Impeachment

New Statement from Checks and Balances on President Trump's Abuse of Office

"We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'"

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

This morning, Checks and Balances released a statement by several founders and co-members of the organization. Both Orin Kerr and I are signatories to the statement, as are several prominent attorneys who served in prior Republican administrations. The full text is reproduced below.

As with prior Checks and Balances statements, this statement represents the views of those who signed the letter and we have all signed in our individual capacities.  The Washington Post has additional comments from several of the signatories here.

Statement from co-founders and additional members of Checks & Balances:

In the past several weeks, it has become clear to any observer of current events that the president is abusing the office of the presidency for personal political objectives. Although new facts are being revealed on a daily basis, the following are undisputed, to date:

1) In a July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine – a summary of which has been released by the White House – the president requested "a favor" in the context of a discussion of Ukrainian security matters. Specifically, immediately after President Zelensky thanked the president "in the area of defense" and indicated a readiness to buy additional armaments consistent with a U.S. defense proposal, President Trump asked for "a favor." The favor was to investigate a baseless theory relating to the 2016 investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. The U.S. president further requested that the Ukrainian president coordinate the requested investigation with both his personal attorney and the Attorney General of the United States, presenting both a blurring of lines between personal legal representation and official U.S. government business, and, the appearance of inappropriate politicization of the Office of the Attorney General. He then requested, additionally, that the Ukrainian government look into allegations relating to his Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, saying "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

2) Between July and September 2019, the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, the (former) State Department Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and the Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, exchanged a series of telephone calls and text messages revealing that U.S. diplomats were involved in negotiating an exchange involving a White House meeting and foreign aid on one hand, and a Ukrainian investigation into a meritless allegation involving former Vice President Joe Biden, on the other hand. The text messages reveal that U.S. diplomats were seeking from President Zelensky an assurance that "he will help [the] investigation" while concurrently negotiating a "visit to Washington" and "security assistance." These circumstances led career Ambassador Taylor to communicate that in his judgment it was "crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." These facts are derived from text messages provided to the House of Representatives in connection with the deposition of former Special Envoy Volker and have been released publicly.

3) On October 3, 2019, the president stood in front of U.S. press cameras outside the White House and said, "China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." The president's statement was broadcast widely.

A president takes the following oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president's oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." These acts, based on what has been revealed to date, are a legitimate basis for an expeditious impeachment investigation, vote in the House of Representatives and potential trial in the Senate. Additional evidence that was detailed in the Special Counsel's Report, related matters of foreign emoluments, and persistent obstructive activities should also inform these proceedings. In addition, given that some of the critical facts under consideration by the Congress have been facilitated by a complaint presented to the Inspector General of the U.S. Intelligence Community, any efforts by U.S. government personnel to inappropriately pressure, intimidate or expose the whistleblower or future whistleblowers who follow the procedures provided by law are contrary to the norms of a society that adheres to the rule of law.

As we said in an April 2019 statement, "free and fair elections, without foreign interference, are at the heart of a healthy democracy." The Special Counsel's report revealed, among other things, that the Trump 2016 campaign was open to and enthusiastic about receiving Russian government-facilitated assistance to gain an advantage in the previous election. The report was not only an exposition, it was a warning. The present circumstances are materially worse: we have not just a political candidate open to receiving foreign assistance to better his chances at winning an election, but a current president openly and privately calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections. These activities, which are factually undisputed, undermine the integrity of our elections, endanger global U.S. security and defense partnerships, and threaten our democracy.

Jonathan H. Adler
Donald B. Ayer
George T. Conway III
Carrie F. Cordero
Charles Fried
Stuart M. Gerson
Peter D. Keisler
Orin S. Kerr
Marisa C. Maleck
Trevor Potter
Alan Charles Raul
Jonathan C. Rose
Paul Rosenzweig
Andrew Sagor
Jaime D. Sneider
J.W. Verret


Each of us speaks and acts solely in our individual capacities, and our views should not be attributed to any organization with which we may be affiliated.

NEXT: Students Build Virtual Reality Massage Parlor for Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, “Checks and Balances” is another site like Take Care, created for the specific purpose of accusing Trump, and only Trump, of crimes?

    Because it appears to have been created in 2016 after Trump had the nomination sewn up, and just laid idle until late last year. “Standing up for the principles of constitutional governance. ” wasn’t needed until Trump came along, just like nobody needed to worry about a President violating his duty to “Take care” until Trump?

    I’d find this much more deserving of interest if it weren’t so specifically focused on Trump, if you’d seen the previous President as worthy of such attention, too.

    1. Maybe you might want to consider the possibility that it’s focused on Trump because Trump is much worse than others?

      1. Perhaps. Given the everything and the kitchen sink nature of one thing after the other, you’ll forgive people for wondering if the real motivation is to get rid of a political rake rather than a thug violator.

      2. Considered. Considered AND rejected. I didn’t live in a cave until 2017, you know.

        Neither did you, what’s YOUR excuse for considering that plausible?

        1. No “cave.” Got it.

          In which modern, educated, accomplished community have you resided since 2017?

          Is it rural Alabama, left-behind Oklahoma, backwater Wyoming, can’t-keep-up Idaho, or Mississippi?

    2. Adler and most of the Volokh crew; if they aren’t full on sympathizers are status quo ‘libertarians’ that are comfortable in their rut with an ascendant Left in control of everything and the Right as a boogeyman and convenient punching bag, with Libertarians as perennial losers locked up in their ivory towers.

      To put it in more concrete terms think of the last few decades as the Left being the douchebag football captain prom king who gets all the girls, having successfully taken over practically every major societal institution. The old Right is the hilariously out of touch but loveable nerd who usually ends up getting beaten up but at least has some guts to attend and try to fight for his piece. Guys like Adler and Somin can’t even do that. They’re the nerds locked up in their rooms at home reading Locke and Rousseau convinced of their superiority when in actuality they’re just cowards. They’re so stagnant and so inured in their ways when the cool outsider (the alt-right, younger Libertarians etc) tries to help them or others or threatens to upset the status quo. They will fight tooth and nail harder against them than the douchebag prom king that is actually bullying and tormenting everybody.

      1. Ditch the stale thinking, especially the multifaceted bigotry, and your depiction of Republicans as ‘lovable nerds’ and white supremacists as “cool outsiders” might begin to be worthy of consideration among reasoning, educated adults.

      2. Trump is president, not anyone from the Left. Trump is no friend of Libertarians or libertarians. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. You are lost, if you can’t see that Trump’s erosion of our fundamental American institutions is the biggest threat to the U.S.’s continued standing in the world and existence as a leading example of democracy, a shining city on a hill, rather than support for LGBT rights or abortion or tax rates or whatever your policy issue is. The American ideal is about the process of deciding contentious policy issues, not that contentious policy issues be determined in a particular way.

        Adler, Kerr, etc., all recognize that the greatest threat is Trump. Therefore, they and similar people from the “Right” recognize that the “Left” is their friend, not Trump. You should wake up to the same fact. The Right will lose just as much as the Left, if Trump is allowed to continue what he is doing to the US and the world (see Syria, Kurds, etc. right now).

        1. NOVA, when it comes up, I have a self-imposed duty to correct. Please take note. Winthrop’s, “city on a hill,” (no shining, rooted in the Bible) was one of the greatest exhortations in American history and literature. It urged humility, caution, and religious piety. Reagan’s, “city on a hill” (shining added, and to hell with the Bible), turned Winthrop’s meaning around 180 degrees. It transformed the phrase to make it stand for braggadocio, greed, opportunism, and blasphemy.

          To understand what happened, read Winthrop’s usage in context. Google, “A Model of Christian Charity,” and read the last paragraphs. Better yet, for an insight into Puritanism which will startle many, read the whole thing.

  2. Well, I’d like to see ol Donny Trump wriggle his way out of THIS jam!

    1. Remember they have the Power of Truth and George Conway waddling before them. Trump should just resign.

    1. That’s where this letter belongs. moveon.org

  3. Where’s the statement on what Biden did?

    This looks like more talk about how one side has to follow rules — not even the actual, written rules, but meta-rules about being careful not to appear to get close to disobeying rules — while the other side gets a pass no matter what they do.

    In other words, more of the usual, hollow political boosterism. This time disguised as principle.

    1. Biden has ALSO violated Trump’s oath of office? Whoa if true!

      1. Biden violated his path of office.

          1. How ’bout we go on strike & halt all partisan bickering until Volokh caves to our demands and provides an edit feature?

        1. Biden holds no office. You mean his home office? Who takes an oath to work out of his own home (excluding zoning requirements, if any, of course)?

          1. The acts occurred while he was Vice President.

            As you know smart guy.

            1. Bob, presumably you attempt to claim Biden’s pressure on Ukraine to fire the prosecutor Shokin was a transgressive act

              Biden pressured Ukraine by order of the President, per the policy of the State Department, following the stated aims of the European Union, in conjunction with similar pressure from the IMF & World Bank, with support of Republicans in Congress at the time, and to the applause of every reform & anti-corruption group in Ukraine itself.

              So, what’s your point?

            2. Good luck with that.

              Also, irrelevant to Trump’s wrongs.

