Reason Roundup

Trump Asks House Republicans to Release Their Own Versions of Impeachment Transcripts

Plus: Trump well-poised in battleground states in 2020, the return of "covfefe," and more...

|

Trump asks Republicans to submit counter-transcripts of impeachment proceedings. If Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) releases transcripts of closed-doors interviews conducted by House impeachment investigators last week, Republicans should release their own versions of interview transcripts, President Donald Trump suggested Sunday.

Republicans "should give their own transcripts of the interviews to contrast with Schiff's manipulated propaganda," tweeted Trump. "House Republicans must have nothing to do with Shifty's rendition of those interviews. He is a proven liar, leaker & freak who is really the one who should be impeached!"

The idea that Schiff-released transcripts would be doctored is silly. The hearings in question were open to almost as many Republican legislators (47) as there were Democrats (57), based on their participation on the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees.

Records of impeachment inquiry interviews were transcribed by an official and non-partisan congressional stenographer and reviewed by interviewees, who must attest to their accuracy.

Four White House officials were asked to testify before the House impeachment investigation team today but have said they won't show up, per White House orders.

Trump still keeps trying to insist the whistleblower "got it wrong," even though everything revealed has been backed up either by the summary of the call that the president himself released or by information offered in sworn testimony from members of the Trump administration.

Nonetheless, Trump's likelihood of winning a 2020 matchup with leading Democrats still aren't all that bad, according to a new poll from The New York Times and Siena College. The poll found Trump "highly competitive" in the the six closest battleground states won by Trump in 2016.

"The Times/Siena results and other data suggest that the president's advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown since 2016, raising the possibility that the Republicans could—for the third time in the past six elections—win the presidency while losing the popular vote," writes the Times' Nate Cohn (while cautioning that "there is a full year before Election Day, and a lot can change").

Unlike various national polls, this one shows "Trump holding up with white, working class voters" and coming close to 2016 margins in those states, Cohn tweeted. "The Trump voters who supported Democrats in the midterms say they'll back Trump by 2-1 margins," he adds, and "Trump leads all in Obama-Trump counties, precincts."


QUICK HITS

  • What makes a prosecutor "progressive"?
  • Welcome to the Bad Place, everyone:

And, fine, a counterpoint from Reason's Peter Suderman:

 

NEXT: More on Sealing from the Third Circuit

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. Hel….

      /kicks interloper in ass.

      1. Yeah, that was not cool.

        Also, hello.

        1. Hello.

          /bum tap.

          1. Get a room you two.

            1. If you want a bum tap just say so.

              1. *kicks pebble*
                Well, maybe .

    2. Being first doesn’t count unless you comment on what was written. If you can’t do that, Fist still counts as First.

      1. You know this, but didn’t know who that Jeff guy was. That’s believable, Little Jeffy.

        1. Seriously…

          I don’t even know what he bothers lying.

  1. Trump asks Republicans to submit counter-transcripts of impeachment proceedings.

    Nothing wrong with keeping a second pair of books for the feds.

    1. Plus, think of the JOBS!

  2. Great! But how do you know it was a “mistweet?” May be something with deep meaning!

    Sleeper agents: ACTIVATE

  3. Buzzfeed has published its first trove of Freedom of Information Act–obtained documents related to Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia probe.

    Wasn’t that, like, 20 years ago?

  4. “ The idea that Schiff-released transcripts would be doctored is silly.”

    No, it really isn’t.

    1. Aaaand Reason proves that it has the memory of a goldfish. Because at what other point in this mess have the Dems told the truth?

      1. Schiff in particular has reached the point where I assume the exact opposite of what he says until and unless I get evidence otherwise.

      2. dark….you know the sad part? A goldfish has an attention span of about 11 seconds. Yeah, strange fact. More interesting is that Team D and Team R representatives have conclusively been shown to have an attention span of about 7 seconds. 🙂

        1. They also apparently don’t have the pattern recognition of a fish either. Fun fact, fish DO actually remember stuff for about half a year if I remember correctly, making them more wary of fishing lures if they’ve been caught and released before. Meanwhile, the congress critters make mistake after mistake, and never seem to even realize they f’d up

    2. I can’t wait to drop that line in a couple months

  5. A reminder not to trust breathalyzer tests.

    Instead trust refusal penalties.

    1. NEVER take a blood, breath or urine test. NEVER “refuse” to take test, just don’t agree to take test.

      Even if your BAC is 0.0%, you can still be arrested for DUI.

      Help your defense attorney and don’t take the tests. The state laws only cover “refusals”. If you don’t REFUSE, a court must make a determination on whether you refused or not based on your not taking the test. Most states allow for driving while this court case is pending. By the time your acquittal is handed down by a jury, you wont have missed a day of driving.

      1. This DUI end-run around the 4th Amendment only works if people tend to cooperate. The state uses threats of drivers license suspension and lack of knowledge to get the driver to tell on themselves via breath, blood, or urine.

        Without the state having any evidence of how much alcohol/drugs are in your system, their case is garbage.

    1. This obviously means him and putin joined together like the Hardy Boys to track down those emails.

      1. Kinda close with the Hardy Boys metaphor.

        (1) Trump made a public statement asking the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton.

