Reason Roundup

Trump's Cronies Meddling in Ukraine Undermined U.S. Goals, Says Ambassador Taylor

Plus: Involuntary commitment and "Indian-made" laws scrutinized, unconstitutional copyright bill passes, stranger danger panic, and more...

|

U.S. Ambassador William B. Taylor dishes further about Trump meddling in Ukraine. Taylor took the ambassadorship to the Ukraine job in May but by July was having serious doubts, according to his testimony yesterday before impeachment investigators in the U.S. House of Representatives. It had become clear to him that Trump allies were pursuing bizarre side goals in Ukraine that ran contrary to the work he was supposedly sent to do.

Taylor said that U.S. goals in Ukraine were "fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making" dedicated to digging up dirt that could harm President Donald Trump's political enemies and cronies asking for other favors that would benefit Trump politically—sometimes conditioning aid on these requests. From The Washington Post:

The worrisome signs had been building for weeks. Taylor's predecessor had been recalled from Kyiv under questionable circumstances. A few days before his visit to the front lines, Taylor had received a report from Washington that the $391 million in military aid was being held up until Ukraine's new president committed to investigations that would help Trump.

Perhaps most troubling, the ambassador couldn't get a readout of a call that had taken place one day earlier on July 25 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Taylor read 15 pages of testimony yesterday, describing how Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and recently-resigned special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker were pursuing things left off the official policy agenda and adjacent to—or sometimes at odds with—stated U.S. aims in the area.

You can read Taylor's full testimony here. He concludes:

There are two Ukraine stories today. The first is the one we are discussing this morning and that you have been hearing about for the past two weeks. It is a rancorous story about whistleblowers, Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption, and interference in elections. In this story Ukraine is an object.

But there is another Ukraine story—a positive, bipartisan one. In this second story, Ukraine is the subject. This one is about young people in a young nation, struggling to break free of its past, hopeful that their new government will finally usher in a new Ukraine, proud of its independence from Russia, eager to join Western institutions and enjoy a more secure and prosperous life.


FREE MINDS

Involuntary commitment procedures in New Hampshire questioned. A woman involuntarily committed for mental health treatment is suing the state of New Hampshire after being held against for nearly three weeks over a technicality. The woman should have been transferred from an emergency room to a psychiatric facility, but all of the state's facilities were full. She should also have been given a chance to argue her case before a judge within three days—but that's only done through the state psychiatric facilities. This meant the patient could not go before a judge or go home until a spot in state care opened up.

"The legality of this situation is now being debated in federal court," notes NPR. The woman "ended up spending 20 days locked inside a wing of St. Joseph's emergency department."


FREE MARKETS

"Indian-made" law under scrutiny. Missouri artist Peggy Fontenot is suing the state over a law saying that only people from federally-recognized Native American tribes can market their arts, crafts, and other goods as "Indian-made." Fontenot is part of a tribe, the Patawomecks, recognized by the state of Virginia but not by the federal government.

With this requirement, the state is "not allowing me to identify as who I am or allowing me to identify my work as what it is. To me, that's violating my free speech," Fontenot told The Kansas City Star.

Fontenot sued over a similar law in Oklahoma, and won in federal court a few months back. Her latest lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.


PROTECTING & SERVING

Seven months paid leave for cop caught in massage parlor prostitution sting. Officer Jay Jesus Rodriguez "spent seven months on paid administrative leave while the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigated" a video in which he "appears to engage in a sexual act with one of the targets" of an undercover sting at a Florida massage parlor, according to the Fort Myers News-Press. Rodriguez "was paid more than $60,000 plus benefits while on administrative leave." Meanwhile, "the sting at the massage parlor ended with the arrest of two women," though one had her record expunged and charges were eventually dropped against the other.


QUICK HITS

  • The House just passed a new copyright bill known as the CASE Act. Read Mike Masnick at techdirt on why it's unconstitutional and will only benefit copyright trolls.
  • Almost all state attorneys general are joining in an antitrust investigation of Facebook.
  • A Massachusetts bill would ban the word bitch.
  • Sex offenders are suing over signs a Georgia sheriff's office put in their yards that warned trick-or-treaters to stay away.
  • So, asks Eric Levitz, "how did center-left Democrats end up in a position so desperate, the concept of 'John Kerry 2020' strikes them as cause for consideration instead of laughter?"
  • Stranger danger panic:

Advertisement

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: October 23, 1991

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. A Massachusetts bill would ban the word bitch.

    As a noun or a verb?

    1. adjective, unfortunately. do you have any idea how many fliers for next weekend’s kegger i have to find and take down?

    2. Hello.

      What a little bitch Hunt is.

      But hey. To anymore in the middle of the culture war or a keen observer of it, this is a feature not a bug in modern times. It’s the zeitgeist my friends.

      When we say we’re in a Dark Age, this is an example.

      No, it’s not an example of democracy in action. It’s tyranny by other means.

    3. Obviously intended to protect Lizzie Warren.

      1. As long as I can keep calling her a cunt

    4. A Massachusetts bill would ban the word bitch.

      No problem for the old timers who still haven’t move out of the ‘bee-yotch’ phase.

    5. [ USA PEOPLE ONLY ]
      Google pay 342$ reliably my last pay check was $51000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web.My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.I can’t trust in howdirect it was once I attempted it out.This is my essential concern…:)for more info visit any tab this site ☛ http://www.easyearn.com

  2. Sex offenders are suing over signs a Georgia sheriff’s office put in their yards that warned trick-or-treaters to stay away.

    Sheriffs should probably be put on the sex offender registry for the hardons they seem to get over the sex offender registry.

    1. What is the wording on these signs? Tbh, I have no problem with it being mandatory for confirmed pedophiles to have a sign in their yard turning away trick or treaters. I have an issue when it’s anyone added to the dubious sex offender registry or if the sign goes too so far as to say the person is a convicted sex offender

      1. If they are dangerous they should be in jail otherwise leave them alone

        1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

          The Sex Registry is an unconstitutional Cruel and Unusual lifetime punishment, its an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, and an Ex Post facto law for many that had sex convictions decades before the law was passed.

      2. There’s no way they’re that discerning.

  3. Seven months paid leave for cop caught in massage parlor prostitution sting.

    The longest happy ending that guy ever got.

    1. Would getting a rub-n-tug while on the clock count as taxable benefits that must be declared on your 1040? Asking for a friend, of course.

  4. …how did center-left Democrats end up in a position so desperate, the concept of ‘John Kerry 2020’ strikes them as cause for consideration instead of laughter?

    I blame Millennials.

    1. Are there some “never Bernie/Warren” on the left?

    2. Center-left democrats are called ‘republicans’ now.
      Real democrats are called either fascists or socialists, depending on your understanding of history.

  5. So a quid pro quo. A criminal conspiracy. And the grounds for removal from office and criminal prosecution. Remember that the only Trump’s scheme was discovered and thwarted. If not Ukraine would have announced the investigations and we would have never known Trump was behind it all using tax money to bribe a foreign govt into interfering in our election. These Republicans are traitors.

    1. Yeah, Norah O’Donnell was breathlessly telling her viewers last night that they needed to read the whole 15-page testimony, and the DNC Shill Brigade was out in full force making the same assertions.

      Except, when you actually read the transcript, it’s full of the same second-hand hearsay, “I heard this from so and so,” and “this is what I thought it meant” speculation. There continues to be no actual evidence of direct, first-hand conversation, and there’s also the continuing complication that Ukraine never even knew that the aid was being held back at all until well after the fact.

      It’s a bit difficult to prove a “quid pro quo” when the party supposedly being strong-armed is completely clueless that they’re supposed to provide the quid to get the quo.

      1. The written testimony even uses words clearly stating it was Taylor’s opinion. He had literal no hard facts. That is why they leaked his written statement and will not release his actual deposition.

      2. Ukrainian officials were told that “everything” — meaning the money, the weapons and the oval office meeting — was dependent on the “investigations”. Ukraine was supposed to “publicly announce” they were conducting these investigations. The idea was to “box” in the Ukrainians by having them publically committed to the investigations.

        1. That is what Taylor claims but multiple people including the Ukrainians say that isn’t true. And Taylor has no first hand knowledge of it, only hearsay.

          Just give it up.

          1. You’re a desperate liar John.

            1. No I am not. You are just quoting Taylor as fact and ignoring the people who dispute it. And I am not desperate at all. I am laughing my ass off at how pathetic this whole thing is.

            2. “You’re a desperate liar John.”

              I’m sure your boyfriend’s hairdressers’ uncle is the source for this, right?

        2. The same officials who have all stated they didnt even know money was delayed?

          Again, you are quoting Taylor’s opinion of facts as actual fact.

      3. Second hand information like from the fucking US ambassador to Ukraine and and the US ambassador to the EU? Those guys who were in charge? Those guys are just spreading rumors, eh? That’s your fucking defense now? Jesus fucking christ you Trump sycophants are sad.

        Oops, and it turns out Ukraine was very aware of the aid freeze, so there goes that line of bullshit defense that was being peddled by Jesse and the other Trump sycophants on here. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html

        Give it up. Trump did something blatantly illegal (again). Stop embarrassing yourselves and outing yourselves as fake libertarians.

        Principles over principals, remember?