              1. Wrongs like a short delay in sending Ukraine funds.

                1. Using the favor of the United States government in an attempt to extort personal gain is wrong. It’s even worst when that favor is military aid to a country under invasion by a U.S. foe. It’s worst still when that personal gain is fraudulent investigations designed to impact a U.S. presidential election.

                  You do see that, don’t you Ben?

                  1. Asserting repeatedly that this request is for personal gain does not make it so and it’s quite the absurd notion that you can’t investigate corruption of political opponents simply because they are seeking office and running against you.

                    Where was your outrage when Trump was investigated as a political opponent? There’s a much stronger argument that the Obama administration did that for personal gain than here. In reality, neither party did it for personal gain, but I’m sure I’ll get strawmanned someway or another on this one.

                    1. Trump’s extortion was for two “reciprocal” “favors”

                      (1) A “investigation” into CrowdStrike conspiracy theories. You might as well investigate whether the Loch Ness monster is held underground in a giant water tank below Area 51. The CrowdStrike theories are pure fraud.

                      (2) An “investigation” into Joe Biden pressuring Ukraine to rescue his son. Here’s want Jonah Goldberg said about that in the National Review : “the charge that Joe Biden was freelancing foreign policy to protect his son simply doesn’t hold water if you spend five minutes reading up on it. Biden was acting on orders from President Obama in coordination with allies and State Department policy to force the former Russia-backed Ukrainian regime to fire a dirty prosecutor who was failing to properly investigate corruption, including at the firm Hunter Biden worked with”

                      Your two investigation are both total shams – demanded for Trump’s personal gain. DJT doesn’t need to strongarm a Ukrainian president for counterfactual “dirt” on Biden. He’s perfectly capable of fabricating lies all on his own. The pressure was for a public Ukrainian show on the two spurious lies Trump spoon-fed Zelensky. Why do you think Trump insisted the Ukrainian president work with Giuliani to properly engineer the story?

                    2. “Here’s what Jonah Goldberg”

                      Jonah Goldberg is a notorious NeverTrumper, and isn’t even as smart as his couch.

                    3. @grb

                      I notice that you want to focus on Biden and the prosecutor but I haven’t seen you try to defend the mile wide conflict of interest or what it strongly suggests is behind it. Biden referred to himself as the “point man” on Ukraine. Why would he allow his know-nothing, cokehead kid to be installed in a lucrative position in a notoriously corrupt company the business of which he knew zip about? It stinks so much that Vox has to acknowledge it. You and your allies seem to content yourselves with intoning about Biden’s pure motives vis-a-vis the prosecutor while ignoring the elephant in the room.

                    4. I have no problem conceding Hunter Biden is a parasite, leeching off his daddy’s name. Burisma Holdings went status-shopping for their board, buying the Biden name as well as an ex-president of Poland (those are the only two I know). Interestingly, the fact that Hunter is so obviously an empty suit makes the hysteria over “investigating” him more ridiculous. The odds oligarchical thug Mykola Zlochevsky invited little Hunter into the inner circle to scheme and plot are slim (to none).

                      Closer to home, both Obama and Biden should have considered the appearance of a conflict. I needed to be backed into a corner to concede that obvious fact, but – congratulations – you’ve done so.

                      But the “investigation” showcase Trump tried to extort from Zelensky is a black-is-white lie. That’s your problem. Hunter’s actions were sordid but legal. Biden’s actions can not factually impugned. Trump’s actions were pure sleaze…

                    5. Jonah Goldberg … isn’t even as smart as his couch.

                      I agree with that.

                    6. How do we know Hunter Biden was merely a freeloader, rather than corrupt?

                      If he wasn’t corrupt, then why did Ukrainian prosecutors receive orders to drop investigations into him from the US State Department in 2016? Note this is according to emails between Ukrainian officials about their understanding of the verbal orders, so it’s entirely possible that the US said “a” while the Ukrainians heard “b.”

                      Why were the Ukrainian prosecutors who sought visas to bring evidence of corruption to the US denied by the Obama-appointed Ambassador? Was she just being a good team player, or was there something more there? How do we know?

                      Regarding Crowdstrike – I don’t actually know what the theory is (so can’t judge if it’s baseless), can anyone Ironman the argument?

                    7. CrowdStrike’s corruption and involvement in the DNC hacking and Seth Rich murder is a “conspiracy theory” just like how FISA spying is a conspiracy theory. We were aware of it years before you and your mainstream sources are still catching up and running interference for their preferred candidates because it makes you uncomfortable that you can’t answer for seriously suspicious aspects of those events.

                    8. If he wasn’t corrupt, then why did Ukrainian prosecutors receive orders to drop investigations into him from the US State Department in 2016?

                      That’s not what happened, though. He was never under investigation.

                    9. @grb ” fact that Hunter is so obviously an empty suit makes the hysteria over “investigating” him more ridiculous.”

                      I’m not suggesting that anyone bother to investigate Hunter–he was just the conduit. Everything we need to know about Hunter we already know: he got a lot of money from someone who is very unlikely to be star stricken, and he is the son of the “point man” in Ukraine. The investigation should be all about Joe.

                    10. I won’t bother with your Hunter Biden gibberish, just like I won’t try to disprove the Abdominal Snowman is really Elvis in disguise. The truth of both theses remains unresolved.

                      However I will introduce you to the CrowdStrike conspiracy, because a man with your imagination can probably take it special places.

                      To wit : The conclusion that Russian hackers infiltrated the DNC server is a Deep State lie. The investigations by the Senate, House, NSA, CIA, FBI, Mueller, etc are all part of the coverup – or duped by ever fiendish machinations by the Hidden Hand. Mueller’s specific findings of where the hacking operation was based? His indictments against the individuals involved? Anti-Trump false-flag all.

                      You see, Putin was actually pure as driven snow. It was Ukrainians who did the hacking, but take care who you mention this to. Remember, Seth Rich died because he knew too much. By logic difficult to follow (so fiendishly so!), the Dems hacked themselves and the target actually was the Donald. The real DNC server is hidden in Ukraine, though no one can explain how it got there. CrowdStrike is an integral part of this elaborate conspiracy because its founder is Ukrainian – though he isn’t.

                      There was more foolery yet, if I could remember it. (Casca)

                    11. It’s not a conspiracy that Crowdstrike did the forensics on the DNC servers and only provided the US government a redacted report.

                      From which, somehow, the people in government concluded Russia hacked it. On Crowdstrike’s word alone.

                    12. The real DNC server is hidden in Ukraine, though no one can explain how it got there.

                      Worse: nobody can explain why it got there.

                      If the “real DNC server” would prove that Russia is innocent and was framed by a cabal of Ukrainians and Democrats, why the hell would it be in the Ukraine, rather than at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean? What would they be keeping it around for?

                  2. @grb “However I will introduce you to the CrowdStrike conspiracy,”

                    It’s completely understandable that you would want to point out a squirrel rather than stay on the topic we were discussing. It must be difficult to come up with much of anything now that you have had to move from invoking the EU and the IMF. I’m sure, though, that you will be as eager as I am to get to the bottom of this with a full-fledged investigation, no? Maybe a special counsel?

                    1. “stay on the topic we were discussing…”

                      (1) Robert Beckman (above) asked for a CrowdStrike explanation

                      (2) Does it bother you Trump committed extortion to try and force a CrowdStrike “investigation”?

                      (3) Does it bother you how little of what you write makes sense?

                    2. “The CrowdStrike theories are pure fraud.”
                      Oh, yeah?
                      The Comey FBI tell you that?

                    3. “To wit : The conclusion that Russian hackers infiltrated the DNC server is a Deep State lie.”

                      Um, no.

                      The issue is that the Russian hack is not being denied, it warrants further investigation as no official government investigation was held at the behest of Tom “The Phisherman” Perez. “Somebody” (CrowdStrike) looked at an image, said nothing to see her but Russkie Boogiemen cos there was a buttload of shit HilLIARy’s campaign didn’t want coming out. CrowdStrike has that server image somewhere … CrowdStrike has Ukrainian connections.

                    4. donojack, have you ever heard a raving maniac rave? I have—it was a paranoid schizophrenic, who would shortly start shooting at me. The striking thing about the raving was that it was so incoherent, made so little sense, that it was almost impossible to recall any of it afterward. Everything else about the incident is vividly remembered, even after 50 years. Not the raving. Even after a couple of hours, at the police station, I couldn’t swear to a bit of it. Recalling it was like trying to remember a series of 50 telephone numbers.

                      That’s how CrowdStrike theories strike me. Try as I have, I can’t follow them at all, nor even remember afterward what is actually being claimed. I notice that no two descriptions of CrowdStrike seem to tell the story alike. That suggests CrowdStrike theorists are having the same troubles I am.

                      What can account for their attachment to something which none of them seems to remember alike, and which strikes bystanders as incomprehensible gibberish? I think it has to be that CrowdStrike has become a mental token, a bit of shorthand to stand for a pre-existing narrative upon which CrowdStrike theorists do agree. I have no trouble following that narrative. But invoking CrowdStrike just muddles the story, every time. Just like the raving of an actual lunatic.

                  3. I don’t think personal gain means what you think it does. While Trump may benefit by reopening an investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden, it’s hard to see any personal gain.