        (2) The GRU responded in under six hours, as described on page 57 of 448 in the Mueller Report:

        “Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office. After candidate Trump’s remarks, Unit 26165 created and sent malicious links targeting 15 email accounts at the domain (redacted), including an email account belonging to Clinton aide (redacted). The investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain.”

        I have only one reservation about your image. As I remember (it’s been many a decade), the Hardy boys were fairly equal partners. With Putin and Little Donnie, however, there is definitely a top and bottom……

        1. Nope. Not close. Are you a 9/11 truther as well?

          1. Don’t you see all your weaseling is pathetic?

            Link to Mueller’s report : https://tinyurl.com/y4j9pfbu

            Remember : Page 57 of 448

        2. Trump was making a f-ing joke. And a funny one at that.

          And anyone who thinks the Russians waited to hack Hillary’s illegal, poorly maintained off-the-books server until Trump’s joke is a stone idiot.

          1. What’s really interesting is how quickly Russian Intelligence reacted to shore up Trump’s campaign at its low point, when it was rocked by scandal. The GRU had earlier hacked the DNC by phishing John Podesta, then stealing a large number of emails. Now, they also hacked the RNC but never released a single thing; Donnie was their boy.

            In contrast, the Democratic emails appeared at a very special moment. From Mueller’s report, page 66 of 448 :

            “The Washington Post published an Access Hollywood video that captured comments by candidate Trump some years earlier and that was expected to adversely affect the Campaign. Less than an hour after the video’s publication, WikiLeaks released the first set of emails stolen by the GRU from the account of Clinton
            Campaign chairman John Podesta.”

        3. They say the GRU did this
          And that is their evidence

  6. “The idea that Schiff-released transcripts would be doctored is silly. The hearings in question were open to almost as many Republican legislators (47) as there were Democrats (57), based on their participation on the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees.”

    Holy shit!

    Have you never heard of “alternative facts”?

    Have you never heard that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts?

    The reason the hearings on fact by way of testimony should have been open to the public is precisely because each side will make different claims about what was said.

    The only way to ensure that the transcripts match what was actually said is to broadcast the hearings live.

    Incidentally, this is also why the Constitution protects our right to a public trial. Is this really all new to you?!

    1. “It’s not a TRIAL-trial.”

      1. I know you’re half-kidding, but the standards of evidence and why certain things are allowed into consideration and others aren’t remain relevant.

        The reason we let defendants cross examine witnesses.

        The reason defendants have a right to a public trial.

        The reason hearsay testimony isn’t admissible into evidence.

        This list of guidelines for what is and what isn’t admissible isn’t arbitrary. There are fundamental reasons of logic behind this stuff, and those fundamental reasons don’t suddenly go out the window because we’re talking about an impeachment rather than a trial.

        1. Good points, Ken. Too bad there are so many “standards of evidence” to choose from. And what is this “logic” of which you speak?

        2. Don’t go all snowflake hysterical, Ken. The point of what you quoted is very simple :

          If the Democrats doctor the transcripts there are plus-minus 47 Republicans to point things missing and added because they were there – just like Lt. Col. Vindman was able to testify that Trump doctored his “perfect” transcript with quotes both missing and added.

          1. That they’re going to dispute the testimony if its damning is obvious.

            Did you hear that Schiff told witnesses not to answer questions asked by Republicans on the committee?

            The transcript should not be trusted–regardless of whether 47 blue dwarfs all agree that it’s 100% accurate.

            Did they memorize the testimony? Did they all remember it the same way? It’s ridiculous to think that a transcript of a secret meeting could be signed off on in such a way.

            Are you familiar with Xenophon’s account of Socrates’ Apology?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_(Xenophon)#Contrast_with_Plato's_Apology_of_Socrates

            If you think everyone there is going to remember that testimony in the same way, you’re nuts. Not even if they were all honest and true would they all remember everything being said in the same way.

            1. I’m curious how the Republican congressmen got to be “blue dwarfs”? Just that detail. The remainder of your screed doesn’t hold much interest.

              1. The point is that it doesn’t matter who they are. The end result will be the same.

                Different people will still remember it differently, and the exact testimony will still be as unsubstantiated as ever–because it wasn’t live.

            2. Oh, and I won’t trust Xenophon or Plato on Socrates’ apology. I doubt there’s anything remotely historical about Plato’s writings on his teacher. Of course if there were stenographers present……

              1. The point is that different people, some who were there, some who were quoting the eye witness accounts, noticed, remembered, and emphasized things differently.

                If they all claim to have memorized weeks of testimony and all agree that the text of some transcript is 100% accurate, it’ll either be a miracle or evidence of collaboration.

                The real world doesn’t work that way, which is why courts require public trial and juries to see the witnesses give testimony themselves.

                P.S. If you believe things just because some politician tells you so, then you should really read up on this:

                https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

                1. You’re pissing in the wind here Ken.

          2. “just like Lt. Col. Vindman was able to testify that Trump doctored his “perfect” transcript with quotes both missing and added.”

            The four people who actually DID the transcript and agreed what Trump released was correct would disagree.

    2. Hearsay.

      Do you or don’t you want to launch an impeachment proceeding on what amounts to hearsay?

      1. If hearsay leads to their priori conclusion then YES!

        They’ve already found him guilty. They’re just trying to fix the ‘truth’ to fit the charge.