        1. Stop making shit up, you Brockobot glowspook.

          1. None of that is made up. Look up the testimonies for yourself. It’s extremely damning.

            1. The article said the Ukrainians found out about the aid freeze in August. The phone call was in July. Guess what that means? That they didn’t know about any kind of aid freeze when the call was made.

              LOL at “look at the testimonies yourself.” You mean the ones selectively leaked by the Democrats to their media sycophants. GFY, spook.

              1. Trump sycophants’ ability to read one thing and interpret it as another continues to amaze me.

                “In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

                The problem was not bureaucratic, the Ukrainians were told. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.

                The timing of the communications, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than acknowledged.”

                1. Again, dumbshit, the call was in July. They found out in August.

                  Try again.

        2. Oppresso….Cite the law that was broken, pretty please.

          1. Sea lion is gonna sea lion. No law need be broken for impeachment. The function of our highest office depends on good faith and adhering to long standing norms.
            Anyway:
            1. Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government
            2. Bribery
            3.Misappropriation
            4. Conspiracy
            https://www.businessinsider.com/laws-trump-could-have-broken-ukraine-whistleblower-case-2019-9

            1. Dude…you’re the guy who said he did illegal acts. I asked for the specific law. Please name it.

              1. All of those are illegal. I’m not doing your homework, and I can’t link more than one thing at a time. you aren’t looking for new information, you are sea lioning.

                Here’s a free one. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

                1. The Dems are not even accusing Trump of soliciting cash, dumbass.

            2. “”No law need be broken for impeachment.””

              Has this ever been tested?

              It’s plausible that the judge of the trial could throw out the House’s indictments if they do not meet the standard set by the Constitution.

              1. Vic….I thought it read ‘sole power’ for the House when it comes to impeachment. I don’t think the courts can intervene, can they? Won’t they read ‘sole power’ and just walk away saying this is a political dispute?

                The Senate trial is a different thing, Chief Justice presides.

                1. I’m talking about the Senate trial.

                  Could the Chief Justice throw out the indictments as unconstitutional if he feels it does not meet the high crimes and misdemeanors threshold in the Constitution?

                  1. Why would a Justice like John Roberts, who has shown himself to be very unwilling to step into matter he considers the Congress’s, throw out an impeachment? I think this very unlikely.

                    1. “”who has shown himself to be very unwilling to step into matter he considers the Congress’s,””

                      Because as the presiding judge of the senate trial, he is no longer stepping into matter of Congress. He has a functional part of the process.

                    2. Maybe so, but he hasn’t yet grown a spine.

                  2. Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

                    The Constitution is unclear on the power of the Chief Justice as the judge in charge of the impeachment trial. The Constitution does give the US Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, so I would think the Senate makes the rules and has near absolute power in this regard. I would not think it is constitutional for the Chief Justice to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment. The Chief Justice is there to administer the impeachment trial on the rules that the US Senate has established.

                2. Sure the house can do what it wants to get the impeachment.

                  1. While there is no real guidance on how Articles of Impeachment need to be worded, Executive Branch officials cannot be removed if there is no treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

                    While the House can decide much, they don’t have an absolute power when it comes to impeachment.

                    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

                    1. “”Executive Branch officials cannot be removed if there is no treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.””

                      Say that none of the indictments equates to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors but the Senate votes to remove. How does the Constitutional issue get resolved? Or does it get ignored.

            3. “laws Trump could have broken.”

              That’s not proof, Brockobot spook.

      4. “Yeah, Norah O’Donnell was breathlessly telling her viewers last night that they needed to read the whole 15-page testimony, and the DNC Shill Brigade was out in full force making the same assertions.”

        I like how they mislabel an opening statement as testimony.

        10 hrs of testimony would take more than 15 pages

        1. Exactly. What she was pimping is basically what the Democrats chose to leak to the press since these are closed, supposedly secret hearings, and of course neither she nor Nancy Cordes bothered to point out that little fact.

    2. You’ve proven your ignorance on basically every concept of law. You do know that Taylor’s testimony is opinion right? He had no hard evidence. And his opinion is contradicted by hard evidence of Sondlands texts explicitly telling Taylor there was no pid pro quo.

      What criminal conspiracy? Democrats aren’t even arguing a crime at this point dumbass, they are claiming an abuse of power. How fucking ignorant are you?

      1. Bribery, extortion, fraud, campaign finance, and racketeering.

        1. Holy shit. You are fucking retarded. Lol. You think those crimes are on the table?!? Lol.

        2. “Bribery, extortion, fraud, campaign finance, and racketeering.”

          Gee! Pod knows 6 or 8 words!
          Now try to make sense of them.

    3. #TrumpUkraine is tied with #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history.

      We’ve reached the tipping point. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

      #Impeach
      #Resist

      1. “We’ve reached the tipping point. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.”

        Forgive me but I seem to have heard this before; over that past 2.5 years, more or less.

    4. A leak by Adam Schiff who has deeply stage managed to entire affair. And not a leak of all the testimony…just some of it.

      Totes legit.

      1. This is precisely why they have made these “hearings” secret.

        The democrats have learned their lessons. When they tried to smear Kavanaugh in public, everyone got to see the whole thing for themselves. And all but the die-hard partisans saw through their scheme.

        Mueller did his investigation in secret, but there were very few leaks, and those things that did “leak” from Brennan and Comey and their compatriots all proved to be wrong.

        So now they are going to control the narrative. They will leak what they want leaked. They will leak it to the press that they want covering it. And it will be presented as proof positive, just like this “blockbuster testimony”.

        Apparently the Republicans are not even allowed access to transcripts of the testimony – they can only look at it with a Democrat minder monitoring everything they do.

        One thing your news media left out this morning – a republican on the committee asked him a couple of questions, and the answers apparently clearly demonstrate that there was actually no quid pro quo. In fact, they demonstrated that the Ukranians didn’t even know that the funds that are supposed to be the crux of the entire thing had ever been held up. But we are not allowed to see, hear or read that testimony. In fact, they are not allowed to tell us exactly what it was. So they had to hint around at it by saying what it wasn’t.

        Ever wonder what it must be like to watch the news in a place like the USSR or Red China?

    5. I have a feeling you’re going to be very disappointed,

    6. parody is top notch.

  6. She should also have been given a chance to argue her case before a judge within three days—but that’s only done through the state psychiatric facilities. This meant the patient could not go before a judge or go home until a spot in state care opened up.

    And New Hampshire wants to be our Free State Project.

  7. Almost all state attorneys general are joining in an antitrust investigation of Facebook.

    They all want to be governor?

    1. Some of them want to be Senator.

  8. the concept of ‘John Kerry 2020’ strikes them as cause for consideration instead of laughter?

    in an effort not to get pancaked in the 2020 election, they’ve decided on the waffler who seems all to eager to toast the french? sure, up to them, i guess.

    1. He’s a regular (Eggs) Benedict Arnold.

    2. Not even Kerry could save the Democrat’s bacon this election.

  9. Schiff continues to investigate in the dark in an attempt to control the narrative. He continues to hide witness statements behind depositions so the GOP cannot provide a response. Meanwhile the DNC continues to leak witness statements they have coordinated on. Yesterday it was Taylor’s turn. The most damning statement per media was this:

    “By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma [the Ukrainian oil company that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, worked for] and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections,” Taylor said in his testimony.

    Of course it becomes quickly apparent that this statement is merely an opinion from taylor as he uses the term “became clear to me” which is evidence of no hard evidence but mere opinion. Reports are Rep McCarthy quickly destroyed Taylor’s opinion, but is not allowed to talk about it due to deposition rules. Likewise the apparent conversation this opinion is wrapped around was from the day before we have text evidence of Sondland explicitly telling Taor there was no pid pro quo. So we have documented evidence telling one story vs a partisan ambassadors opinion. This is the same ambassador on record declaring when he was picked he would operate how he wanted and ignore Trump policy he disagreed with.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ukraine-ambassador-william-taylors-testimony-backs-senate-republicans-into-a-corner

    There is a reason Democrats are doing this in private, their case is weak and they know it. This especially true with multiple Democrats discussing they would tie aid to their policy preferences such as Warren’s statement on Israel yesterday.

    1. Barr is “investigating in the dark” you fucking moron. Why isn’t Barr’s election 2016 investigation open to the public? Of course you’re an idiot so it hasn’t occurred to you that investigations are typically done behind closed doors. It’s only once the investigation is over and someone is charged that the evidence is turned over.

      You’re also completely confused about what is and is not credible. The case against Trump is strong. They’ve done the depositions behind so that witnesses would give a more honest account. It’s very much like sequestering witnesses in a trial. You’re rather the witnesses not hear all the testimony.

      1. Barr is a criminal investigation being done by DOJ. Congress is a political investigation being done by Congress. Congress doesn’t conduct secret investigations like a grand jury you fucking moron.

        No one is going to buy an impeachment done in secret. Moreover, everyone knows that the only reason the Democrats won’t do anything in public is because they know how absurd their case is. Yeah, the Democrats have all of this damning evidence against Trump but won’t put it out publicly out of kindness or something. Sure, that is the ticket.

        1. The hilarious part has been watching DNC candidates make promises to use pid pro quo in foreign assistance while on the campaign trail.