                    On the other hand if Trump thought that Joe Biden actually did use his influence to squelch a Ukrainian investigation that would negativity affect Hunter Biden, then I think it’s the President’s clear duty to encourage the Ukrainians to reopen the investigation. That’s not how Justice is supposed to work in the US, and US politicians should not be putting pressure on foreign prosecutors to investigate or not investigate any potential corruption.

            3. Oh yeah? Sounds serious. Which acts?

  4. I gotta say that – as a conservative (albeit one who voted for Hillary Clinton because, well, Trump is a moron) – I don’t find this very convincing. It starts off with the offputting “it has become clear to any observer of current events that…” I’m an observer of current events! It’s not clear to me! Stop gaslighting me, please.

    All this blah, blah, blah about norms against speaking with foreigners regarding political opponents is just dumb. Candidates, whether in or out of office, have talked to foreigners about political opponents forever. Heck, Hillary Clinton (through various third parties) actually paid foreigners for dirt on her opponent!

    The correct inquiry, to my mind, is whether the Bidens’ activities are shady enough as make an inquiry appropriate. If an inquiry is appropriate, then there ought to be no issue in asking for assistance, whether from foreigners or otherwise. If it isn’t, then a governmental official ought not to be requesting it. But I haven’t seen much either way to make a determination whether an inquiry into the Bidens was appropriate (although at first glance $50k a month for no relevant expertise seems shady to me).

    1. Its seldom “clear” when one uses “clear” in an argument.

    2. If I were editor of the statement, I’d at least try to make it accurate. For example deleting “it has become clear to any observer of current events that…”, and replacing it with “it has become clear to the us that…”.

      Also, deleting “the following are undisputed, to date…” and replacing with “we believe the following…”. I mean, some of the subsequent “facts” are very much disputed! (E.g., that Crowdstrike is “a baseless theory”.)

      The overall statement is much too rhetorically overheated, to my mind. Reads kind of like the Cipollone letter – basically red meat to be thrown out there for the anti-Trump partisans, complete with inaccuracies and a failure to grapple with counterarguments.

    3. “because, well, Trump is a moron”

      Seriously, a lot of people say that, and I’ve never quite understood the basis for it. I mean, granted, if you were going to hire an actor to play Trump, Rodney Dangerfield would have been a good choice. He’s not polished, he engages in way too much braggadocio, and he actively relishes getting in the mud and wrestling with the pigs.

      But a moron? How do you figure that?

      1. Almost every Republican president has had this one lobbed against him. Teddy Roosevelt was a loud mouth boor they said (he was the Trump of his day). Silent Cal wasn’t smart enough to speachify. Reagan was an amiable dunce. George W. Bush misspoke no more or less than Obama, but somehow he was Mr. Gaff. The only one to really escape being called dumb was Ike, because he had won the war after all, and he was anything but dumb.

        1. Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t anyone’s Trump. He could read. And write. And negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese War. Did you know TR was also an amateur (but expert), published ornithologist?

          Hoover was regarded as plenty smart, but an economic blunderer.

          Ike you mentioned.

          Go back and look again at Kennedy–Nixon debate footage. No one who sees that today can come away thinking anything but, gee, I wish we could have Republicans as smart as Nixon.

          Gerald Ford was regarded as a physical blunderer (which he was not), but no one I can recall thought there was anything wrong with his intellect.

          George H.W. Bush has been widely acknowledged as above-average smart.

          The GOP presidents derided for being dumb have mostly earned the credential.

          During my lifetime, starting with Truman, the D presidents have averaged a good deal smarter than the Rs., but among the Rs, Eisenhower stands out.

          Lyndon Johnson was a conundrum. A genius at feral cunning, maybe not that smart otherwise, or maybe it was intelligence too rough-hewn to polish.

          Put them all together, and sort by intelligence, and the bottom 3 will undoubtedly be Rs—in descending order, Reagan, George W. Bush,* then a huge gap, then Trump.

          Picking a top 3 would be harder. I am guessing that on an IQ test, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, H.W. Bush, and Obama would be among the contenders. Of course, presidential performance has not seemed to track that well with IQ-type intelligence.

          *I have less confidence about ranking W. Bush than the others, partly because I had occasion to speak with him at length, when we were both college freshmen. It left a vivid impression. We chatted about the Vietnam War—events and policy—and I came away confounded. He showed doggedness and self-assurance greater than anyone I had ever met, and somehow made it seem like intelligence. On the other hand, he wasn’t at all informed about events in Vietnam, which made the self-assurance seem less than brilliant. Of course, that is just one long-ago conversation,* but one which probably ranks higher than it should in my personal rankings.

          *In a dorm destined to become the scene of notorious goings-on in the Kavanaugh saga, by the way. I mention these things to aid commenters who patrol goings-on among the elites.

      2. He claimed a general told him we have no ammunition.

        1. Oh, so now being a good listener is the sign of a moron?

      3. I dunno. Just my impression. As a fellow Bridge & Tunnel New Yorker (Jersey, in my case, not Queens), I’m fine with the lack of polish and demeanor. Antagonizing the bien pensant crowd is a plus, not a minus, to me. But he just seems to me to get a lot of stuff wrong. Even stuff that is actually important to him – not the name of President of Absurdistan or whatever – I mean important stuff. Like calling Elizabeth Warrant “Pocahontas”. Dude, it’s FAUXcahontas!

        1. Morons tend not to end up billionaires while living lavish lifestyles. Even when they win the lottery, they’re generally poor again in a few years.

          They tend not to get elected President while being outspent, too. How do you imagine a moron managed to win the Republican primaries, let alone the general election?

          I’m not saying that Trump does string theory in the evening to relax. But the idea that he isn’t of above average intelligence is palpably absurd. It’s multiply contradicted by the facts.

          It’s like declaring somebody disabled as they walk out of the winner’s circle at the Olympics.

          It’s just insane the way Trump’s foes aren’t content with declaring him wrong on policy, or a bad person, but have to insist that he’s a shambling collection of defects with no good points at all.

          1. Morons tend not to end up billionaires while living lavish lifestyles.

            1. Assumes facts not in evidence.

            2. People who inherit $400 million don’t have to be very bright to end up as billionaires decades later.

            3. Good businessmen tend not to have their enterprises go bankrupt at remarkable rates. I mean, the guy can’t run a casino profitably, manages to bankrupt one of the most prestigious hotels in NYC, etc.

            I’ll believe he’s a business genius when I see the books.

            1. “1. Assumes facts not in evidence.”

              Forbes thinks he’s a billionaire. What’s your evidence to the contrary? Or maybe it’s the lavish lifestyle you’re disputing?

              “2. People who inherit $400 million don’t have to be very bright to end up as billionaires decades later. ”

              Actually, they do. Particularly if they live a lavish lifestyle in the mean while, instead of just investing the money and living off their day job. Typically your stupider lottery winners or inheritors of great wealth end up frittering it away, not building it up.

              “3. Good businessmen tend not to have their enterprises go bankrupt at remarkable rates. I mean, the guy can’t run a casino profitably, manages to bankrupt one of the most prestigious hotels in NYC, etc. ”

              What “remarkable rates”? What percentage of his enterprises have gone belly up, pray tell? And having your casino go under when the neighboring casinos were doing well would look bad, but having it go under when the neighbors were going under? Not so bad.

              Personally? I’ll believe he’s pretty bright when he beats Hillary Clinton while being out-spent 2-1. Oh, wait…

              1. Donald Trump is what many uniformed, unsophisticated, relatively unaccomplished people imagine a wealthy, successful, smart person must be like.

                Had Trump not been born to unearned wealth, he would be a higher-end condo or vehicle salesman with the same string of bankruptcies, the same shambling marital record, the same unremarkable children, the same paunch — but better hair.

              2. What’s your evidence to the contrary?

                I didn’t say I had evidence to the contrary. I said we hadn’t seen the evidence, and we know he’s lied to Forbes in the past.

                What percentage of his enterprises have gone belly up, pray tell?

                Well, we don’t know exactly, but these were major undertakings, highly touted by Trump himself. Tell me what major successes he’s had, apart from a TV reality show. And the bankruptcies don’t even include the outright fraud that was Trump University.

                having your casino go under when the neighboring casinos were doing well would look bad, but having it go under when the neighbors were going under? Not so bad.

                Actually, Atlantic City wasn’t doing badly in the early 90’s when Trump’s trio went under. And if the conditions were bad, why the hell did the genius open a new one in 1991 only to have it go broke a year later?

                Typically your stupider lottery winners or inheritors of great wealth end up frittering it away, not building it up.

                Some do, especially lottery winners who don’t collect anything approaching the headline number. Heirs to great fortunes do better, partly because their take is bigger. The Waltons are doing just fine.

            2. As a trust fund kid, on point 2 you are absolutely wrong. Otherwise we would still be talking about Carnegies and Rockefellers today. Most of them have exhausted their fortunes.

              For point 3, bankruptcy isn’t a sign of personal failure. It’s the result of business failure and you have to make far more assumptions to prove Trump is bad at business than you do to prove he isn’t. There wouldn’t be any Trump towers or golf courses at this point if he didn’t know what he was doing.

          2. Responses like that are why I can never pin down whether you’re a propagandist or just another boob too high off sniffing his own farts to think clearly.

