts, and tried to accommodate the Democrats on everything else.

        1. And McCain had a female VP as well, who was shredded in full public view by the left. I note none of us were told by the left to respect her because of her genitals, whereas that same trait made Hillary infinity electable by those same people.

          Palin was, of course, something of an idiot but last I checked being a skilled politician wasn’t a prerequisite when considering ‘firsts’ in politics.

          1. Palin attacked the corruption of the GOP in Alaska. How many female Dems have done anything but BATHE in the corruption of the DNC or their state party?

            OK, Harris fucked her way to the top…

            1. So Harris did literally “bathe in the corruption of her state party”. Ewww.

      2. A poor representative of the European style of nativist conservatism you want.

        1. European conservatism is not particularly “nativist”. Conservatives in Europe have traditionally been strongly behind the EU.

          Where do people like you get these idiotic notions from?

  50. Arent grand jury proceedings secret? Seems to me that makes this not at all like a grand jury indictment….

  51. But reality has never stopped Trump or his staff from flinging wild accusations.

    Or you.

    The same lack of specicifity in how Congress should do an impeachment proceeding also applies to how much cooperation the target of an investigation is obligated to provide the investigators. Congress’ authority in this matter is not unlimited.

    That Trump is treating this as a legal proceeding is, IMO, the correct way until procedures are hammered out. Nothing is stopping Congress from investigating, but no subject of an investigation has an obligation to turn over evidence sans some very specific legal requirements.

    As an example, a cop can walk in at any time and ask – even demand – that you turn over records. Without a subpoena that means nothing. You are under no legal obligation to comply. If the cop wants it badly enough, he can go convince a judge to order it. Congress has yet to do this.

    In any case, the standard rule for any investigation – whether its a criminal, civil, or just your boss trying to get at who’s eating the lunches in the staff refrigerator – is ‘shut-up and lawyer-up’.

    Otherwise ENB, I’d be open to an article discussing why Trump should cooperate that isn’t just ‘Trump’s a big doody head’. This is an issue where procedures, requirements, and obligations are totally open. Congress could, AFAIK, just vote right now to remove Trump from office – no evidence of wrongdoing necessary, they just don’t like him.

    1. The same lack of specicifity in how Congress should do an impeachment proceeding also applies to how much cooperation the target of an investigation is obligated to provide the investigators. Congress’ authority in this matter is not unlimited.

      Exactly. In fact, Trump can tell Pelosi to shove her subpoenas where the sun don’t shine, and all Pelosi can do is add that to the articles of impeachment, since she obviously has no good way of enforcing anything. Then it’s up to the Senate if it gets that far.

      Trump can then go before the Senate and say “hey, Senators, Pelosi was running a thoroughly partisan process designed to influence the election, but of course I’m perfectly happy to provide you, dear Senators, with all the information you want”.

      At this point, I think it’s pretty likely that there is no damaging information about Ukraine in regards to Trump, so his non-cooperation is simply a political move, just as the bogus subpoenas themselves.

  52. Harris isn’t doing better because Gabbard completely fucking kneecapped her before she was shoved out of the debates due to not getting enough votes in the DNC’s quite carefully selected polls.

  53. For the record, impeachment is one of the rare things the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to do, doling out to the House “the sole power” to start impeachment inquiries and to the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” It does not, however, specify what exactly this should look like.

    Which is exactly while Trump can also tell Congress to f*ck off when they subpoena him or people from the executive branch. Congress can add that to the charges for impeachment, but that’s all they can do.

    Of course, Congress hasn’t determined the rules for impeachment at all since Congress never voted on the current process. Queen Nancy has decided unilaterally that this is how it’s going to happen. So, Trump is actually refusing requests from Queen Nancy.

  54. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.