        2. An impeachment inquiry is almost exactly analogous to a grand jury, actually. The president may defend himself in front of the Senate, but until then, any “defense” he mounts is obstruction.

          1. No its not you moron. It has never been analogous to a Grand Jury. Impeachment hearings have always been done in public. No one is going to buy impeachment that is brought without it being done in the open.

            Jesus Christ Jeff just stop it.

            1. In previous impeachment inquiries, the house voted to grant the president procedural rights. There are no inherent rights for the executive in an impeachment inquiry.

          2. Lol good lord. Taking any step to defend oneself during the grand jury phase is now obstruction of justice? At his best George Orwell couldn’t have thought up stuff this ridiculous.

            1. “Taking any step to defend oneself during the grand jury phase is now obstruction of justice?”

              Quite literally: yes. And it has always been that way. Educate yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+a+grand+jury+works&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS717US717&oq=how+a+grand+jury+works&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.3067j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

              1. It’s not a friggin grand jury dumbass. It’ might be grand jury like, but the rules that apply to a criminal grand jury don’t apply to the impeachment process.

                This should be so easy to understand.

                1. Jeff doesnt believe in co equal branches apparently. Of constitutional rights of defendants.

              2. Prisoner 1: What are you in for?
                Prisoner 2: Killed 8 kids. What are you in for?
                Prisoner 1: Obstruction of justice. Hired a lawyer when I heard my name came up during a grand jury investigation.

                1. Prisoner 3: No kidding me too. Sought a protective order to maintain confidentiality of some important business records. Now serving 6-12.

              3. Jeff literally claims a defendant cant hire a lawyer during grand jury investigations… how fucking stupid are you?

                1. Neither or I nor Jeff claimed that. You can hire an attorney whenever you want. You just have no right to defend yourself, face your accusers, etc.. But you knew that. You have to strawman in order to have an opinion you can argue against, cause the facts aren’t on your side.

          3. “”An impeachment inquiry is almost exactly analogous to a grand jury, actually.””

            Then tell us in what past impeachment was the inquiry done in secret.

      2. The case is strong?

        Oh fuck you you fucken sheep.

        Go fuck Justin. You left-wing morons are all the same in your degenerate NPC mindset. You’re in perennial fuck me up the ass mode.

        More perverse, you then mock people with freer minds who are capable of not being made slaves to this propaganda horse shit.

        That clown Obama put out a tweet during the election in support of Justin. How is that not a form of interference? And fuck you and that ‘he’s a private citizen’ line. He’s a piece of shit who can’t keep his damn over rated mouth shut. Him and the wife of his.

        1. They spent years pushing the Russian hoax only to have Mueller make them look like complete fools. Now they are pushing this. You would think at some point they would get tired of being lied to.

          1. the presidents son and campaign manager took a meeting with agents of the Russian government with the agenda “Dirt on Hillary – Russian government support for DJT campaign”. Subsequently, DJT himself gets on live TV and flat out asks the Russians for campaign help. subsequent to that, the president’s son lied to congress about the meeting and DJT crafted a letter that was nothing less than an outright lie and obvious cover up about the meeting. DJT then continues to this day to claim that “Russia didn’t do it” in spit of a house investigation, a senate investigation, all of our intel agencies, several of our allied intel agencies all coming to the same conclusion: Russia did it. These are undeniable facts.

            If this was reversed, and a democrat did these things, you would be fucking howling, and you know it. Don’t call it a hoax, cause it ain’t.

            1. Hillary’s camp paid a foreigner to dig up dirt on Trump, some from Russia.

              One you start calling for Hillary to be charged for the same, maybe I’ll start taking your seriously.

              1. Those two things are not alike, and you claiming they are shows you are not here for honest debate.

                1. Is it legal or not to enlist a foreign entity to get dirt on your political opponent?

                  1. It is legal for you or your campaign to do opposition research on your opponent, including any foreign entanglements. It is not legal for a foreign entity to provide that to you for free, because that is considered to be assisting your campaign. The later would in theory leave you with an obligation to a foreign entity. In the case Ukraine the foreign aid was requested in return for aid they were entitled to get. In legal terms a Quid Pro Quo, in common term extortion.

                    1. In the case Ukraine the foreign aid was requested in return for aid they were entitled to get.

                      Lefties keep saying this, but can’t actually point out where this was directed.

                    2. “”It is not legal for a foreign entity to provide that to you for free, because that is considered to be assisting your campaign.””

                      But it’s ok if they provide it for a fee? They give you something, and you give something in return?

                  2. It is legal to pay a private detective, no matter his citizenship, for research from campaign funds. It is illegal to request or take aid from a foreign government, for free.

                    glad I could clear that up for you.

            2. Sure, that’s why people got indictments for actual collusion with Russia, not unrelated process crimes…oh wait, that didn’t happen.

        2. I forgot to rub that in. Thanks for reminding me Trudeau is still running your country.

        3. How the hell did Trudeau win re-election? The guy got caught in friggin BLACKFACE

          1. White Lefties are racists and non-whites let themselves be controlled.

      3. When did Bare initiate impeachment proceedings dumbfuck?

      4. “Barr is “investigating in the dark” you fucking moron. ”

        What testimony has he leaked? Schiff is leaking plenty.

      5. Pod….For a matter of this gravity, impeaching a duly elected POTUS, I think this should be public. Put it all out there, let the American people see and hear it, and call the vote! I have a real problem with how this is being done. I know the rules allow it, as the Speaker can do what she likes, but I don’t think it is a good idea.

        If there is clear and unequivocal evidence of POTUS Trump breaking a law in a way that is inimical to US national interest, the American electorate will scream for his dismissal. Rightly so. And it will be done. It really is that simple.

        POTUS Obama could have been impeached for breaking the law when he traded the Taliban Five for Bergdahl. 100%, no debate. He broke the law relative to Congressional notification. That said, I never would have impeached him over that. Why, you ask? Because I can make a case in my own mind that this was a case where it is a really close call – considering the entire context. And that is the key, Pod. Each American in their own mind weighing the evidence for themselves. And the entire context of what is happening. There is nothing clear and unequivocal here, the context is what it is, and that is the practical problem I see for Team D.

        POTUS Trump might well be ‘guilty’ of a crime, if you interpret the facts in the most negative way possible and stretch the reach of the law. But that isn’t how the American people think about it. They won’t say “Toss his ass” until there is something you just cannot interpret any other way than “the SOB broke the law and he goes”. The never-ending impeachment query won’t work either; the American people will tire of it rather quickly.

  10. Almost all state attorneys general are joining in an antitrust investigation of Facebook.

    tricky one to pluralize

  11. Judicial Watch is still getting new emails from Benghazi and buried email about Hillarys server.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/judicial-watch-benghazi-emails-confirm-clinton-email-cover-up/

    1. Had the State Department turned over this newly uncovered email in 2014, the email scandal would have broken months earlier.

      “‘The State Department’ is *people*. It’s PEOPLE!”

      1. No deep state. No political bias in government.

        1. They have moved on from “there is no deep state.” That was so last year.

          Now, instead of being a crazy conspiracy theorist for mentioning the “deep state”, they are lauding these wonderful public servants as true patriots. The NYT has a nice, big writeup about how fantastic it is that unelected bureaucrats are supplanting the elected government, because orange man bad.

    2. Of course there is a Benghazi cover up. It involves a CIA safe house with CIA contractors. The republicans would have covered that up in a heartbeat too.

  12. …Taylor had received a report from Washington that the $391 million in military aid was being held up until Ukraine’s new president committed to investigations that would help Trump.

    Too inexperienced to create a foundation.

    1. Whether the investigations would help Trump is not the issue. The issue is whether the investigations were warranted. To say the issue is whether they would help Trump is to say the President can’t do his job if doing so helps him politically.

      I can’t believe even the people pushing this actually believe it. It is amazing they think anyone will.

      1. Trump could have told Barr he wanted Biden investigated but Barr couldn’t have announced he was investigating Biden and so the case may have opened but would have closed without us even knowing it had ever opened. Of course there is no case to made against Biden. It was never about a case. It was about creating an appearance of a case. The purpose of using the Ukrainians was to insulate the DOJ and to publicize the investigation.

        1. The US works with and strong arms other countries into cooperating with investigations all of the time. Moreover, the Democrats worked with the very same Ukraine trying to frame Trump in 2016. And now Trump is a criminal for asking Ukraine to look into that?

          Whatever.

          1. You’re describing a quid pro quo and extortion. “We strong arm countries”. The problem for Trump and company is that they were using public money ans extorting Ukraine for personal gain.

            1. For personal gain? By what? Exposing Ukrainian collusion with democrat candidates in 2016? Or by exposing corruption of the Obama administration for the personal financial gain of relatives of high officials?

              Exactly how is exposing other people using government influence to squeeze cash out of foreign companies something that is a personal benefit? Aren’t we kinda standing the world on its head here?

              Using the FBI and CIA to spy on political opponents is patriotic…. but telling a foreign country that we disavow pressure to make personel changes in their government and would like to know if there was any corruption brought to their shores by our officials is treason?

              I suppose if you put (D) next to one and (R) next to the other it starts making sense…

          2. ” Moreover, the Democrats worked with the very same Ukraine trying to frame Trump in 2016.”

            Citation needed.