        It’s tin pot banana republic stuff.

        1. If they vote to impeach on the basis of this horseshit, they’re committing political suicide.

          They better have more than they’re showing, and they better have it all backed up with evidence–or they’re going to lose the House in 2020.

          Three House Republican incumbents are running in districts that voted for Hillary in 2016.

          27 House Democrat incumbents are running in districts that voted for Trump. Even if they vote against impeaching Trump, that will infuriate their Democrat supporters to stay home in November.

          1. Ken : ” impeach on the basis of this horseshit ”

            That would be trading the favor of the United States government for private gain. Exactly how is that not impeachable? I’m curious : Trump’s toadies tend to follow a series of stages to excuse his (latest) loathsome behavior.

            (1) It didn’t happen
            (2) OK, it happened, but differently than reported
            (3) OK, it happened as reported, but its not so bad.

            More and more Trump defenders are already well into the Third Stage : Sure, it was quid pro quo. Yes, it was for political gain. But no harm, no foul. The Ukrainians got their arms. Trump can’t even do extortion right. It was like when he was trying to obstruct Mueller and his own underlings ignored him….

            Pretty thin, given this bit of extortion comes with its own entirely separate foreign policy, heavily featuring sleaze like Rudy Giuliani, Victor Shokin, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas. It got an United States Ambassador fired with illegal bagman payments to an ex-congressman, who then dutifully wrote a smear campaign letter against the ambassador. It involved side deals to a greasy Ukrainian oligarch named Dmytro Firtash (who is desperate to escape extradition to the U.S. on bribery charges). It co-opted dozens of officials in the State Department and White House to work on Trump’s private little shakedown. It lasted weeks & weeks, leaving a slime trail broad and long.

            So I don’t think the no-harm-no-foul defense has legs, but it may be the best option available. What Toady Stage” are you at, Ken?

            1. “More and more Trump defenders are already well into the Third Stage : Sure, it was quid pro quo. Yes, it was for political gain. But no harm, no foul”

              If you have evidence of a quid pro quo, link to it.

              I dare you.

              The transcript of the phone call doesn’t show any such thing.

              The only other evidence that has been made available are select leaks to the press.

              Let’s see your evidence of a quid pro quo.

            2. What loathsome behavior?

              There has been exactly zero loathsome behavior.

              He didn’t put American citizens in concentration camps, a la FDR, he hasn’t extralegally murdered American citizens with drones, a la Obama.

              What fucking loathsome behavior? Asking Ukraine to help investigate the corruption that occurred before he was president? He wasn’t involved in that corruption–he wasn’t part of the government.

              Trump is being his standard boorish self. He has committed zero crimes and zero loathsome acts.

              And that’s where most of his ‘supporters’ stand.

              Because, outside of the leftist bubble, these things are obvious. They’re not in question. At all. By anyone.

              1. Well said.

                Despite his entertainment value, I loathe the guy. Still…I guess you could count me as a supporter b/c I find this “investigate 24/7 until we find something” bullshit completely unacceptable.

                I voted for Trump the last election because Hillary. This election I’ll vote for him because of this underhanded impeachment nonsense and full-on Democrat/media collusion. Sorry Libertarian party.

              2. Azathoth!! : What fucking loathsome behavior? Asking Ukraine to help investigate the corruption that occurred before he was president? He wasn’t involved in that corruption–he wasn’t part of the government.

                Really? The transcript I read has Trump’s quid pro quo extortion unfold in this Godfather-style fashion : First came a “we’ve been very good to you, capisce?” kind of thing. Then followed the demand for “reciprocal” behavior and a “favor”. After came terms in two parts. Unfortunately for you, both were fraudulent. Neither can stand five minutes of honest scrutiny.

                Of course there was the “CloudStrike” gibberish, with the DNC server hidden somewhere in Ukraine. Do I have to explain to you this is bat-shit bonkers lunacy? Not that it matters to Trump, who just wanted a potemkin-village-style show investigation.

                Then came Burisma, where Trump mentions Hunter Biden early & briefly to introduce the Shokin firing. Everything that followed was the firing and firing alone – because that was the only way to target Joe. But the “Biden Pressured Ukraine to Protect his Son” shtick is as phony as Cloudstrike. The facts :

                Biden withheld money from Ukraine by order of the President, per State Department policy, per the request of the European Union, and in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Everyone pressed for Shokin’s ouster because the prosecutor was hopelessly corrupt.

                In 2014 the EU demanded ten reforms to establish an independent judiciary in Ukraine, then watched Shokin block every one. He was infamous for shielding people from charges of corruption, particularly members of the previous regime who had looted the country. One of his own subordinate prosecutors was arrested for taking bribes and several million dollars worth of diamonds was found in his house. Shokin released him, dropped all charges, returned the diamonds.

                He was deeply loathed inside Ukraine, and every reform group inside the country applauded Biden’s pressure and cheered it’s success. When Shokin was fired, the Kyiv Post wrote this : “By the end of his term he was likely one of the most unpopular figures in Ukraine, having earned a bad reputation for inaction and obstructing top cases

                Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma and never investigated Hunter Biden. But do you think Trump cared the “investigation” he was demanding was an easily demolished falsehood? Not a bit.