          3. Morons tend not to end up billionaires while living lavish lifestyles.

            Which is why the best evidence is that he isn’t.

            1. You’re reasoning back from your conclusion to what evidence could be true, not a very smart thing to do.

              Trump is a smart oaf with a big ego and not much in the way of concern for conventional ethics, but he’s too successful at what he sets out to do, to be a moron.

              1. Or, how many morons do you know have a 60 story tower on Fifth Avenue with their name on it?

                Please be specific.

                I’m not impressed with Trump’s intellect, but calling him a moron… is moronic. Of course, it appears Trump’s greatest skill is ability to inspire his opponents to precisely that aspiration.

                1. His greatest skill is conning gullible fools.

                  1. Must be why he made so much money in New York.

                    1. It has reasonably been observed that he could have earned more money by investing his sketchy silver spoon sensibly and refraining from playing a competent businessman.

                2. I only know the one under your stated conditions but there seem to be millions of morons who are impressed by it.

                3. Or, how many morons do you know have a 60 story tower on Fifth Avenue with their name on it?

                  I am very impressed with his ability to inherit money.

              2. but he’s too successful at what he sets out to do,

                Is he?

                Or does he just pretend to be?

          4. Morons tend not to end up billionaires while living lavish lifestyles. Even when they win the lottery, they’re generally poor again in a few years.

            Like Hunter Biden?

            Being born rich mean never having to worry about merit.

            Plenty of rich morons around.

            1. Being born to a corrupt family with oodles of influence means never having to worry about merit. Trump’s father wasn’t VP.

              1. Nope. Not VP. A real estate developer, tax cheat, and bigoted landlord, but not VP.

                1. Not wanting to rent to blacks does not make one a bigot.

                  1. Thank you again, Prof. Volokh and other Conspirators, for exposing a broader audience to unvarnished conservative thought.

                    1. Bigotry, by definition, must be irrational. Given blacks’ propensity to crime and other social disorder, not wanting to deal with them is rational, even if unfair to the few that aren’t dysfunctional.

        2. Easy, you realize that someone who disagrees with you, even inelegantly at time (like W) had the smarts to obtain and usually retain, one of the most difficult jobs in the world to get.

          I think Obama did a lot of dumb things, and moreover, that he was ignorant of economics and history and let his feelings take precedence over facts, but what he wasn’t, was dumb.

          What does it say about you, Otis, that you appear to assume that someone who disagrees with you is dumb?

      4. It’s the lowest possible solution to the problem of why he keeps winning against Democrats.

        Democrats are, to use an outdated term, imbeciles. Their “intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about seven years.”

        Trump is smarter than them. Ergo Trump must be (at least) a moron.

        1. “No, YOU are!”

          Checkmate.

      5. How do you figure that?

        I think it is undisputed that Trump is an excellent salesman and manipulator of the press. That requires a particular type of intelligence. So, I guess not a total moron if yours is largely a technical objection.

        But on basically every other subject, he demonstrates both a horrifying lack of basic knowledge and a laughable inability to effectively and coherently process what facts he does know.

        For instance, his lover affair with Kim Jong Un was a major media event that resulted in no substantive concessions from North Korea, major concessions from the U.S. (e.g., foregoing joint exercises which quietly restarted), and the elevation of Kim Jong Un to equal status with the U.S. president and/or other major world leaders which has multiple, devastating consequences to America’s foreign policy, the North Korean people, and America’s standing in the world.

        Or the fact that his tendency to be persuaded by the last person he speaks to resulted in his decision, after talking to authoritarian Erdogan, to green light Turkey’s attack against our allies, the Kurds. That, again, is a result of his lack of basic knowledge of the facts, a failure to grasp the geopolitical and regional factors at play, and his moronic certainty in his own “genius” despite the fact that he routinely gets rolled by foreign leaders (usually autocrats).

        Basically, anyone who can say things like “I know more than the generals”, “I am a very stable genius”, “I have the best words”, is a moron. If nothing else, his combination of ignorance and extreme hubris makes him functionally a moron.

    4. It’s like “commonsense” gun control. Commonsense only to the person who doesn’t have a strong argument.

    5. Al S : Trump’s quip pro quo demanded two things of the Ukrainian president Zelensky :

      (1) An investigation of CrowdStrike conspiracy theories, which are bat-guano-crazy lunatic lies.

      (2) An investigation of Joe Biden and the Shokin firing. Hunter Biden was only briefly mentioned to introduce the firing; everything else was about the firing and the firing alone.

      But the Joe-Was-Protecting-Hunter meme is another hopeless lie. Joe Biden’s action followed presidential orders, per official U.S. foreign policy, for U.S. foreign policy objectives, with bipartisan support in this country, and with the support of our allies abroad.

      You see, you’ve got it backwards : Trump traded the favor of the United States for personal gain, demanded a foreign leader interfere in a U.S. election, and used military aid critical for a country under invasion to force that interference. But worst of all, what he demanded was pure fraud. We’re all so used to Trump lying it’s become commonplace. But this time he was using extortion to make another country lie for him. The Biden demand makes Trump’s actions more impeachment-worthy, not less…..

    6. The correct inquiry, to my mind, is whether the Bidens’ activities are shady enough as make an inquiry appropriate. If an inquiry is appropriate, then there ought to be no issue in asking for assistance, whether from foreigners or otherwise.

      This is fine in the abstract. But it leaves out important context in this instance.

      1) There isn’t actually any such inquiry going on.
      2) If there were, there are normal ways to go about asking for foreign assistance, an MLAT that specifies the procedures for doing so. Having the president’s personal lawyer (or a random ambassador to a different place) pressuring the foreign country is not one of those procedures.
      3) The president and his personal lawyer were not asking for assistance with an ongoing investigation of Biden; they were asking for a foreign country to conduct an investigation of Biden.
      4) The president was asking for this in exchange for already appropriated aid. (And even if one sets aside the withheld funds, the president asked for this as a “favor” for letting them buy crucial Javelin missiles. His aides were also demanding it as a quid pro quo for showing support for Zelensky by letting him visit the U.S.)
      5) The idea that Trump cares about corruption shouldn’t even be dignified with a response.

      1. “There isn’t actually any such inquiry going on.”

        Yes there is.

        1. No, there isn’t. (Whee! This is fun.)

        1. Ya know, I was a big fan of John Solomon during his time with The Hill. Every time he vomited out a new bit of agitprop, I rushed to the site to see. Not (of course) for the content, which was 99.99% worthless, but the reaction. The Hill readership turned out by the hundreds to laugh at what a clown Solomon was.

          There was always a ritual party atmosphere to this, as Hill commentators traded stories of past Solomon “sensational exposés” that sensationally bombed, or picked apart the smoke and mirrors behind his latest effort. The world is full of reporters pushing their view – and half of all people always disagree with that view – but I’ve never seen anyone held in such utter contempt as Solomon. He was too much a joke to even be angry over; people just read him then laughed & laughed & laughed…..

          1. Do you have anything to offer besides your fascinating story to show that this is inaccurate?

            1. Bothering to respond to a Solomon excretion is like trying to answer someone claiming space aliens have taken over the local DMV. Nonetheless, I’ve done so in the past as a public service. There was a recent bit of Solomon flatulence claiming New-Documents Never-Before-Seen prove some lawyer apologized for being a meanie to Viktor Shokin. Therefore (per Solomon) the prosecutor was a stand-up guy, slandered and misunderstood. Therefore (per Solomon) Biden was a cad for pushing Shokin’s ouster. Therefore (per Solomon) it was all about Hunter.

              So how do you answer garbage like that? I did this :

              (1) Listed some of the grossest corruption by Shokin, and asked what the (alleged) apology meant about that.

              (2) Listed everyone who demanded Shokin’s ouster, and asked if they needed to apologize too.

              (3) Noted the hatred of Shokin within Ukraine and quoted scathing comments about him by his countrymen. Must the whole nation apologize?

              (4) Pointed out that EVEN if Ukraine & the whole world was wrong about the guy (excepting this mystery lawyer) that still wouldn’t change the fact Biden operated honestly per that mistaken belief.

              Now did I disprove Solomon’s trash? Probably not, But I can’t disprove aliens run the local Motor Vehicles Department either. Solomon could be right about that one…..

              1. So nothing to offer. Ok but thanks for the tour through your stream of consciousness.

        2. Document reveals…

          1. Did you bother to click on the link? I didn’t think so.

            1. I saw the headline. Not sure if it’s worth it to go further since it says ‘John Solomon says…significant doc.’

              1. Well at least you got further than you usually do so congrats. In fact it doesn’t look like you got further than the headline in the story you thought was such a killer.

        3. Is that a document showing how Rudy was over there months before the phone call pushing his conspiracies, the Biden-for-Arms deal, and his friends’s Naftogaz scheme? Good example!

        4. Here’s a bit of a link that would likely provide less of a useless ‘non-rebuttal’ from some folks here who think attacking the messenger means they’ve rebutted your information.

          https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/prosecutors-said-ukraine-had-been-investigating-joe-biden-months-before-trump-pressured-zelensky.html

        5. 1) Do you see any such document?
          2) The statement I was addressing was about an inquiry into the Bidens, not Burisma.
          3) Moreover, it was a statement about a U.S. inquiry, not a Ukrainian one. (Trump wasn’t pressuring the Ukrainian government to assist the Ukrainian government.)