        2. Of course there is no case to made against Trump. It was never about a case. It was about creating an appearance of a case. The purpose of using the Russians was to insulate the DOJ and to publicize the investigation.

          Glad you agree that the Mueller investigation was a fraud.

      2. The investigation into the Bidens is warranted. But Trump, being his political opponent, should not be directly involved in the investigation.

    2. The entire impeachment proceedings and the Mueller investigation were done to hurt Trump. The logic to claim campaign co attribution solely for Trumps actions doesnt exist.

      1. Trump’s own appointee decided there was enough evidence to appoint a special prosecutor to examine Russian election interference and the extent to which Trump campaign officials were involved. Can you get that through your skull? Trump’s own justice department appointed Mueller!!!!!

          1. No, he’s not. Jeff Sessions recused himself and Rosenstein appointed Mueller, dude. Trump appointees. If your beliefs require you to deny facts, then please examine those beliefs.

            1. You know those who the president appoints can be fired by the president or any reason, or no reason.

              1. Ok? Re read the thread. Sevo actually denied that Trump appointees appointed Mueller. Like most Trump supporters, one has to actively deny reality in order to maintain those beliefs.

                1. Sure. But in doing that, you accidently explain why firing either one of those would not be obstruction. Trump is allowed to fire anyone he is allowed to appoint.

                  1. Ok? That is arguable.

                    It is puzzling how eager you are to grant the next Democratic party president the power to declare himself above the law.

                    1. “I have a pen and a phone.”

                    2. “”It is puzzling how eager you are to grant the next Democratic party president the power to declare himself above the law.”‘

                      I’m not, you’re projecting.

                2. You act like this actually matters with the impeachment proceedings you conveniently ignored. Liberals have been open about using this to take down trump. See rep al green baby jeff.

                  1. I’m not acting like anything, other than acting like Trump appointees began the Mueller investigation.

  13. If Taylor were telling the truth or were in any way believable such that he could convince anyone not already convinced, his testimony would be a prime time spectacle on every channel and he would be on every liberal friendly talk show doing fawning interviews. The fact that none of that is happening and instead he is testifying in secret with his testimony selectively leaked tells you all you need to know about his testimony; namely that even the Democrats know he is full of shit.

    1. Except for those of us over in Ukraine were watching this play out in real time. We don’t need his testimony or anyone else’s to know that Trump tried to screw over Ukraine because we were talking about it while it was happening.

      1. Over in Ukraine in real time…

        You mean like the Ukrainian officials who said they didnt know of the delay?

          1. Since the phone call was in July and the Ukrainians didn’t know about any aid freeze until August, you can stop peddling that bullshit yourself. However, we know you won’t.

            Funny how lefties are all parroting this link as if it says something different than reality.

            1. You just automatically excuse the Trump lie, again? Whether the quid comes before or after the quo, it is still quid pro quo.
              What is no longer disputed is that Trump and sycophants lied about the Ukrainians being aware of the freeze.

              1. No, I’m dismissing desperate leftie gaslighting. If you’re not aware there’s a quid pro quo happening, it’s not happening.

                What is no longer disputed is that Trump and sycophants lied about the Ukrainians being aware of the freeze.

                It’s also no longer disputed that Democrats lied that Trump demanded something from them in exchange for foreign aid. Kind of like you’re lying right now.

      2. It is a terrible deal that the Ukraine stopped the Biden boys from robbing them blind.

      3. “Except for those of us over in Ukraine were watching this play out in real time. We don’t need his testimony or anyone else’s to know that Trump tried to screw over Ukraine because we were talking about it while it was happening.”

        Now, it’s possible the web keeps people from knowing you’re a dog, but it doesn’t keep people from knowing you’re a liar.

  14. It had become clear to him that Trump allies were pursuing bizarre side goals in Ukraine that ran contrary to the work he was supposedly sent to do.

    What work? Like meddle in Ukrainian elections? Did we fix the last one? I know Victoria Nuland and the State Department fixed the Ukraine election in 2014.

    1. The people of Ukraine definitely voted Zelenskyy* in. I have only met a few people who were interested in voting for anyone else. The day he was elected, the whole mood in the country changed.

      *It seems no one can agree on the transliteration of his name. I actually prefer Zelenskyi. I’m sure it will shortened to Zelensky before long.

      1. “The people of Ukraine definitely voted Zelenskyy* in. I have only met a few people who were interested in voting for anyone else.”

        Pauline Kael, ladies and gentlemen.

      2. Zelensky seems to be a good guy, but 27% of Ukraine did not vote for him. Perhaps you should broaden the circle of your friends and acquaintances?

      3. In a country notorious for political corruption the President receiving 73% of the vote seems perfectly normal to you. Maybe think a little deeper. Or maybe just think.

    1. Every Democrat in public life has used the term at various times but that is different because REASONS!!

      1. There’s a theory going around the internet that Trump has politcal operatives whose sole job is to dig for past outrageous, inflammatory statements by Democrats and Media figures (redundancy alert).

        When they find one Trump makes a point of using said word/phrase/metaphor in a Tweet or public statement, knowing full well the Left will reflexively jerk their knees and make an issue of it only to get embarrassed and accused of hypocrisy when their own verbal excesses are revealed.

        This requires one to believe thatTrump is an extremely canny politician and not just a loudmouthed huckster. But this happens with enough regularity that it’s a plausible explanation.

        1. That is likely what happens. I can’t believe he just happens to use these phrases. They are by design.

          1. He needs to use “coup” next. I remember a ton of Dems calling the Clinton impeachment that as well.

      1. Who knew that Clarence Thomas was a white supremacist?

        1. Anita Hill?

    2. Is there any possibility that this was a setup by Trump? Knowing that they’ve all used the term and that they wouldn’t resist jumping on him for using it?

      I’m frightened.

  15. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $59.9 billion

    I knew this would happen. As soon as he broke the sixty billion barrier, I predicted within a week he’d fall back below it. Yesterday was absolutely brutal for the richest people on the planet, with the top 14 all losing money.

    Koch / Reason libertarianism exists to promote a steady increase in the wealth of the world’s richest individuals. Drumpf supporters can seize on irrelevant metrics like “low unemployment rate” — and AOC has already explained why that’s flawed — but we know better. A healthy economy is one in which people who already have tens of billions of dollars continue to add billions every year.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?
    #BillionairesKnowBest

  16. Trump’s cronies can say that something is not a quid pro quo all they want while arranging a quid pro quo but it’s still going to be a quid pro quo.

  17. …Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and recently-resigned special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker were pursuing things left off the official policy agenda and adjacent to—or sometimes at odds with—stated U.S. aims in the area.

    Deep staters, not the administration, determine foreign policy.

    This actually all sounds like a ham-fisted version of what I envision goes on with every administration. The Trump people are either too dumb or have too many enemies to get away with it.

    1. The State Department is a big incompetent bureaucracy and most Ambassadors are just big donors who were given nice titles in return. Every President has his own people go out and do diplomacy. It can be generals, intel people or straight up political people like Giuliani. This whole thing continues to prove there is no such thing as peak retard and nothing the Democrats think is so stupid that the public won’t believe it.

      1. Cannot figure out why Trump would rather use people he trusts over the people whose “job” was to handle this. They seem like such a trust-worthy bunch.

      2. You mean the department that has kept American hegemony (along with Dod) for the last 70 odd years? Incompetent? But the guy who can’t make money at a casino or operate a charity or “university” without a “shocking pattern of criminality” is competent? Okey dokey then.

        1. Why are we supposed to believe a lefty who suddenly parrots the maintenance of American hegemony as a positive thing?

          1. Never voted for a democrat for federal office in my life. You are gonna have to take the white/black filters off if you want to see clearly.

            1. Stop lying.

  18. Google touts quantum computing milestone

    “The rules are very simple, they’re just confounding.”

    Like the Constitution?

  19. http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-supreme-court-is-poised-to-strike-down-a-major-obama-era-agency/

    The Supreme Court might whack the CFPB. Now that would be a feel good story if there ever was one.

    1. Robert’s has proven he caves quickly to pressure from Wapo and the NYT.

  20. Insane in the Ukraine
    Insane in the Brain

    1. Crazy. They weren’t even directing it toward anyone nor did they know anyone could hear them. And then the kids getting interviewed say that the arrest wasn’t enough. Of course not.

      1. This is the craziest thing I have ever seen. The statute they used was one that made it illegal to “ridicule” someone based on their race or sex. That is the most blatently unconstitutional statute I have seen in a long time. It is a direct restriction on the content of speech. It is also vague and in no way tailored to meet a compelling public interest. I so hope these kids fight this and get the entire statute stricken from the books.

        What is also amazing is that the WAPO article doesn’t once mention the first amendment issues with this. The whole thing acts like this is a totally legitimate prosecution like they had been arrested for beating someone up or something. Talk about misinformation.

      2. Then if they got arrested for bitching about evil white folks, they’d not get the ironic joy in it…

  21. Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy say John Ratcliffe ‘destroyed’ Taylor’s argument. Why won’t Adam Schiff release the transcript?

    Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) on Democrats’ closed-door deposition of William Taylor:

    “The truth is, in two minutes, John Ratcliffe destroyed this witness. There is no quid pro quo”

  22. We’re so accustomed to thinking of the separation of powers in terms of the president usurping the powers of Congress and federalism in terms of the federal government overstepping what should be state matters that it can seem like those were the only ways the separation of powers and federalism could get out of whack. The progressives are showing us, however, that there are plenty of other unconstitutional ways to undermine the separation of powers and federalism.

    Congress attempting to oversee diplomacy is one example of Congress not staying in its lane and violating the separation of powers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.

    If the framers had wanted Congress to look over the president’s shoulder while he discussed matters of diplomacy with the heads of foreign governments, they would have done so. Instead, they gave Congress the power to impeach the president–and plainly set out the means by which impeachments were to proceed. In short, impeachment starts when a majority in the House of Representatives votes to impeach the president, and, until they do that, they have no business interfering with the presidents power to “receive ambassadors and other Ministers” from foreign countries. If you want to run foreign policy yourself, Nancy, throw your hat in the ring. If you want to impeach the president, call a vote.

    Can you imagine what it would be like if Congress oversaw our diplomatic relations? Right now, the Trump administration is negotiating with the Taliban on an agreement that will hopefully get us out of Afghanistan. Can you imagine how impossible those negotiations would be if Congress were involved in overseeing them?

    In regards to federalism being a two-way street, California has been setting national environmental policy for a long time–and it’s great to see the Trump administration pushing back. On one front, because so much of the auto industry is concentrated on selling cars in California specifically, California has been able to set emission standards for cars sold in the state that are much higher than those set by the federal government. The Trump administration is suing them to stop that practice. If we’re going to run with the logic of the commerce clause, who gave California the right to regulate commerce between the states? The vast majority of people being subjected to their emission standards are outside the state and don’t get to vote in California. No regulation without representation!

    The Trump administration is also now suing California over their Cap and Trade program. One of the startling discoveries about California’s cap and trade exchange is that Canadian provinces are participating in the program–which means California has effectively entered into a treaty regulating commerce with a foreign country. “Think globally, act locally” is more or less consistent with the Constitution. When California acts globally, however, they’ve overstepped the boundaries of federalism. Where in the Constitution are state granted the authority to enter into treaties with foreign governments much less regulate trade between us?

    1. The real problem isn’t lack of separation of powers, it’s the vast expansion of federal powers in the first place. If congress and the president stuck to the enumerated powers in the US Constitution, none of this b.s. would matter.

      1. Well, this is what that looks like in real time.

        Hindsight is 20/20.

        When people take positions based on what they want at the moment, we always seem to end up regretting it when the tables turn.

        California really shouldn’t be negotiating treaties with foreign countries or setting environmental regulations nationally, and that’s regardless of whether you believe global warming is a real problem that demands a government solution.

        Most people just don’t see it in those terms. They’re willing to violate the separation of powers and the principles of federalism whenever they think it’s in the interests of their preferred policies at the moment.

        Much of the gun banning movement may have initially been inspired as a reaction by culturally conservative types, who wanted to disarm the Black Panthers, who were patrolling their own neighborhoods with rifles and such to protect black people from the police. I’d call it ironic that cultural conservative types became some of the biggest victims of gun control laws, but “ironic” implies something unexpected. When the result should have been expected, I guess we call it “karma”.

        Same thing here. The separation of powers isn’t arbitrary. The reason we shouldn’t let one state set environmental policy for all of us or negotiate treaties with foreign countries isn’t because of the text of some document. It’s because when you subject people to policy without their input by way of democracy, you delegitimize the policy. California is effectively delegitimzing the environmentalist movement with its authoritarianism. Equate environmentalism with authoritarianism in enough people’s minds, and they’ll never get the broad support they need to get the social changes they want.

        1. It’s a violation of the US Constitution for California to make agreements or treaties with foreign powers, unless Congress agrees to it.

          US Constitution, Article I, Section 10.
          No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
          […]
          No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

  23. “Yikes. I didn’t think things could get much more damning than that call, but this is really appalling. Everything about this screams that they knew they were doing something wildly inappropriate. https://t.co/F3RBMwU4sU

    — Julian Sanchez (@normative) October 22, 2019″

    I’ve read the transcript. There wasn’t a quid pro quo in the call–it certainly isn’t damning just because Julian Sanchez says so. Sanchez is just reading between the lines in that transcript.

    Regardless, if Nancy Pelosi thinks this is sufficient evidence to substantiate an impeachable offense, then she should call a vote. Meanwhile, if Nancy Pelosi doesn’t call a vote, it’s presumably because not enough House Representatives–in her party–think that this is enough evidence to substantiate an impeachable offense.

    The Constitution doesn’t say that you need to impress Julian Sanchez if you want to impeach the president. It says that if you want to impeach the president, you need to impress a majority in the House to the extent that they’re willing to put their seats on the line by going on the record and voting to overturn the results of a presidential election.

    Until you accomplish that, quoting Julian Sanchez, the White House Press Corps, or Brooke Burke doesn’t impress me.

    1. Where in the Constitution does it say you need to have a vote to start an impeachment proceeding? Article 10?

      1. That you’re so dumb, you don’t know that impeachment doesn’t start until the House votes to start an impeachment isn’t about to persuade anybody of anything–other than that you’re so partisan it’s made you stupid.

        This is like yesterday, when you were pretending not to know what socialism is or why expanding a socialist program would be socialist.

        One of the worst things the Bush Administration ever did was persuade so many American men that it was manly to be afraid–and talk about it. Why I’m so scared of the terrorist, I don’t give a shit about the Constitution, and if you’re not as afraid of terrorists as I am, then you’re not a real man! Why would being proud of being afraid make someone manly? That’s a logic that only exists in the minds of extremely partisan people.

        Maybe the worst thing progressives have done is persuade so many people on the left that being profoundly ignorant is virtuous means of persuasion. Why I’m so stupid, I can’t be dissuaded by economics, reason, or facts, and it makes me soooooooo committed–and persuasive! Why, I’m so dumb, I don’t even know that the House of Representatives starts an impeachment proceeding with a majority vote, and if you want to be as smart as I am, then you need to be as ignorant of basic facts as I am, too!

        This line of reasoning isn’t persuasive to anyone who isn’t already in your cult.

        1. They are never going to have a vote Ken. They are just floundering and trying to keep their base happy while buying time hoping they find something, anything, that they could sway the public to care about this.

          1. I dunno.

            It seems like they are vacillating between trying to get republicans on record (or win outright) and enjoying the subpoena powers they have.

            The abuse of “investigatory powers” for political reasons over the last 3 years is off the charts. I thought we had reached an all-time low with Tom Delay. But this is unreal.

            The New York Attorney General actually ran for office on a platform of using that office to “get” Trump, Trump’s family and any Trump associates.

            Can you imagine that in any other context? “I’m going to use my office for partisan political purposes!” It is insane. In any other time such a person would never be allowed to take office.

            Yet today….. Hero!

            1. The plan is to abuse the investigatory powers to either find something, unlikely at this point but possible, or abuse them so fragrantly that Trump finally asserts himself and tells them to fuck off so that they can then claim he is covering up something.

              In the end, I don’t think any of it makes an impression on the public. The one thing about politics is that you need a simple story that the public finds compelling and a face to tell it that the public believes. This is what they tried with Christine Blessey Ford. There they had a simple story that could have been compelling “Kavanaugh raped me” but the face they had to tell it was a total liar that the public saw right through. So it blew up in their face.

              What the Democrats seemed to have taken from that experience is that if you can’t find a face to tell the story, just try and hide them and tell the story through leaks. That isn’t going to work. The public has enough sense to understand that if someone has something to say that matters they will do it in public not in some super secret star chamber.

              Worse than that, they still don’t have a story to tell. What is their story here? That Trump strong armed to Ukrainians into investigating Biden? That might sell except that Biden really is a crook and even if he were not, the Democrats were in bed with the Ukrainians trying to dig up dirt on Trump during the 16 election.

              The whole thing is just a joke and the Democrats know it. Contrast this with Watergate, Iran Contra, and the whole Monica Lewinski thing. In all three of those instances, the Congress was dying to get people on the stand and before the public. And in all three of those cases, the hearings related to them were a huge public spectacle that dominated TV for weeks. Hell, the Watergate Hearings were on prime time TV. If you really have evidence of things that will hurt a President from the other party, you don’t gather that evidence in secret. You put that evidence on TV for the world to see.

              1. We should also add that Nancy’s concern is that if she hadn’t moved forward with impeachment, she risked losing the Speakership to Democrats in deep blue districts. AoC or one of her comrades in a deep blue district would love to be Speaker–and if Nancy is seen as the thing that protected Trump from impeachment and let him get reelected, then Nancy may well end up going the way of John Boehner.

                1. Nancy is so old she has to know 2020 is her last round up. If the Democrats manage to keep the House, she won’t remain speaker for much longer. If they lose the House, she will never get a third chance to be speaker again.

              2. All this be Democrats just exposes that even they know that the end is near for the Party of slavery.

                Winners dont act like they are acting.

              1. Yes, Brockobot, the last three years. You been in coma this whole time (the fact that Hillary lost, I wouldn’t blame you)?

                1. Did not vote for Hillary. If you would bother to read the link, you would see I was pointing out it has been going on longer than 3 years. You guys are so touchy right now. Tough time being a Trump sycophant, I know.