                We’re all so used to Trump lying to the American people it barely registers anymore. But this time Trump demanded a foreign leader lie for him. And used extortion to force that lie. And colluded with another country to interfere in a US election. And withheld military supplies to country under invasion by Russia as his extortion tool. How does that not warrant impeachment?

                1. Except the Ukrainians were already investigating the incident, were not aware the funds had been withheld during the conversation, no quid pro quo occurred and the Ukrainians deny they felt any pressure. Additionally, the funds were released before the Ukrainians had given Trump any information. Ignore the exculpatory evidence if you must to satisfy your TDS. We’ll see who was right about this hurting the Democrats on November 4th, 2020.

                  1. soldiermedic76,

                    (1) “Ukrainians were already investigating the incident” : The Ukrainians were doing a background review of multiple case from the previous regimen. Your “point” actually proves mine, because guess what : That didn’t serve Trump’s political ends. As I noted above, what he wanted a potemkin-village-style show. Think big flashy fake facades a few inches deep. Remember : Another extortion tool was the White House meeting the Ukrainian president desperately wanted. He was TOLD he needed to publicly announce a Burisma investigation to purchase that.

                    (2) Which brings up a similar point : Who honestly believes Trump cares anything about corruption in Ukraine? Or anywhere else in the world? Or in the U.S? Or in Trump’s own personal history of grifts, frauds and scams?

                    Where else has Trump showed any concern about corruption? When else has Trump shown any quibbles over corruption? And what kind of corruption “investigation” needs to be pre-engineered by talks between a foreign leader and Trump’s sleazy personal attorney?

                    (3) The Ukrainians didn’t know? Do you really believe that ?!? Giuliani, Sondland, Fruman, and Parnas had been hammering at them for months at every possible level. On 10 July (two weeks before the infamous call), an enraged John Bolton stormed out of a White House meeting room over Sondland pressuring visiting Ukrainian officials. The EU Ambassador had demanded a specific quid pro quo, Zelensky visits the White House for a Burisma investigation – and he did it before a room full of witnesses. Sondland actually demanded Zelensky sign a paper committing to a public announcement. How the hell could they not have not known?

                    (4) “Ukrainians deny they felt any pressure” Well, duh. Here’s a poor besieged country struggling with a Russian invasion and they want to get involved in US partisan battles ?!? Against a president with one year left in his term? Who (God between us and evil) might be president four years after that ?!? Do you really think this “denial” is a serious point to make?

                    (5) “Additionally, the funds were released before the Ukrainians had given Trump any information” Wow. We have a twofer : First because Trump never wanted any “information”. Are you so much the gullible dupe you really think Trump looked for some data from the Ukraine ?!? That’s pushing stupid just a bit too far. Trump wanted loud public inquires into Biden and Democratic evildoing., He didn’t give a shit if there was no there there.

                    Also, it’s never been a profitable defense to claim the criminal did nothing wrong because he was thwarted in the crime. If Men in Blue draw down on bank robbers before they escape with the cash – guess what – they still go to jail. The funds were released because Congress noticed and started to boil, not because Trump repented of using foreign aid as an extortion tool for personal gain.

                    (6) “We’ll see who was right….etc” Trump is the only president in modern polling history never to have any sustained majority of popular support. On the other hand, no other president could have been so dishonest, incompetent, petty, phony, boorish, child-like & stupid without dipping lower than DJT ever has. There’s a certain percent of Americans thrilled with the WWE-style entertainment Trump provides, augmented by those who credit him for the strong economy he inherited. But that’s it. It’s those people and no more. You dream of a popular pro-Trump uprising. I dream of luscious Hollywood starlets who pamper me with their carnal favors. My dream is more likely…..

                    1. More grb fanfiction.

    3. They want truth, not facts.

      1. Yes, and their truth has been that Trump needs to be impeached since November of 2016.

        1. its terrible that lies of the left are forcing good people to support a president they normally wouldn’t give the time of day. Trump is a harmless baffoon but the lefts TDS is forcing people to react

          1. I feel that kind of force myself.

            I oppose Trump on trade.

            I oppose Trump on immigration.

            I find myself supporting Trump in the face of unfair criticism and full on lies. Honest people everywhere should feel that way about the truth–whether they like Trump or not.

            The fact that they want to replace Trump with an American version of Hugo Chavez in Sanders or Warren doesn’t help any either, but I don’t feel like I need to lie in order to persuade my fellow Americans to support Trump against them. I don’t need to lie! The truth is more than persuasive enough.

          2. Ron : “it’s terrible that lies of the left are forcing good people to support a president they normally wouldn’t give the time of day. Trump is a harmless baffoon but the lefts TDS is forcing people to react”

            I read that and wonder what kind of musical accomplishment it deserves. Obliviously something syrupy, mawkish, and trite (but knowingly trite).

            I also wonder how someone can pack so much raw hypocrisy and two-faced posturing into such brief sentences. And what’s the audience for such faux-sanctimonious drivel? Is this something Trumpian bootlickers now say to each other? Like a code word or secret handshake?

            I’m a hard-core political partisan – have been so over a pretty long life – and I’ve never once had to say something so phony to support my side. I wonder: After a long hard day defending Trump’s sleaze, do his flunkies yearn for a good long bath to scrub off the stench……..