  5. Did your statement fail to acknowledge that the text sent by Ambassador Taylor was immediately refuted by the person he sent it to?

    Because if you left out that detail- and attempted to suggest that his claim was factual and undisputed- the statement is pretty hacktastic.

    1. “Immediately refuted”? It actually took five hours and a discussion with Trump for him to reply with that “Whoa whoa whoa ain’t nobody talking quids and quo’s here. (Call me on the secure line.)”

      And that’s pretty amazing since if someone I worked with started texting stuff that might could get me or others in trouble my actual immediate response would’ve been the response it took Sondland five hours and a conversation with the president to make.

      1. Dang! it took an enormous five hours for someone to get a phone call in to the President of the United States!

        1. With no quids or quos why would he need to call the president in order to come up with a response saying that what isn’t happening isn’t happening?

          1. To find out the answer and advise on communicating clearly to deal with the incorrect impression.

            Consider how you are going to prove that’s not what was happening. You will need specific people saying specific things at a specific time and place.

            What if the call was:

            Volker: “You know, he’s got a good point, we can’t do this”.
            Trump: “Hmm, I guess you’re right. We won’t do it then. Thanks, that’s exactly the kind of advice a President needs. Offer him my thanks also.”

            That would fit the events.

            Is thinking about doing something, getting advice that it’s bad, and then choosing to not do it a “high crime”?

            Just wondering. I’m pretty sure what rabid partisans will say.

            1. Hilarious. No, really. Hilarious.

              1. It’s at least as plausible a story as the one the Dems are making up.

                1. Your plausible story is quite damning. If your scenario actually happened and were proven, we would know that Trump was seeking a quid pro quo but then was talked out of abandoning the course of action that was already under way. Better than if they continued on that path, but hardly exonerating.

                  But seeking a quid quo pro would only make things worse. The ask for a foreign government to investigate (dig up dirt on) his political opponent was, by itself, an egregious abuse of office.

                  (And I am at a loss as to how “a favor though” doesn’t quite neatly and clearly demonstrate he was seeking an exchange of “favors”, i.e., a quid pro quo. Even Kevin McCarthy instinctively knew as he highlighted that phrase as key. Unfortunately for McCarthy, that was actually what the President said (or is paraphrased as having said because we don’t have an actual transcript though Trump claims there is one.)

                  1. I mean, the call in which Trump asked for a favor happened July 25. Your hypothetical conversation between Trump and Volker would have occurred in September to fit the text exchange. So, from this and your hypo, we can know that Taylor and Ukraine were under the impression Trump was pursuing a quid pro quo and Trump reversed course only in September when informed by Sondland and/or Volker that there were legal and ethical concerns about continuing down that path.

                    You’re kind of Kevin McCarthying this thread. Your defense is extremely damning of Trump.

    2. If you think that reply refutes anything, you’ve not had a lot of human interaction.

      ‘Hey, is this a bad thing?’
      ‘No, we never do bad things. Call me.’

    3. “Immediately refuted” ?!?!

      Here’s what most people see : Two people trading messages begin talking about a crime in progress. One criminal realizes the conversation is being recorded, suddenly “insists” their every thought is pure, sweet & wholesome goodness, then immediately hisses they should take the conversation off-line. I bet detectives listening to wiretaps hear the same kind of conversation every day.

      1. That’s certainly the story people are making up, absent facts. Actual facts show that no one involved lost or received anything on either side.

        So even the beyond-factual story is about something that might have occurred but then actually didn’t.

        1. No, actual facts show that the aid approved for Ukraine was held up, and State Department people were saying all the while “this is illegal.” The aid was released when the perpetrators were caught.

          1. And other State Department people were saying, “no, that’s not what’s going on”.

            It’s absolutely possible there was a provable conspiracy. Conspiracy involves specific people saying specific things at specific times. Who is making such a charge? With what alleged facts?

            A conspiracy theory is when you substitute facts about who did what for innuendo and presumption because it’s emotionally satisfying to you.

            1. Ben,

              Seriously, the aid was withheld. While the aid was being withheld, people were talking about the then-current linkage between the aid and the “interview”, i.e., Ukraine announcing an investigation. Taylor documented the linkage requested by those giving him his orders September 1 and September 8. He finally spelled out what all this meant on September 9: “It’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” That’s when, according to you, Trump and his advisers may have decided to unlink the aid / White House meeting from the request for an investigation of the Bidens.

              These are the known facts. Is it possible that there are other facts that demonstrate Taylor was mistaken in what he thought was an effort to elicit a quid pro quo that was then under way? Sure. But you are the one that has to conjure facts not in evidence to excuse the Trump adminstration’s actions. The facts we do have very strongly support concluding that aid and a personal meeting between the heads of state were withheld pending Ukraine’s agreement to investigate the Bidens.

    4. Did your statement fail to acknowledge that the text sent by Ambassador Taylor was immediately refuted by the person he sent it to?

      People on the Internet often misuse the word “refuted.” Refute means to prove wrong, not to disagree with.

      1. People on the internet also confuse their own opinions with objective reality.

        The precise meaning of “refute” is subject to substantial discussion, with your understanding being the minority view. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/refute.

        In any case, my meaning was clear. Inaccurate assertions about the word “refute” do nothing to change how painfully hacktastic it was to reference the text as it was here. Do you disagree?

        1. JonBlack: now you should look up the word “immediately”

  6. Let’s face it, the law is applied differently to people depending on whether they are leaders of the establishment/elite or not. Also, appearances are as important (if not more important) than substance.

    Trump is not an ordinary political leader. He says things that most politicians do not dare. Most politicians learn that they can behave atrociously as long as their comments are temporate. Obama and his administration used the tools of government to spy on and obstruct any opposition (from the left as well as from the right), but President Obama always said bland things in a moderate way so it was all okay.

    Trump is a narcissistic fool who has no control over what he says. He makes it easy for people to call him an ogre and a monster. But his actions are not outlandish (no matter how energetically his opponents read dog whistles into them).

    Elitists and other establishment supporters hate him with a fury because he is not one of them.

  7. I would be more impressed if groups like this were even slightly concerned about other countries’ interference in our elections. Mexico, for example:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-20/stop-trump-movement-gets-boost-from-mexico-s-efforts-in-u-s

    1. So you are concerned with foreign interference in our elections but only on a case-by-case basis?

      1. He is just pointing out the double standards of the left. If the left did not have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all!

        1. I read the article but could not find the part that explains which dem candidates or politicians are enlisting Mexico’s help in digging up dirt on their political opponents for their political campaigns. Is there a definition of hypocrisy and double standards I am unaware of? Please, clarify.

          1. Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele, a British national to dig up dirt on her political opponent, Donald Trump and to then pass this bogus report into the highest levels of the US government to provoke a fake investigation.

            That is what double standards look like.

            1. Ahhh, I get it. Thought there was some other meaning to double standard. Turns out you just don’t know what the issues are here, what happened in 2016, or what you’re talking about. No worries, mate.

            2. Hillary Clinton — a private citizen — paid Fusion GPS, an American company run by Americans, to dig up dirt on her political opponent. This is called opposition research, and it is done by every serious candidate and is entirely legal.

              1. That’s correct David. But Fusion GPS cooperated with and got their information from foreign sources. This constitutes “foreign interference in our elections.”

                You may feel free to mount an objection to particular methodologies of procuring “foreign interference,” or to particular types of “foreign interference”, or to alleged abuses of official government authority to procure said interference, but for this line of argument you’ll have to first stipulate that procuring “foreign interference” isn’t necessarily wrong.

                Of course, then you’ll have to deal with the fact that Obama administration FBI operatives ALSO paid Steele, and then used the dossier to support a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. The FBI also met with DNC lawyers to discuss the Russia allegations in the dossier before obtaining said warrant.

                1. Applying those laws to legally obtained information seems like a First Amendment violation. Election laws need an overhaul to protect rights.

                  But that’s just an aside.

                2. Fusion GPS cooperated with and got their information from foreign sources. This constitutes “foreign interference in our elections.”

                  No it does not. Are you still a practicing attorney?

                  1. Fusion GPS didn’t hire a British spy who obtained information from an unknown Russian source which eventually ended up in a FISA warrant request?

                    1. I don’t know who they hired. It doesn’t matter – that’s not foreign interference in an election.

                    2. So, you admit that you haven’t been following SpyGate. Let’s break this down:
                      1) Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie
                      2) Perkins Coie hires Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump on Clinton’s behalf
                      3) Fusion GPS hires British citizen Christopher Steele who writes his Steele Dossier that was utilized by the FBI to open up the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Trump, the 4 FISA applications on Carter Page, and indirectly the Mueller investigation.
                      4) Steele claimed that he received much of his dirt on Trump from members of he Russian govt and people somewhat close to Putin.
                      5) UK citizen Steele actively flogged his Dossier to multiple news organizations, specifically to prevent Trump from being elected. Several of them published the Dossier, or at least some of the more salacious parts in Sept and Oct right before the election.