                  1. Must be even tougher being a proglydyte gaslighter.

      2. Where in the Constitution does it say that the executive branch has to comply with subpoenas from Congress?

        Impeachment is a political process. So is complying with the impeachment process.

        1. The impeachment process doesn’t start until there’s a vote to impeach in the House.

          It doesn’t say the Speaker of the House initiates an impeachment process by calling whatever she’s doing one without calling for a vote on impeachment.

          It doesn’t say the media gets to start an impeachment process by calling whatever the Speaker is doing an impeachment process without there being a vote.

          Impeachment starts when there’s a vote on impeachment in the House. Until they go on the record with their votes, there is no impeachment.

          There’s framing. There’s bluster. There are accusations.

          There is no impeachment.

    2. They don’t want to actually impeach Trump, even if they have the votes, because they know it would be a net disaster for their party. They just want to have a constant stream of “Trump is icky” news stories coming out of their “impeachment inquiry” until November 2020. Or at least long enough to draw attention away from the Barr/Durham findings, whenever they come out.

      1. “They don’t want to actually impeach Trump, even if they have the votes, because they know it would be a net disaster for their party.”

        This is why I keep daring them to take a vote.

        The Democrats who represent swing districts are fucked either way if they have to go on the record and vote.

        If they vote to impeach Trump, it will galvanize Trump supporters against them.

        If they vote against impeaching Trump, the registered Democrats in their district will stay home in protest.

        By my last count, there were about ten Representatives from swing districts who were not committed on whether to formally call an impeachment vote. If they’re forced to vote, either way, being in swing districts, they’re likely to lose their seats. If that incumbent Democrat votes to impeach, their Republican competitor will galvanize the Republican vote over that. If that incumbent Democrat votes against impeachment, their Republican competitor will play to moderate swing voters since plenty of the party faithful will stay home rather than vote for a Democrat who voted against impeaching Trump.

        If the Democrats lose all ten of those seats, the Republicans will only need another ten to retake the House, and that’s almost within the margin of error on most polls.

        Go ahead and take a vote on impeachment, Nancy. Face the voters within a year of having tried to overturn their votes.

        I dare you.

        1. *grabs another bag of popcorn*

    3. Ken…I have been saying that for a while now. Call the fucking vote and let’s get this over with. The investigation is immaterial. Team D is casting about for their justification, and my attitude is why bother….you guys wanted POTUS Trump’s scalp nailed on the wall since before he was inaugurated.

      Our country is getting torn apart with this charade.

  24. This sounds like REO Speedwagon standards of evidence:

    Heard it from a friend who
    Heard it from a friend who
    Heard it from another you been commitin’ impeachable misconduct

    1. And, numero two-o, I hope the spinmeisters in the media and Dem establishment (but I repeat myself) have their explanations ready of how Trump is worse than Clapper and Holder (who never got impeached) or Bill Clinton (who was impeached and acquitted).

    2. It certainly seems to be the diplomat’s interpretation of events rather than substantive evidence.

      Here’s the email.

      I was on a phone call when Trump told me to . . .

      I got a CYA memo from so and so telling me that Giulliani told her to . . .

      Any of these things would be more interesting than his personal interpretation of what was meant.

      He’s saying that someone held up the $391 million pending the Ukrainians launching an investigation. Was there an investigation? Did the money go through without an investigation?

      Short of that, who told him this? Was it Giuliani himself? Where is the evidence of this absurd conversation? Who is the idiot that walked up to this guy and said, “Yeah, the reason we’re not putting the money through is because we waiting for them to launch an investigation of Hunter Biden”? Where is the evidence of this conversation?

      Otherwise, we’re talking about rumors or this guy’s interpretation.

      And, regardless, if House Democrats think this is sufficient reason to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election, then they should have the balls to stand up, cast their vote for impeachment, and then go face the constituents in their their district.

    3. The Media and Adam Schiff are taking it on the run, for sure.

      But if that’s the way they want it….

      They’re thinking up their white lies
      They’re using their Media spies
      They say they’re opening the hearings but they won’t say when.

  25. Pollsters discovered that 55 percent of respondents approved of the inquiry, while 43 percent opposed it. Last week, 51 percent supported it while 45 percent did not.

    It’s too bad, Team GOP, that you guys couldn’t get this level of support for impeaching Clinton, who lied in court about fucking his [IMHO, hot] intern. DEMOCRATS ARE MEAN MEANIES AND GETTING IN THE WAY OF TRUMP’S POWERFUL BRAIN!

    1. >>[IMHO, hot]

      just say hot. the ho is implied

    2. “lied in court about fucking his [IMHO, hot] intern.”

      There’s also the fact that he *signed the law* empowering courts to poke into the accused’s broader sexual history if they’re accused of sex offenses – yet Clinton thought that he could, via perjury, carve out a special personal exemption from his own law.

      This contributes to the climate of “one law for the rulers, another, harsher law for those they rule.”

      1. Yeah, it’s too bad you Team GOPers couldn’t get 55 percent of the people to support throwing him out on his ear. I guess when people saw Newt Gingrich you couldn’t help but say “Ewww.”

      2. This was always my problem with Billy Jeff. It wasn’t that he diddled a chunky intern in the Oval Office. I never cared who he diddled or where.

        It was that he signed the law that made workplace diddlin’ actionable and then thought it didn’t apply to him.

        Henry Hyde’s speech to open the impeachment proceedings said as much, but by that time the Repubs had already spent all their political capital on the “eww sex is gross” angle, so nobody cared.

        1. The only reason Bill got in trouble for banging Monica Lewinsky was because he lied about it under oath. The only reason he lied about it under oath was because he was being sued for sexual harassment when he was governor and was forced to open up his entire private and sex life to examination. And the only reason that was the case was because Democrats passed sexual harassment laws that made it so. Take that away and Paula Jones’ attorneys can never ask him about Lewinsky and he never lies about it under oath.

          Bill was well and truly hoisted on the feminist petard.

          1. +100

            I for one am enjoying all these laws that Lefties passed being used against them.

      3. Don’t forget his attempt to use the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act as a shield because he was Commander in Chief.

  26. >>Everything about this screams that they knew they were doing something wildly inappropriate.

    dude if you’d been cooler they’d have kept you in the loop

  27. An 8 y.o. girl was almost kidnapped by a stranger on school playground during recess.

    Seeing that story, I texted a co-worker: “Totally think that story about 8-year-old kid and possible kidnapping is a figment of her imagination.”

    Two days later, school officials announced what anyone with common sense already knew — that the case was “unfounded.”

    #metoo
    #believeallwomen

  28. So, asks Eric Levitz, “how did center-left Democrats end up in a position so desperate, the concept of ‘Hillary Clinton 2016’ strikes them as cause for consideration instead of laughter?”

    It works on multiple levels, when you think about it.

    On a serious note, Democrats seriously fucked themselves during the Obama years by really…reaaaallly overplaying their hand. If they don’t drop the insane fringe policy ideas soon, they’re going to be proper fucked for a long time to come.

    1. If Trump wins in 2020, and I think he likely will, and the Republicans keep the Senate, the Democrats will have lost the judiciary for a generation. In addition, another four years of Trump will cause a whole lot of Democrats in the executive to give up and take their retirement rather than do another four years of trying to resist a President who is tearing down the administrative state.

      1. Which is precisely why they are doing any and every thing they can to de-legitimize his presidency and everyone who supports him. If you’re a statist, Trump has to go.

        1. I think a lot of what is behind this whole Ukrainian circus is that they know RBG is likely to die in the next year. They are doing this at least partially so they can claim that since Trump is “under the shadow of impeachment” any replacement he nominates is somehow illegitimate.

          If RBG goes and is replaced by a conservative, their ability to bully and extort Roberts into switching to the other side will no longer save them. They are screwed if that happens.

          1. “they know RBG is likely to die in the next year.”

            Yeah, that’s bigger than impeachment.

            The Senate won’t vote to convict in an impeachment anyway.

            The Supreme Court nomination is real.

            I am so glad Trump is president and not Hillary.

            From SC appointments to a foreign policy that makes neocons hate him–and that’s not including all the great things he didn’t do that Hillary almost certainly would have done. Trump didn’t do much in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, and Hillary almost certainly would have.

            I don’t approve of Trump’s goals in immigration, but I’m impressed with the way he went after and won the help of Mexico on that. I’m impressed with the way he went after and won Safe Third Country agreements with Guatemala and Honduras. That will be much more effective than his wall. We haven’t even started talking about deregulation and tax cuts.

            Compared to my pro-free trade, pro-legal immigration, fiscally conservative, zero-tax ideal, Trump is lame, but compared to the real choices out there–Trump v. Hillary or Trump v. Warren–he’s head and shoulders above them in so many ways. I even think he’s better than Warren on international trade. I don’t know that Warren would have initiated a trade war like Trump did, but I suspect he’s more likely to end it than she is now that it’s been started.

            1. I even think he’s better than Warren on international trade. I don’t know that Warren would have initiated a trade war like Trump did, but I suspect he’s more likely to end it than she is now that it’s been started.

              I think it’s a bit dishonest to separate his regulatory action from his trade action. A big part of the reason China is where it is now is because of Obama’s domestic green energy policy.