      2. Truth is apparently like Time, in that it is relative. At least according to the Progressive ideology.

      3. Truth or truthiness?

    4. “The only way to ensure transcripts match what was actually said is to broadcast the hearings live.”

      You’re an idiot.

      1. The only way to ensure the transcripts match what was actually said is to broadcast the hearings live–regardless of whether I’m an idiot.

        1. Have you never heard of a tape recorder? Have you heard of wiretaps? What about a phone? You ever heard of a phone. It’s a device that conveys sound. What about a camera? It captures light and images.

          1. Tapes can be altered, and how do you know that any of this was recorded?

            They wouldn’t even let other House members in on the hearings. Do you know that they were recorded or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

            1. It’s Pod, so yes, he’s pulling shit out of his ass.

              1. If they had tapes, we’d presumably be talking about releasing the tapes rather than the transcripts.

      2. Right on, Pod. There has to be a 7-second delay.

        1. I thought y’all wanted the transcripts released? Now that can’t be trusted because Ken wasn’t in the room when the questions and answers were recorded and transcribed. I don’t know why Ken trusts his TV to accurately convey the sounds and images if he doesn’t trust tape recorders.

          1. Democracy dies in darkness Pod!

          2. All of a sudden progressives think that transcripts shouldn’t be released.

            1. I want the transcripts released.

              1. It has been. You have it.

          3. Tapes.. something, something, Nixon.

    5. Ken….don’t the rules that the House passed last week WRT impeachment allow Rep. Schiff edit the transcript at his sole discretion? I mean, that is a pretty straightforward reason to publish the transcript, unless Rep. Schiff and the ranking Team R member agree to leave something out.

      At this stage, nobody trusts anybody. All the more reason to force more light to be shone on the process, and the players.

      1. wait, WHAT?! How the hell is that legal? Did it get pushed through just by stint of numbers?

      2. Exactly!

        And, ultimately, by design, the jury in this “trial” is the voting public.

        Anyone who thinks the American people are about to coalesce around an impeachment vote based on disputed testimony is nuts.

        1. Ken, this is why I wrote my representative (my district is a contested district) and expressed my extreme displeasure at what is happening wrt impeachment. I told my representative that we the people would solve this next November at the ballot box….and in the meantime, would he mind just doing his fucking job and get stuff done for the constituents in his district.

          I am perfectly content to let this go to the ballot box. We the people can sort this out, because the toddlers (Team D, Team R) have shown themselves incapable.

          1. I suspect that’s most Americans.

            There are plenty of Americans who both think there should be an investigation–but would react extremely negatively if Trump were actually impeached or, God forbid, removed from office by the Senate.

            Meanwhile, Americans trust in the media continues to trend down towards where it was in 2016.

            https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

            That might be as good of an estimation as to what people think of this as anything. Trump won in 2016, when Americans’ opinion of the news media was even lower than their opinions of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

            People may be telling surveyors what they think the surveyors want to hear about Trump the bad guy when asked about him directly. It’s just not socially acceptable in some circles to like the guy! When they talk about trust in the media, on the other hand, it isn’t invested with that kind of bias. That being said, the news media is obsessed with everything Trump related. Chances are, if you don’t like them, you don’t like the way they’re treating Trump.

            1. That is a good point. It is hard to square and abiding dislike and distrust of the media with also believing everything they say about Trump.

      3. Can someone link to a record of the rules that were adopted to allow Schiff to edit the transcript at his sole discretion?

        I found this document:
        https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf
        But all it seems to say on the topic is: “… the Judiciary Committee has agreed to internal guidelines for the mode and conduct of depositions.”

        1. Found it: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hres660ih/pdf/BILLS-116hres660ih.pdf

          It looks like the actual power given to the committee chair is to make “appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.”

          1. And how much faith do you have in Schiff to do this honestly? Also, I don’t have time at the moment to read the link, but just curious, does it indicate who voted how on giving him this power?

            1. After Schiff went on TV and lied about the contents, and then had to retract and claim it was a parody?

              Yeah. Naw.

            2. I don’t have any reason to particularly trust or not trust what he says. He can only get away with so much distortion if limited to redacting classified or sensitive information. The Republican committee members can call him out if he goes to far with it.

              1. “ I don’t have any reason to particularly trust or not trust what he says.”

                How many times does he have to be proven to have lied before this changes?

                1. I just outlined how the transcript release process doesn’t depend upon him being an honest person. There is a mechanism for Republican committee members to keep him in check.

                  1. Exactly fcvkin stupid are you? How stupid must you think we are?

                    1. It’s Little Jeffy so…

          2. There is nothing classified here. Schiff will rely on “other sensitive info” as he has done already by denying questions asked from GOP members, instructing witnesses to not answer.

            1. Do the Republican committee members have access to the transcripts pre-redaction? (I don’t know.)

    6. not to mention Schiff was already caught lying when the phone transcripts were already released and finally admitted to it but only after a republican questioned him about it

    7. Why are they holding the hearings in a secure area behind closed doors anyway? Has anyone bothered asking that question?

      Why have secret hearings that can’t be recorded that involve nothing classified, and then release transcripts later?

  7. How farm subsidies fuel corruption in the European Union.

    Third, fourth and fifth words in their current order form an evergreen statement.