                      But while we are talking foreign intervention, also note this:
                      1) Joseph Misfyp, a Maltese diplomat met with at least Carter Page to push that the Russians had Clintons 33k missing emails. The Page FISA app claimed that he was a Russian agent. This was regurgitated by Mueller. This is highly unlikely, since he has been teaching spycraft to both CIA and FBI people for years in Rome. AG Barr and USA Durham were in Rome last week following up on this.
                      2) the Australian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Downer then tried to reel in Page, having his female associate ask Page about the emails. Australia has apologized to Trump.
                      3) this was apparently relayed to the FBI and State Dept by Halper. The UK has also apologized to Trump. All three of these have been seen together in pairs on multiple occasions.
                      4) This was the official predicate for opening the Crossfire Hurricane Russia Collusion investigation on Trump, with the participation of the UK(Halper), Downer (Aus), and Misfyp (likely Italy). All with known ties to western intelligence, including esp the CIA.

                    3. Fusion GPS hires British citizen Christopher Steele who writes his Steele Dossier that was utilized by the FBI to open up the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Trump, the 4 FISA applications on Carter Page, and indirectly the Mueller investigation.

                      No. It was George Papadopoulos’s drunken bragging to Downer that caused the FBI to open up the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

                      5) UK citizen Steele actively flogged his Dossier to multiple news organizations, specifically to prevent Trump from being elected. Several of them published the Dossier, or at least some of the more salacious parts in Sept and Oct right before the election.

                      Nobody published the dossier, or any salacious part of it (of which there was only one: the so-called pee tape), before the election. Buzzfeed was the first to publish the dossier, and that was in January 2017, after the election. Isikoff wrote an article in September 2016 stating that Page was under investigation for his dealings with Russia. And Corn wrote an article for Mother Jones in October describing Steele’s work.

                    4. This is highly unlikely,

                      No; what’s “highly unlikely” is that Mifsud (note the spelling) is a CIA or MI-6 agent that only a few fever swamp kooks know is one, with not a single western intelligence source coming forward, even anonymously, to say, “Yeah, he worked for us.”

                      AG Barr and USA Durham were in Rome last week following up on this.

                      And yet… neither one has come forward to say, “Yeah, turns out he was part of a CIA plot to get Trump.”

                      2) the Australian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Downer then tried to reel in Page, having his female associate ask Page about the emails. Australia has apologized to Trump.

                      Not only did they do no such thing, but they expressly denied these ludicrous conspiracy theories about Downer.

                      The UK has also apologized to Trump.

                      Also did not happen.

                3. The FISA warrant application, which did cite the Steele dossier but also cited a lot of other stuff that has never been revealed, was to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, not “the Trump campaign.” Not only has Carter Page never been synonymous with the Trump campaign, but Carter Page wasn’t even working for the Trump campaign at the time said warrant was applied for.

              2. David N,

                Do you know how money laundering works?

                Same principle. Dirty information, run it through a ‘cleaning’ company, now it’s not dirty information because it’s ‘opposition research’.

                1. …dirty information?

                  1. Yes, the Steele report included information that Donald Trump had hired hookers to pee onto a mattress in a Moscow hotel that President Obama had previously slept upon.

                    That seems like dirty information to me.

                    But the Dems and the government lapped it up.

                    1. Not only is the information dirty, but despite what the Fake News would have you believe, urine isn’t even sterile.

          2. Does it have to be a specific Democratic candidate? In 2016, trying to “stop Trump” = “electing Hillary Clinton” and you know this.

            But if you want specifics, here’s a doozy:
            https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-04-mn-62514-story.html

            MEXICO CITY —

            California Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa thanked President Ernesto Zedillo here Tuesday for helping defuse Proposition 187, saying the Mexican leader played a key role in scuttling the controversial state measure that denied benefits to illegal immigrants.

            “As leader of the state Assembly, I say President Zedillo had great impact in defeating Proposition 187,” Villaraigosa told a news conference after he and a state delegation met the Mexican chief executive. Zedillo’s visit to California in May “pushed the process” that eventually invalidated most of the measure, the speaker said.

    2. Far left Democrats openly discuss in op-ed pages their efforts to keep the borders open for the expressly stated purpose of maximizing the illegal and legal inflow of persons they believe will eventually lead to a permanent leftist political majority.

      1. You got brain problems.

  8. “meritless allegation involving former Vice President Joe Biden”

    What?

    1. Yeah – the Biden stuff was discredited the moment the right tried to push it. Look it up.

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/1/20891510/hunter-biden-burisma-ukraine-shokin

      1. “Discredited” means Democrats said they don’t care, and to shut up about it.

        1. No, discredited with facts that don’t agree with the story the right is telling.
          Read the link.

          1. Democrat media talking points conclusively exonerate Democrats.

            1. There are facts at the link. Your refusal to engage with facts is unsurprising.

              1. Ok, I read it. It talks around the issue. Not really in a factual way though.

                1. Um, wow.

                  The story has facts that directly contradict the issue.
                  If you can’t see them…

                2. What do you see as the issue?

                  1. Exactly like the Trump situation, Biden used his position to get the prosecutor fired. That may have been of value to his son. Or it may be a coincidence, as the Trump thing may also be.

                    An investigation is warranted. Unlike in the Trump case, something actually happened:
                    The prosecutor was fired. And you have Biden on tape claiming credit. So the only open question for a quid pro quo is whether the firing was to help Hunter.

                    In the Trump case, no one received or lost anything. It could still have been a conspiracy, but no one is alleging the specific facts of a conspiracy, merely hinting at them obliquely.

                    If someone would like to allege a conspiracy, then tell us who said what to whom, on what occasion, and why it amounts to a conspiracy.

                    1. I think you didn’t read through the piece, coming to the first assertion, posting an attempt to explain it away, and then deciding you were done with this brief foray into facts. Not realizing additional facts in the piece negated your attempt to speculate away from reality.

                      Biden was acting under orders. Also may have been of value is directly contradicted by the facts of the piece, from the reason for the firing, to who asked for and directed Biden, to the the timeline, to how Hunter Biden was never under investigation. So that’s not worth an investigation. Reminds me of Uranium One, which went through many layers of review but the GOP decided to ignore that.

                      With Trump, you have multiple examples of asking foreign countries to do things that specifically hurt Trump’s opponents. It’s a pattern going back as far as 2016. And Trump used foreign aid funds as leverage. Which is illegal, and also impeachable since it’s abuse of presidential power. None of those are analogous to anything Biden is purported to have done

                    2. You are using the word facts.

                      The author of the piece says “… but this is clearly not the reason he was fired”. That’s an assertion. It may also be a fact, but the piece barely supports it even as an assertion.

                    3. Also, you can assert Trump used foreign aid as leverage. Can you establish it at a fact? No.

                      Asking foreign leaders to investigate matters that look like corruption is not wrong in any way, even if it might benefit Trump indirectly by removing a corrupt political opponent from the board. It’s not wrong to ask people to do the right thing, even when it may benefit you.

                    4. That assertion? Read right after it. They back it up with…facts. The desire to push him out was fully bipartisan in the United States and reflected a consensus across European governments, not than anything idiosyncratic to Biden.

                      The notion that firing Shokin was somehow problematic was not in the air until the New York Times ran a story co-bylined by Ken Vogel and a Ukrainian journalist named Iuliia Mendel (who a few weeks later would become Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s official spokesperson) highlighting Rudy Giuliani’s efforts at muckraking.

                      Now, you can quibble with the assertion, but only if you address the facts that lead to it that contradict your Biden corruption smoke and mirrors.

                      Trump using foreign aid as leverage was caught on tape, dude.

                    5. Sarcasto seems to think that it was ok for Biden to pressure the Ukrainian govt, by threatening to hold up $1.5b in aid, unless the state prosecutor investigating the company whose board his son had joined, because he had been under orders, presumably by President Obama. But Trump can’t go the opposite way and request that the investigation be reopened? Is the theory here that Trump wasn’t under Obama’s orders like Biden was? My view is that if Obama could do it with Biden as his alter ego, then Trump can do exactly the same thing by himself, having identical powers and responsibilities as Obama had.

                      (Of course, many, including me, as well as the Ukrainian President, and many others don’t believe that Trump was pressuring the Ukrainians. You have to have a really stilted reading of the transcript to find a quid pro quo there, assuming a lot that is not obviously evident therein to find extortion or the like. Moreover, the Ukrainians came to Trump, through his atty, Giuliani, back in February, about having been forced to kill the investigation by the Obama Administration, and that they wanted to reopen it. Back in February, five months before the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President)

                    6. But Trump can’t go the opposite way and request that the investigation be reopened?

                      If that were an accurate characterization, that would not be “the opposite way.” That would be the same way. The US (not Biden specifically), as well as the EU and IMF, wanted Shokin fired because he wasn’t investigating.

                      You have to have a really stilted reading of the transcript to find a quid pro quo there,

                      It wasn’t a transcript, and yet in it Trump expressly asked for a “favor” in exchange for the military aid the Ukrainians were desperate for. Plus, of course, we do not need to rely solely on the phone call, because Volker supplied text messages showing that pressure.

                    7. It’s not a quibble. The piece makes that assertion and doesn’t back it up with facts or citation. It’s a story. True? Factual? Opinion? Fantasy? Unknown.