              Ban fracking and new drilling, ban nuclear, ban coal, subsidize green energy and recycling, mandate greater fuel standards, more public transportation, raise minimum wage, and dumping tariffs is an unequivocal domestic-only pro-China “trade policy”.

              I’m not a fan of the tariffs, they certainly have their flaws, but acting like Obama or even Bush’s ‘get along to go along’ trade policy with China was great or even good is ridiculous.

              1. “I’m not a fan of the tariffs, they certainly have their flaws, but acting like Obama or even Bush’s ‘get along to go along’ trade policy with China was great or even good is ridiculous.”

                Do you have any idea how much trade we’re talking about?

                https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

                All those trillions in purchases and sales were made by people who decided making those purchases and sales were in their own best interests–and you’re gonna argue with that?

                You’re familiar with why central planning sucks, right? You know it has to do with the inability of anybody to make choices for 350 million people better than those 350 million people can make those choices for themselves?

                You don’t think you can make choices for me better than I can make them for myself–accounting for my qualitative preferences, as well–do you? Divide one by the odds of you making the right choice for me. Now multiply the denominator of you picking the right choices for me by 350 million. How ’bout we all just make our own choices individually instead?

  29. Trump’s Cronies Meddling in Ukraine Undermined U.S. Goals, Says Ambassador Taylor

    And by “goals” he means giving $50000/month sinecures to the idiot sons of Democratic VPs and speakers, and providing a base for America’s military so that it can expand the American empire. Yes, it undermined those U.S. goals.

    You can tell what a statist the guy is because he thinks that young Ukrainians are “eager to join Western institutions” (the IMF? NATO? What?) and that this results in “enjoy[ing] a more secure and prosperous life”.

    How about, Mr. Taylor, we don’t have any goals in Ukraine? We are neither capable of, nor interested, into giving Ukrainians a “more secure and prosperous life”. All we want is to get out of there, after identifying any corruption by prior US administrations.

    1. He is also the guy who was caught banging a Wall Street Journal reporter on the roof of the American embassy in Baghdad. He is almost a living fantasy of what the public thinks a Washington Swamp Creature looks like.

      There is a reason why the Democrats haven’t let this guy talk in public much less testify in an open hearing. He is such an obvious lying dirt bag.

    2. I’m shocked… shocked I tell you… that the son of a prominent politician is using his family connections to feather his nest. Wow! When has that happened before?

  30. I suppose it is not beyond the pale to wonder, has Trump so upset the status quo that they [meaning all Democrat members of the legislature and most employees of government agencies, especially the State Department] are absolutely bound and determined to de-legitimize his presidency by any means possible? And by doing so put the uppity “clingers” and “deplorables” in their place.

    Cue the Rev.

    1. I’d say that that’s exactly what happened. Everyone in the Dem party, plus a large chunk of the Rep party (including almost everyone in Washington), has bought into the globalist promise of world peace + borderless flows of goods, people, and capital + all national leaders approaching conflict like reasonable, Ivy-league educated adults. Trump is upsetting that whole project, now going on 75 years in the making. The prospect of Trump (and anyone like him) bursting the globalist bubble has freaked out the D.C. elite ever since Trump became the Rep nominee in 2016.

    2. “has Trump so upset the status quo”

      The problem is that Trump hasn’t upset the status quo enough. Thanks to Trump’s laziness or incompetence, his disloyal minions, like Taylor, continue to make trouble for him without fear of consequences, and Trump does nothing to strike back. Maybe a little rant on Twitter. He’s become a joke and has only himself to blame.

  31. The US would have gotten away with their goals in Ukraine if it hadn’t been for those meddling cronies!

  32. Boy, the standards for what constitutes evidence around here sure have strengthened. It’s a regular bunch of fucking defense attorneys around here now. I say good… the old group around here just took for granted something was true because insane right-wing hack said Hillary Clinton had like 50 people killed— presumably with the candlestick in the dining room. It’s sure good that that kind of fucking bullshit won’t fly around here with all the new Johnny Cochran’s around here. Looking forward to it when Trump raises all that Fauxahontas bullshit.

    1. I’m with you LTAL, anything a bureaucrat says in a basement,

      BTW, I can’t figure out who to hate, could you help me out? Is it the Russian’s who hacked the election, or Ukraine, enemy of Russia, who is helping hack the election. It’s weird how they’re both helping Trump, but as a midwit, that doesn’t matter. What matters is, Orange Man Bad, right?

      1. *I’m with you LTAL, anything a bureaucrat says in a basement, is good enough for me.

      2. To be honest, I find his combination of inept incompetence and naked corruption humorous; and instructive about the nature of social and cultural rot in this era of late-stage capitalism.

        1. late-stage capitalism

          Of course you’re a communist.

    2. “The old group around here just took for granted something was true because insane right-wing hack said Hillary Clinton had like 50 people killed”

      The fact is that Barack Obama murdered more innocent children with drone strikes–that he personally authorized–than Adam Lanza killed at Sandy Hook elementary.

      And then there’s this:

      “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

      —-Mother Jones, May 28, 2015

      https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals/

      That isn’t about anyone’s interpretation. Those are the facts–as reported by Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

      Maybe there is a good interpretation for why this was acceptable.
      You want to explain why the Secretary of State or her family was accepting donations from foreign governments–regardless of whether those governments had military hardware deals pending for her approval?

      Go ahead. We’re all ears.

      My interpretation is that Hillary Clinton was a corrupt piece of shit with her hand in the cookie jar–and that’s from the evidence.

      Your interpretation appears to be that there must be something wrong with me because I think Hillary Clinton was accepting donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

      Do you really not see the difference between those interpretations?

      1. “The fact is that Barack Obama murdered more innocent children with drone strikes–that he personally authorized–than Adam Lanza killed at Sandy Hook elementary.”

        So you must really hate how Trump expanded the drone war and dropped the reporting requirements for civilian deaths.

        https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

        1. What does one have to do with the other? Other than the current president expanding the path of the previous president.

          1. Because Trumpies like the comment above love to point out how terrible Hillary/Obama were while ignoring equally bad or worse things from Trump. In this case, the dude above me rightly points out that Obama killed a bunch of kids with drones. He conveniently leaves out that Trump is doing the same thing, only more so.

            Just pointing out the casual hypocrisy inherent in Trump support.

            1. Hillary and Obama were terrible. What’s the problem?

      2. On corruption: Trump having hotels that he is not divested from in foreign countries, Saudi’s renting out whole floors then leaving them vacant, and having his Mar e lago members secretly run the VA must really cook your goose, then? One has to wonder if his 3rd back peddle on Turkey is because of his hotel there.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-business-ties-turkey-hotels-syria-2019-10

        1. I remember one time the Obama campaign circulated a story about how Mitt Romney once drove half way across the country with his dog strapped to the roof of the family car.

          Whether it was true doesn’t really matter to me. The interesting part was that the Romney campaign retaliated with a story about how Obama actually ate dog when he was in Indonesia.

          Keeping score is really important to partisans. I’m more interested in policy. And, as a matter of policy, the list of legitimate accusations against Hillary Clinton were both long and well founded, just as well founded as whatever criticisms you want to level at Trump for killing innocent children in Yemen–if they really are well-founded. The suggestion was that the accusations against Hillary Clinton were crazy conspiracy theories, but the facts, such as the one I cited above–isn’t a crazy conspiracy theory at all.

        2. P.S. Not divesting something you owned before you became president isn’t really a compelling case for corruption. It’s an opportunity, but I don’t see the evidence that Trump personally took advantage of this opportunity.

          The Secretary of State accepting donations from foreign governments is indefensible. And the fact that both the Clinton Foundation and her own State Department reported the donations doesn’t make it any better. It’s a confession.

          1. Kinda hard to find evidence of corruption when he stops responding to legitimate oversight actions and actually asserts in court that he is above the law. Wasn’t the old standard “avoid the appearance of corruption”? My, how donald has lowered all the standards he touches.

            1. So, the solution to the nonexistence of evidence is to keep believing despite the lack of evidence?

              A world without uncertainty is for religious fanatics and partisan hacks.

              “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

              —-Mother Jones, May 28, 2015

              https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals/

              There may be some uncertainty in there in regards to a quid pro quo, but there’s no uncertainty for me about whether a Secretary of State should be accepting donations from foreign governments. I think it’s one of those things that’s so awful, no one ever thought it would need to be made illegal. Either that, or the framers just thought their impeachment proceedings for treason and bribery would cover it. Again, the Secretary of State shouldn’t be accepting donations from foreign governments–regardless of whether there was a quid pro quo. In the real world, the for non-religious fanatics and no-partisan hacks, there’s very little uncertainty about whether Secretary of States should be accepting donations from foreign governments.

              If the Canadians found out Trudeau accepted donations from a foreign government, they’d shit a maple Twinkie.

  33. The second half of Trump Season 3 has been a major disappointment. The major villains have been reduced to a bunch of bureaucrats having basement circle jerks. I wish Trump would stop beating the democrats into the nothingness that they are and focus on China. In my mind, it’s a win-win. Because every day you talk about China it a day you help the midwits realize that the democrats want what China has, and does, to its people. Meanwhile, you’re fighting for American values, and I get to watch the beltway liberaltarians at this website cry about how we should keep allowing our cheap crap to be made of child slaves because they think we have a free market.