  8. the president’s advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown since 2016

    It’s because of the Dems pushing college for everyone, isn’t it?

    1. It burned her eyes to see that on the screen.

      1. Poor Shilka…she will have kittens reading that…the poor dolt.

  9. Any politician that says they will push for a law that says no tv or streaming network can brand,market or name themselves a News Network unless the 6 most viewed hours of every night is >80% fact checked news and opinion is clearly labeled as opinion only, gets my vote

    Fact checking: the untaintable check on both power and the Fourth Estate.

    1. 80% fact checked news

      Nice band name. (Appy polly loggies to Huey Lewis.)

    2. Who pays attention to mark cuban ?

      1. Give that man (D) a cigar!

      2. He’s such a maverick.

  10. We just entered STANDARD TIME. STANDARD TIME is the bad one.

    THANK you.

    1. I prefer free time.

      1. I prefer hammer time

      2. Miller time?

      3. Is it time for countin’ or is the dealing done?

        1. The time is gone, the song is over,

      4. I prefer amok time.

    2. Or you all could just show a little discipline and get up an hour or two earlier if you like more sun later in your daily schedule. If you think your job starts too late for you to get home in the evening to play catch with your kid, talk to your boss about coming in earlier. (And if your boss is a jerk and says no, show some initiative and find a better job.)

      Daylight Savings Time was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin as a parody. I still can’t believe that we were such morons that we turned the parody into reality.

    3. Time has come today. (Well, yesterday).

    4. They should make clock changing times a national holiday. Feasts,gifts,lights,cards, mattress sales. Then everyone would love it.

  11. Other things that are objectively better when it’s cool and dark: commutes, slow-cooked pulled pork, shoes (especially boots), human contact, sleep in the evening, naps, my dog’s mood, kombucha, serial TV, leather couches, fire pits, coffee, eggs, the movie SEVEN, waking up.

    Wrong again, Peter.

  12. Non-vintage whine:

    “Lots of Job Hunting, but No Job, Despite Low Unemployment”
    […]
    “But beneath the clear benefits of the economic expansion, there is an undertow of anxiety, heightened recently by fears of slowing growth around the globe and in the United States.
    “We’re not focusing enough on the people who have continued to be left behind by this recovery,” said Martha Gimbel, a manager of economic research at Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative. “We have not talked enough about the workers who are still stuck even in a labor market that is this competitive.””
    https://www.businesstelegraph.co.uk/lots-of-job-hunting-but-no-job-despite-low-unemployment/

    Well, no. “We” don’t have to do anything other than cut un-employment benefits so Ms. Ward will get off her ass and take a job.
    Sorry, no one guaranteed you a ‘perfect’ job.

    1. “We have not talked enough about the workers who are still stuck even in a labor market that is this competitive.”

      Well, for grid’s sake, say that *again*!

    2. “We need more of those shuffle-papers-all-day-for-$100,000-a-year jobs!”

      1. It better come with a corner office and a company car!

        1. And diversity. Lots and lots of diversity.

  13. “The idea that Schiff-released transcripts would be doctored is silly.”

    Ummm.. one of the rules voted on last Thursday allows Schiff to edit transcripts. Democrats voted against an amendment to force all transcripts to be fully released to the entire House.

    1. “Records of impeachment inquiry interviews were transcribed by an official and non-partisan congressional stenographer and reviewed by interviewees, who must attest to their accuracy.”

      And the Ukraine transcripts were agreed upon by 4 stenographers which the left is still saying is an edited transcript.

      1. “Trump still keeps trying to insist the whistleblower “got it wrong,” even though everything revealed has been backed up either by the summary of the call that the president himself released or by information offered in sworn testimony from members of the Trump administration.”

        Just a straight lie. The whistleblower account got many things wrong including who was on the call and number of times biden was brought up.

        Why push this lie?

        1. You can’t be sure if Trump mentioned Biden once, twice, or whatever because the call summary is incomplete so you have no basis to say the WB account is a lie. It’s not even necessarily relevant though because Trump’s doctored version of a transcript is damning even still.

          1. The call summary has been confirmed by everyone who was on the call. The speculation of someone who wasn’t on the call does not disprove the direct testimony of the people who were. There has not been a single person who heard the call who has in any way disputed what is in the transcript.

            So, yes, we can be sure.

            1. The summary Trump released literally says it’s not complete transcript that words are missing and it’s plainly clear by reading it that parts of Trump’s conversation is missing. And Col. Vindman was on the call and he supposedly disputes the accuracy of the version Trump released.

              1. “The summary Trump released literally says it’s not complete transcript”

                Because that’s how they’re made. There is no verbatim transcript. You know this but need to keep pretending you don’t so you can cry about the failure to realse something that you know doesn’t exist.

                1. Well, what do you expect?
                  It’s lefty dogma that when you go nothing, lie. Someone might believe you.

                2. The transcript is not verbatim. There is one witness, Vindman, who says the transcript omits key parts of the conversation. There is one anonymous conservative journalist/blogger that claims he talked to the four transcribers and they say nothing substantial is missing.

                  None of us here in the commentariat was on the call. Why would any of us here in the commentariat then have a strong opinion about who is telling the truth?

                  1. “Mike Laursen
                    November.4.2019 at 11:19 am
                    The transcript is not verbatim”

                    Hi Mike are you retarded, or do you just enjoy restating shit?