      2. Ah shit, Sarcastro dropped a VOX link. Show’s over now boys.

        1. Oh, m_k dropped an ad hominem and nothing else. Not a sign he thinks he can win this with facts.

          1. That’s not an ad hominim, which is where I insult you. More technically, I was attacking you for confirmation bias, which is citing data to support your already made up mind. That it is a Vox story means it is doubly so. You’re reaction to someone posting a Breitbart link? Yea, the same.

            1. Biden pressured Ukraine by order of the President, per the policy of the State Department, following the stated aims of the European Union, in conjunction with similar pressure from the IMF & World Bank, with support of Republicans in Congress at the time, and to the applause of every reform & anti-corruption group in Ukraine itself.

              mad_kalak :

              There are 6-7 facts in that statement, depending on how you count. You can try challenging even one, but you’ll fail. You can try and build a Joe-Was-Protecting-Hunter narrative in spite of those facts, but you’ll fail. Where does that leave you?

              1. It leaves us with Biden is dirty and Hunter was a bag man.

                1. Didn’t read the link, I see.

                  1. Read it and quoted part of it at 11:46. You should have read it more carefully before putting it up, because it doesn’t do you a bit of good.

                  2. Today’s news,

                    The White House gave a politically appointed official the authority to keep aid to Ukraine on hold after career budget staff members questioned the legality of delaying the funds, according to a report today in the Wall Street Journal :

                    “….The involvement of a political official like Mr. Duffey in the apportionment process is unusual, according to several former OMB officials. Career staff below the political level at OMB with years, and sometimes decades, of technical knowledge of the funding process have historically overseen the routine process, according to the former officials….”

                    Remember : It was never just one call. The extortion campaign ran for weeks (if not months), involving dozens of people with first hand knowledge and countless documents. Everybody better strap in for the ride.

                  3. Appropriate quote from All The President’s Men :

                    “Look, forget the myths the media’s created about the White House–the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand”

              2. As I mentioned above. If the Obama White House could order Biden to hold up aid until the state prosecutor was fired, or for any other reason, then Trump had exactly the same right to go the other way. If Trump violated the law by doing so, so did Obama (and Biden). Bringing in Obama’s State Dept doesn’t help the argument, because they are directly answerable to the President, and the entirety of their Constitutional power and legitimacy is derived from the President’s Article II Powers.

                1. And as I mentioned above, that would not be “the other way.” But Trump is not going to be impeached for holding up aid; he’s going to be impeached for holding up aid for the purpose of getting the Ukrainians to go after his political opponent.

            2. m_k, ad hominem is saying ‘the source is bad, therefore it’s content need not be engaged with.’

      3. “Hunter Biden is at the center of the fake misconduct accusations against his father”

        That’s how it starts… You understand that this is an opinion piece, right?

        1. Read the piece. It lays out the facts on the ground as well. They do not comport with the right wing narrative in many ways. Until y’all stop just saying ‘Biden did wrong!’ and deal with the facts, your just blowing smoke.

          1. Hunter Biden obtained a $50K a month job in the energy business in Ukraine, with no relevant experience in energy or the Ukraine.

            He would not have obtained this job if his name was Hunter Smith.

            1. Standards don’t apply to Democrats.

            2. He would not have obtained this job if his name was Hunter Smith.

              That’s right, and Donald Trump Jr. would be selling timeshares in Boca if his name were Hunter Smith. But so what? It’s not a crime to trade on your last name.

              1. For that matter, Donald John Trump would be running a three card monte on some street corner if it wasn’t for Fred’s name & money.

                1. For that matter, Fred’s money wouldn’t have amounted to much if Donald hadn’t been running Fred’s business for him for about a decade before he inherited it.

                  1. Donald Trump made Fred Trump?

                    I am so grateful my children and grandchildren get to compete economically with Trump fans.

              2. Conspiracy is a crime though.

      4. Dang, Vox. That settles the matter. Impeach the bastard!

      5. Is this the best you can do? Even Vox has to hold it’s nose:

        The worst you can say about any of this, however, was that Hunter’s position on the board was a standing conflict of interest that should have been avoided. There’s no evidence that Joe did anything wrong, specifically. But an examination of the life and times of Hunter Biden does provide a reminder that most Americans thought politics as usual was corrupt long before Trump arrived on the scene to make it more corrupt.

        1. Yeah, this is a problem with our capitalist system.

          It’s also sadly unremarkable.

          1. That’s how you read that? No wonder you thought the story cleared Biden. It’s more honest than anything you and your pals have been willing to admit. No conflict of interest, doesn’t stink of corruption, nothing to see here, Joe’s pure as the driven snow.

            1. No crime. Nothing with investigating.

              No more so than the Trump children. Or the Kardashians.

        2. So Vox is saying that the entire Biden situation is corrupt then, even if not illegal?

          But without an investigation, how could we know it’s not illegal?

          1. How can we know anyone is above board without an invention? Let’s open Ukrainian investigations of every Dem candidate!

              1. Nice to be so open that you want America to be a banana republic.

  9. The Volokh commentariat seems to have pulled away from a lot of the Volokh conspirators in these times of Trump.

    I think this says something about the GOP, and populism vs. intellectuals, and the Internet. But I’m not sure what it is yet.

    1. If you haven’t noticed, regular commentators like myself, Bob of Ohio and Brett B. have been explaining to you why that is, in like, every post by Somin (amongst others). To which your reply hasn’t been to understand the reasons, even if you disagree with them, but rather to spin it as us wearing partisan glasses obscuring the truth as you clearly see it.

      That said, I understand the average leftist more than the leftist understands himself.

      1. Somin. Adler. Kerr. Post. Whittington.

        Y’all keep explaining that Trump is being persecuted, and the real problem is that everyone else who claims to care about rules and norms and the Constitution are all liars and are actually just out to get him.

        I understand the reasons; I engage with your reasons. As Trump is getting increasingly out there, your reasons are getting increasingly nihilist and focusing on how the other side is/was bad.

        Negative tribal affiliation is textbook populist authoritarianism.

        1. Remember when I called you out on claiming Trump admitted to a quid pro quo, and you invented one by quoting something he said completely out of chronological order, and about two completely different subjects?

          1. You have your opinion, I and the State Department, and the statement in the OP have another.

            Interesting of you to bring it back up when as time has progressed you’ve had less and less to stand on (and you had little to go on to start with)

            1. Still waiting on the admission of a quid pro quo. Care to try again, or do you not want to be embarrassed a second time?

              1. “I would like you to do us a favor, though…”

            2. Even I was embarrassed for you on that one. You looked like a CNN editor.

              1. I offer that after reading your comments, you have enough to be embarrassed about on your own.

                1. You should stop commenting on blogs during Algebra class. You may need that some day when you grow up.

        2. It’s actually less persuasive as a joint statement. Individuals can make good arguments and be thoughtful. Crowds don’t.

          1. Yeah, truly this is the statement of an unthinking mob.

            1. an unthinking mob.

              Radical leftists all.

            2. They certainly haven’t been looking like less of an unthinking job lately. Unthinking seems to have tightened its grip on otherwise thoughtful people the past few years.

        3. Yet here you are, responding oddly with accusations of tribalism and authoritarianism, which is entirely tangential to your original (I assume) rhetorical question about populism vs. intellectuals.

          1. Populism and authoritarianism have nothing to do with populism and intellectuals?

    2. Another possibility is that a whole bunch of conspirators have finally been unmasked as socialists who hate the Constitution and the republic. Weird, tho, that they were so smart when Obama was in office. Unless they’re Manchurian Candidates within conservative legal circles! Hmmm, Prof. Kerr, why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

    3. “The Volokh commentariat seems to have pulled away from a lot of the Volokh conspirators in these times of Trump.”

      “Somin. Adler. Kerr. Post. Whittington.”

      Somin, Adler and Kerr were always on the NeverTrump train. If you look at polls of the GOP, its only a caboose now but they won’t get off.

      Post is a Democrat.

      Whittington is new. Does anyone know what his politics are? The “commentariat” you refer to was here before him, so he is pulling away from us.

      1. A few Conspirators are questioning Trump’s conduct.

        The other Conspirators — whether consequent to continuing hope for a nomination by Trump, or cowardice, or some other substandard motivation — are largely taking the knee.

        It’s the Conspiracy’s carefully cultivated clan of clinger commenters that is carrying all of the Trump cargo here.

        1. /begin feed_troll

          And the other Conspirators are silent from their disgust of the general situation, and the boorishness of the President, though they don’t think that his substantial actions are materially different than his predecessor, merely that instead of being chrome plated rust, it’s rust exposed for all to see.

          1. “And the other Conspirators are silent from their disgust of the general situation”

            Inference, inside information, or a message from God?

  10. I don’t think a fair reading of the facts while adding something other than cynical context actually backs your assertions.

  11. The Power of Truth leads them where it will. I did appreciate the letter expressing their outrage at the abuse of office and criminal conduct of Comey, Brennan, Clapper, et. al.

  12. Geez is this guy a dope
    And I guess he found other dopes George Conway LOL to sign an Orange Man Bad letter.
    Well that does it right?
    Biden and his son are as crooked as hell. What pumpkin truck did you fall off of if you think people would pay Hunter millions just for kicks. Yea that happens.