    The protagonist needs to ingore the gnats and go after pooh bear

    1. “I get to watch the beltway liberaltarians at this website cry about how we should keep allowing our cheap crap to be made of child slaves because they think we have a free market.”

      That’s not the way I see it.

      My take is more about how cheap imports improve our standard of living, and other people (especially Walmart shoppers) shouldn’t be forced by the government to sacrifice their standard of living on behalf of rent seeking domestic interests–in a futile attempt to persuade the authoritarians that run China to treat their people better.

      Meanwhile, individually, you should be free to boycott whomever you please.

      Part of the problem is that there are tough choices, here, that can only be made begrudgingly. It’d be great if we lived in a world where the least expensive option were always also what was in the best interests of everyone else in the world (and the polar bears, too). That’s a fantasy world. What isn’t a fantasy is that, every year, plenty of Americans who don’t like the way China treats its people buy billions worth or items that are marked “Made in China” anyway.

      Voicing our opposition to China costs a lot less than paying more for the same things or not being able to afford things we want, so people do both. Civil society is about respecting the right of other people to make choices for themselves–so long as they don’t violate other people’s rights–even if we don’t like the choices they make.

      1. And all those people who voice opposition to the way China treats its people and buy Chinese manufactured products anyway are exercising their freedom of choice without violating anyone’s rights themselves.

        P.S. Looks like Amazon is about to get in trouble for using labor in substandard conditions.

        “DHAKA, Bangladesh—After a 2013 factory collapse killed more than 1,100 people in Bangladesh, most of the biggest U.S. apparel retailers joined safety-monitoring groups that required them to stop selling clothing from factories that violated certain safety standards.

        Amazon.com Inc. didn’t join.

        According to a Wall Street Journal investigation, the site today offers a steady stream of clothing from dozens of Bangladeshi factories that most leading retailers have said are too dangerous to allow into their supply chains.”

        —-WSJ, October 23, 2019

        “Amazon Sells Clothes From Factories Other Retailers Shun as Dangerous”

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-sells-clothes-from-factories-other-retailers-shun-as-dangerous-11571845003?

        Point being that American consumers aren’t entirely insensitive to the plight of poor workers elsewhere in the world. At least, retailers other than Amazon believe that to be the case. In other words, it may be that trade with these countries brings standard up higher than they would be without our participation in their markets.

      2. My take is more about how cheap imports improve our standard of living, and other people (especially Walmart shoppers) shouldn’t be forced by the government to sacrifice their standard of living on behalf of rent seeking domestic interests–in a futile attempt to persuade the authoritarians that run China to treat their people better.

        That’s one way to look at it, but our relationship with China isn’t one of mutual beneficence. It’s basically a Faustian bargain where we accept the idea that the Chinese will rob us blind–technologically, financially, and politically–on the strategic end and grow their global influence at our expense, as long as we won’t have to spend an extra $5 on a tshirt or power tools, and can buy electronics for less than half their inflation-adjusted cost from 35 years ago (with the possibility of network backdoors implemented in the hardware and software).

        Let’s not forget that, for all the Democrat bleating about “foreign influence in elections,” the Clintons blatantly provided their own quid pro quo to China by giving them our military technology in exchange for campaign donations. I’d say from a strategic standpoint, trying to work out deals with China just because we’re addicted to their bux is hardly a long-term advantage to us.

        1. +1000000000000000

        2. “That’s one way to look at it, but our relationship with China isn’t one of mutual beneficence”

          You mean collectively?

          Individually, I get far more out of China than they get out of me, and so do all the hundreds of millions of other individual Americans. I know this as a fact, and do you know why? Because if they didn’t think what they were getting from China was worth more than what they were paying for it, they wouldn’t buy those items.

          I wish more of my fellow Americans cared more about their privacy than I do, but they don’t–and the reason I know that is because they continue to use Facebook’s, Google’s, and other privacy invasive products rather than the alternatives. China, Facebook, when it comes to markets–which are nothing but people making choices, we’re talking about the same thing. I wish I could persuade more people to care about what I care about. Regardless, we’re talking about individuals being free to make choices for themselves for their own benefit from their own perspectives with their own qualitative preferences in mind.

          From a collectivist perspective, individuals do not exist for the benefit of the collective. If you’re telling me that our government gives more to China than we get in return, I’m going to point out that the legitimate purpose of government is protecting our right to make choices for ourselves. How can the government both do that and inflict the best interests of the collective on individuals over the individual’s objections and against their will?

          I do not exist for the good of the government.

          1. Most of what you’re arguing here is just question-begging, and trades short-term hedonism for long-term security.

            1. No question begging.

              I’m simply pointing out that markets are people making choices, and you can’t get around the fact that you want the government to inflict your will on the choices of real people by claiming there’s some collective good greater and distinct from all those individuals making their own individual choices.

              If you’re talking about restricting the sale armaments to a potential adversary, that may be within the proper purview of government, but if we’re talking about restricting the ability of people to choose to buy inexpensive consumer products, you might as well be talking about progressives doing the same thing in the name of global warming.

              People who do not share you concerns should not be forced by the government to sacrifice freedom of choice or their standard of living to address your concerns. If you want other people to share your concerns, you should work on persuading them. That’s how Jesus took over the Roman empire. That’s how Gandhi chased the British out of India. That’s how MLK brought an end to segregation. People have achieved much more radical and lasting change through persuasion.

              Forcing people to sacrifice their standard of living over our concerns when they don’t share them only persuades them to hate whatever it is we care about. It’s just like the Green New Deal. I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s concerns against my will. Force me to anyway, and I’ll be tempted to hate your concerns.

              1. I’m simply pointing out that markets are people making choices, and you can’t get around the fact that you want the government to inflict your will on the choices of real people by claiming there’s some collective good greater and distinct from all those individuals making their own individual choices.

                Nations setting up most favored nation trade agreements is hardly “people making choices.” That’s government “inflicting your will on the choices of real people” by stacking the deck in one nation’s favor.

                1. Just because we can’t get a perfect solution doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the best solution available.

                  https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/

                  To whatever extent an agreement breaks down trade barriers, it’s an improvement.

          2. Gutting manufacturing because microwaves are made cheaper in China will not help a country be self sustainable in the long run. Relying on other countries to do our dirty work will not bring us prosperity. You assume China is benevolent towards us when they’re only trying to find a way to tear us apart.

            Cheap crap now for vulnerability later.

            1. “Gutting manufacturing because microwaves are made cheaper in China will not help a country be self sustainable in the long run”

              That is exactly the kind of argument you should make when you urge other people to avoid buying Chinese made products of their own free will.

  34. Zeldini on the leaked opening statement:

    “turn to page 12. the only reference to Joe Biden except for the July 25 call transcript. …it’s not first hand from Amb Taylor, it’s not second hand from Amb Taylor, it’s not third hand from Amb Taylor… Ambassador Taylor telling that Tim Morrison told him that Sondlond told Morrison that the President told Sondlond that the President told Zelenksky… give me a break.”

    Errr…yeah.

  35. Taylor said that U.S. goals in Ukraine were “fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making” dedicated to digging up dirt that could harm President Donald Trump’s political enemies and cronies asking for other favors that would benefit Trump politically—sometimes conditioning aid on these requests. From The Washington Post:

    And who, exactly, is the final arbiter of what the U.S. policy goals in the Ukraine are?

    1. Taylor and the media including reason seem to think that the State Department as an independent entity determines that not he American public through the means of electing a President to do so.

      But remember, it is Trump who is a threat to the Republic.

      1. Trump has the ability to fire disloyal civil servants like Taylor and Mulvaney, If Trump continues to let himself be bullied, slandered and undercut by his underlings, maybe he is a threat to the Republic. Weak, lazy, incompetent leadership is a luxury we can’t afford.

        1. Actually he doesn’t. It is very hard to fire people with tenure in the GS system and firing them over their politics is illegal.

          You are correct in criticizing Trump for not paying enough attention to the bureaucracy. He has left too many posts unfilled and doesn’t understand the need to get his people in there and promote those loyal to him. That has been a major failure of his Presidency. But I don’t think he could have fired this guy so easily.

          1. “But I don’t think he could have fired this guy so easily.”

            I guess part of the problem is Trump’s lack of background. Being a star on reality TV is simply not enough to prepare him for a high stakes position where he holds the fate of the Republic in his hands. A seasoned Washington operator knows enough to surround himself with loyal followers, and not people who stab him in the back when the opportunity arises. If Trump is incapable of employing loyal staff, he has no business in politics.

            1. Another person who fails to understand why Trump is and should be in politics.

              To shrink the government. He does it every day.

              TDS is something you need help to overcome.

              1. Trump seems incapable of surrounding himself with trustworthy people. He’ll end up a laughing stock.

  36. “that would help Trump”

    When are you going to stop pretending that investigating Biden solely benefits Trump? I see this talking point parroted in the MSM and it just casually asserts that any investigation MUST have been due to a desire to get dirt on Biden, even though Biden isn’t the front runner, isn’t a threat even if he were the front runner, and that all of these scandals were public information prior to Trump even announcing his candidacy.

  37. To anymore in the middle of the culture war or a keen observer of it, this is a feature not a bug in modern times. It’s the zeitgeist my friends.

Please to post comments