                    “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
                    November.4.2019 at 11:06 am
                    “The summary Trump released literally says it’s not complete transcript”

                    Because that’s how they’re made. There is no verbatim transcript”

                    I’m going with you’re retarded.

                    Your post added nothing. Go away.

                  2. “conservative journalist/blogger”

                    By the way, I love the subtle attempt to smear the guy reporting Vinan is lying.

                    He’s a journalist. Period. The blogger part is to smear him and delegitimize the bad news he gave you.

                    1. The reason it’s so subtle is that I wasn’t trying to use “blogger” pejoratively. It’s an accurate description. The dude has a blog.

                  3. Vindman didnt say key parts were omitted dumbass. He didnt get close to saying anything was omitted. He says he sought some minor changes that would not have changed the overall completeness of the call.

                    1. “Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.”

                      Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html

                  4. Why? Because one side has lied every step of the way, from the beginning of the investigation, the FISA warrants, on up to and including this morning

                  5. Because of this–
                    right here

                    Because one side has been lying since before day one.

                    1. wrong url–

                      this

              2. No one says that it is wrong or that it missed anything. No one who heard the call has said the transcript is wrong.

                  1. Except he’s one guy among the other transcribers that were on the phone call, and they disagreed with his suggested edits.

                    1. Which Vinan admits. He admits his “corrections” weren’t accepted or agreed to by anyone.

                    2. “Admitting” his corrections weren’t accepted is one way of spinning it. Another way of looking at it is that he still thinks the transcripts need correction, but he was denied.

                    3. Another way of looking at it is that he still thinks the transcripts need correction, but he was denied.

                      That’s certainly one way of spinning it. Interesting that the testimony of the other transcribers wasn’t given particular attention by the press.

              3. Words are missing because the conversation was done through an interpreter you dumbfuck.

            2. That it has been confirmed by the transcribers is according to one report by an anonymous, conservative journalist/blogger.

              1. Just stop. This makes you look retarded.

              2. By the way, part of the process is those on the call agreeing as to what was said. The only known objection so far is Vindman whose requested edits were minor per his testimony. So yes, you’re fucking retarded.

            3. Vindman disputed that the transcript is complete.

              1. So everyone else that say otherwise is lying? This makes sense to you?

                Of course not. It’s just all you have.

                1. *Everyone* else? It’s one anonymous journalist.

                  1. And everyone else who has publicly commented and was on the call. Oh, you forgot about that…

                    1. Everyone else? There were a lot of people listening in on the call.

                      Trump, of course, has expressed his opinions on the call. I think Sondland may have testified that the transcripts omit nothing substantial. Who else?

                    2. “Everyone else? There were a lot of people listening in on the call.”

                      Yes motherfucker, what are you having trouble with?

                      Everyone else who was on the call and has spoken publicly has no issues with the transcript or the call, except Vindman. There are many of those people and only one of Vindman.

                      What do you not understand retard?

                    3. The record is not submitted until they get general agreement on the transcript you fucking Jeff clone. One person objecting means the rest agreed per the established process for memorializing the call per standard procedure.

                    4. This whole thread is just more evidence that he’s Little Jeffy.

          2. To be precise about it, one witness, Vindman, testified that the transcript is incomplete.

            1. And everyone else says otherwise.

            2. You’ve said this 5 or 6 times now.

              Are you the retarded love child of pod and baby jeffrey?

        2. Yeah, ENB can have her opinion about some of the particulars, but “everything revealed has been backed up either by the summary of the call that the president himself released or by information offered in sworn testimony from members of the Trump administration” is simply a straight lie. She’s literally been caught lying.

          1. Who are you, and what have you done with turd?

            1. It’s probably the death skull guy pretending to be buttplug.

              1. I love how butthurt you are that you left your name unprotected when you were socking and I own it now lolololo. You’re stuck with “tidepod” forever.

    2. I think it says he is allowed to make redactions of sensitive or classified information. That’s not unusual, and is not the same as blanket power to make any edit he wants.

      1. Define sensitive to the class. So far none of the depositions have involved classified material.

        1. Well, then, he won’t have any justification to make any redactions.

  14. BETO out!
    Kamala Rouge on life support!
    Bernie has heart attack!
    Michael Bennet treated for Prostate Cancer and likely gone.
    Bullock is almost out.
    Delany is almost out.
    Messam is Black, so he wont win Party of slavery Primary.
    Sestack is almost out.
    Steyer is almost out.
    Williamson is almost out.
    de Blasio is OUT!
    Gillibrand is OUT!
    Gravel is OUT!
    Hickenlooper is GONE!
    Inslee KAPUT!
    Moulton is OUT!
    Ojeda is gone!
    Tim Ryan is finished!
    Swalwell is finito!

    1. News you can use.

    2. Is it too late for Trump to get in?

    3. Were you under the impression the Ds would nominate 8 or 9 persons to run against Trump?

  15. Isn’t there, like, a secret, um, trial going on without due process?

    Well, they laughed at Trump when he said Obama was spying on him and about the ‘deep state’. Now it’s the whistleblower.

    You have to be some kind of useful idiot to trust a single fricken thing that comes out of the mouth of ‘Just Trust Me’ Schiff.