    And Joe and some Euro weenies declare the prosecutor investigating Hunters company corrupt and no aid unless you stop investigating my son and nothing to see here.

    He gets fired and no more investigation. It’s magic
    LMFAO

  13. This is garbage IMO.

    “These acts, based on what has been revealed to date, are a legitimate basis for an expeditious impeachment investigation

    Why just an impeachment investigation, and not an impeachment? Are we to take that your conclusion is that the revealed information is NOT a legitimate basis for impeachment?

    “calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections.”

    This seems to be the heart of the indictment, and it raises so many questions in my mind.

    1. When the Obama administration got cooperation and information from Russia, Ukraine, UK, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands and others, in investigating candidate Trump was that foreign interference in our elections or not?? If it was, where was the Checks and Balances statement on this?

    2. Same question as #1, but for the DNC and the Clinton campaign, rather than the Obama administration?

    3. Same question as #1, but as to the investigation of President Trump rather than candidate Trump, by Obama admin holdovers after the election?

    4. Same question as #1, but as to the actions of the current Democrats in Congress which mirror the President’s exactly, save for a much more explicit quid pro quo-like threat of withholding aid to Ukraine?

    5. When foreign media lambaste US politicians, is that foreign interference in elections? Same question for foreign politicians? Or just some foreigner tweeting? These things are routine . . . . ?

    6. Same question as #5 but beyond merely lambasting, suppose these foreign sources are reporting or bringing to light material information that has political impact in the US?

    7. Is any information obtained from a foreign source related to US politics off-limits to be uttered, spoken, exploited or used? I mean, obviously the answer is currently no since these things are all routine, but is that what is being proposed?

    8. It is routine for the US to receive cooperation from other countries in connection with all types of investigations or intelligence-gathering efforts. Does this somehow become inappropriate if the information relates to persons who are politically opposed to the President or other official US actor? I mean, it seemingly doesn’t, currently, but is that the moral principle being proffered here as necessary to protect our “sacred” elections?

    9. With respect to question #8, does the answer depend in any part on the particular facts? Is there a difference between (a) working with foreign parties in an investigation that is properly factually predicated on probable cause, or national interests, and (b) cooperating with foreign parties to create baseless innuendo, false or frivolous charges, or to defame and slander a political figure?

    10. To consider the most extreme hypothetical I can think of (this is a hypothetical to elucidate the principle and not an argument about current circumstances), let’s say the US Communist Party candidate for President becomes surprisingly popular. The incumbent administration discovers some evidence, nothing certain, that this candidate had some improper, potentially criminal, but in any case of public interest, ties or dealings with foreign terrorist organizations (or, say, foreign communist parties). Is it off-limits to investigate that? If it’s not off-limits, do some lesser limitations apply, such as an obligation to avoiding leaking and unsubstantiated allegations or innuendo?

    1. Nothing but whattaboutism and extreme hyptheticals.

      Telling.

      1. So you can’t answer a single question? Telling.

        This isn’t whataboutism, it’s skewering a shabby, slippery and thoroughly vague polemic written by the hysterical obese fame seeker George Conway, and others, which appears to be best understood as “making political arguments, not legal ones.”

        1. Your rebuttals are tellingly fallacious. And I know you used to know better.

          1. I’ve made no rebuttal, because you’ve offered nothing to rebut. If you’re referring to my first post, I welcome your thoughts on any of the questions I’ve posed including how any of them are “fallacious.”

            1. No, I mean your original post attempting to rebut the OP. It’s nothing but fallacies and distractions. And I know you know logic well enough to see that. I don’t know if you’ve convinced yourself that fallacies are actually good arguments, or if you don’t care, but it’s quite a display of how little you have in reply.

              1. Are you able to explain one of the supposed fallacies? (Youre not.)

                1. Sarcastr0 never produces argument, only insults and snark.

                  It’s his schtick.

          2. It’s quite obvious to me that the Checks and Balances statement is making a “political” argument and not a legal one. Nothing wrong with that, but this principle they are offering is far too vague and needs clarification.

          3. And I know you used to know better.

            I assume this is written in the old Sarcastr0 voice.

            1. Maybe David can offer a morsel of substantive response? Believe it or not I am genuinely curious whether and how the sypposed principles here can be clarified.

      2. No. Not hypotheticals. All well established facts. Come back when you can explain how Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Nellie and Bruce Ohr, Andrew Weissman, Peter Strzok, and Andrew McCabe all fit together, and how Joseph Misfyp, Alexander Downer, Steven Halper, Carter Page, and George Popadopolus all fit together.

        1. They don’t.

          1. New Democrat talking point: most of those people never even existed.

    2. ML,

      The answer to your questions are:

      It’s only wrong if the knives are pointed at Democrats. Then it’s an unconstitutional crisis.

  14. But you know that Steele dossier was so convincing that we had to investigate Trumps campaign which was totally OK

    How in the world did you get your law degree?

  15. DRUMPF is FINISHED NOW

    1. Principled statements are silly so long as they do not remove Trump from office.

      This is where you are.

      1. The most striking thing here is how decidedly unprincipled this statement is, in the sense that it simply fails to articulate any vaguely coherent principle.

        I’m not saying that the views expressed cannot be principled views, only that they utterly failed to communicate what those principles might be. That’s what my post above tries to tease out.

        1. You are sad if you cannot see principles in the OP, versus the side posting about civil war and NPC memes and how principles are for suckers because the Dems are so bad.

          1. The principle offered by the OP is that it’s wrong and impeachable to “[call] on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections.”

            I do not find this principle to be remotely intelligible or coherent. I gave my reasons quite extensively above, in the form of questions which invited others to add some clarity to this “principle.” So far nobody has done so on even a single point.

            1. Your reasons are largely ‘Dems are so, so, bad.’ which says nothing about your side being good or bad.

              It’s remarkable in showing the GOP philosophy having become own the libs, and how much reason and argument have fallen by the way side.

              1. Nope. Your bias blinds you. My questions have nothing to do with excusing behavior based on the behavior of others. They have to do with soliciting clarity on this completely vague “principle” being put forth. In the absence of any clarity whatsoever on these very basic questions, the “principle” appears to be a pitiful fig leaf for purely political machinations.

            2. I think the principle must be: asking foreign leaders to investigate the appearance of corruption is wrong — in this case. Maybe only in this case. But maybe also in other cases.

              The integrity of our elections requires appearances of corruption by some specific people to go uninvestigated if it involves foreign countries in any way. Sometimes at least.

              1. So, it is ok for an Administration to pressure another country to prevent investigations that would be inconvenient, but not to investigate apparent corruption (even if required by a mutual treaty)?

                1. Too many awkward double-negatives and hypotheticals in that question for anyone to want to engage with it.

              2. I think the principle must be: asking foreign leaders to investigate the appearance of corruption is wrong — in this case. Maybe only in this case. But maybe also in other cases.

                Well, actually, you kind of illustrate the problem there: it is only in this case. If Trump were sending Giuliani (but of course, if it were legitimate, it wouldn’t be Giuliani; it would be an actual U.S. law enforcement official) around the world trying to clean up corruption, it wouldn’t have caused eyebrows to raise. But instead he’s solely pushing for an investigation of Joe Biden.

                Weird how the only “appearance of corruption” Trump cares about is his most likely opponent in 2020. Or maybe it isn’t weird at all.

                1. Trump doesn’t need your approval on his choice of messengers or which apparent corruption he wants investigated.

                  Investigating apparent corruption is good. Period. Full stop. No one need offer a defense of doing good nor encouraging others to do good.

                  1. Trump doesn’t need your approval on his choice of messengers or which apparent corruption he wants investigated.

                    No, but he needs the approval of the majority of the House or 1/3+1 of the Senate.

  16. Jonathan H. Adler
    Donald B. Ayer
    George T. Conway III
    Carrie F. Cordero
    Charles Fried
    Stuart M. Gerson
    Peter D. Keisler
    Orin S. Kerr
    Marisa C. Maleck
    Trevor Potter
    Alan Charles Raul
    Jonathan C. Rose
    Paul Rosenzweig
    Andrew Sagor
    Jaime D. Sneider
    J.W. Verret

    Fuck off, each one of you in your individual capacities.

    Also, fuckoff ” the policy of the State Department, following the stated aims of the European Union, in conjunction with similar pressure from the IMF & World Bank, with support of Republicans in Congress at the time, and to the applause of every reform & anti-corruption group in Ukraine itself” as none of this has anything to do with Article II .

    1. Getting stomped in the culture war has made you (and plenty of other clingers) cranky, Entropy Drehmaschine Void.

      Replacement will cure that.

      1. No, Rev.-

        Obvious Partisan Bullshit makes me cranky.

        And you are a prime producer.

        1. Obvious Partisan Bullshit makes me cranky.

          Uh, do you even know the meaning of the words you’re using? Partisan? Those are all Republicans.

  17. “The favor was to investigate a baseless theory relating to the 2016 investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election.”

    This is how you revealed every one of you on that list are a bunch of shitbag hacks.

    Delusional, lying shitbag hacks.

    1. What’s even worse is that some of them at least know that isn’t true. They are willing to run interference for criminal acts and abuse of power because of Trump hate.

Please to post comments