    Make it transparent, don’t weaponize for political expediency or GTFOH.

    1. On the talking heads shows yesterday the Dems were touting public transparency *soon*.

      1. In the meantime, they leak the parts they want to form the narrative and the media then takes these leaks and reports it as fact.

        As Smerconish said, ‘it’s a consistent story!”

        /face palm.

        Hello. It’s so bloody obvious.

        1. Smerconish is a whore.

    2. Yes, there are closed-door hearings going on. Yes, they are politically motivated, and the Democrats are leaking info to server their purposes.

      However, there is due process. There will be an open House vote on impeachment, and the actual impeachment trial, if there is one, will happen in the Senate.

      1. See, the problem is, you can’t engage in shady shit a the way up until you can’t any longer, then use all the shit you got while being shady.

        That taints everything.

        1. It’s almost like they have a name for it… fruit of a poisoned… something.

  16. The poll found Trump “highly competitive” in the the six closest battleground states won by Trump in 2016.

    That’s why impeachment.

    1. *** rising intonation ***

      And how’s RBG doing these days?

    2. Pelosi dripped cum drool on Colbert’s eye blathering on it being about the Constitution. Sure it is.

      1. If you’re gonna present this type of visual image I’d prefer you don’t bum tap me.

        #metoo

  17. Any politician that says they will push for a law that says no tv or streaming network can brand,market or name themselves a News Network unless the 6 most viewed hours of every night is >80% fact checked news and opinion is clearly labeled as opinion only, gets my vote

    — Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 4, 2019

    What a cunt. He could probably get Trump on board with this asinine nonsense, would he vote for Trump then? lol

    All these people worried about truthful political ads and media manipulation all happen to be people who have lost their minds that Trump won the last election.

    1. IT WAS HER TURN!

    2. I guess Hitler would have gotten Cuban’s vote.

  18. This request to fabricate transcripts seems unlikely to go over well even with his most sycophantic House minions. (Perhaps nobody told them there are professional stenographers recording these things?) He must be VERY nervous about what the testimony shows. https://t.co/zP6wLybpR4

    — Julian Sanchez (@normative) November 4, 2019

    Julian Sanchez just jumped the shark!

    LOL

    His beat used to be digital privacy when he was writing for Ars Technica. I wonder if he also thinks that “only the guilty need to worry” about digital privacy, too?

    Should we trust the intelligence analysts that told us Saddam Hussein had mobile WMD labs because they were non-partisan, too?

    Have you ever heard of a non-partisan cop fabricating testimony or planting evidence–or does that only happen to guilty people, too?

    1. Have you ever heard of a non-partisan cop fabricating testimony or planting evidence

      That’s just silly.

  19. Anyone who still supports the orange clown is just as dumb as he is. No, wait, just a tad bit dumber. Amazing how many absolute morons and lackeys we have in this country.

    1. “…the orange clown…”

      Lefty ‘tards spend half their time coming up with new ways to embarrass themselves, and shit-stain here is a pro at it.

    2. It’s not defending him.

      It’s taking the issue with a clearly corrupted process that is not transparent, denies due process and counsel and the right for the defense to present their own witnesses.

      Let’s see if you’re ever accused of something if you would appreciate it.

      You have to be one gigantic moron to not see the bigger picture here.

      Forget Trump. Think of the INTEGRITY of the process.

      1. He clearly supports being fucked in the ass by an unelected bureaucracy.

    3. Winning strategy right here.

    4. Is he making your dick sore? Then he’s doing the right thing.

    5. “Anyone who still supports the orange clown is just as dumb as he is. No, wait, just a tad bit dumber. Amazing how many absolute morons and lackeys we have in this country.”

      This is why our Liberaltarain parody friend sometimes gets jumped on by people who don’t realize he’s a parody account.

      As silly as Liberaraltarain’s comments are, they’re never so crazy that an actual lefty wouldn’t say something worse.

  20. Trump is expanding his base to include minorities.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/pollsters-trump-expanding-base-with-poor-urban-blacks-latinos-impeachment-critics

    The liberal belief that minorities are stupid and dont recognize the economy is growing for them apparently isnt working.

    1. I see Trump signs on the yards of Black and Hispanic Americans.

      Election 2020 is gonna shock Lefties in how they have lost control of the “minority” vote.

  21. Jimmy Carter returns to Sunday school, talks about his own mortality

    I will report on how shitty the day will be when this Lefty dies soon. Georgians sometimes show their respect for the dead by standing on the side of the road as the funeral procession passes by.

    I bet Jimmy Carter still wont be considered by the MSM Propagandists to be a better president than Obama. Obama was one of the worst Presidents, while Jimmy Carter was in the low 25% along with W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Nixon, LBJ, FDR, GH Bush, Truman, JFK, and Wilson.

    1. I’ll be fair and say that Carter wasn’t horrible, but from a personality standpoint, he was the wrong person at the wrong time. He embodied the country’s second-guessing of itself, thanks to the New Left’s concern trolling after it took over the Democrats in the post-Nixon era. He got elected solely on the basis of being Not Nixon, but you have to be more than that in a recessionary, stagflation-like economic environment while simultaneously pushing a policy of détente with the country’s biggest enemy.

      Reagan beat him in no small part because he exuded far more confidence in American civic nationalism, and wasn’t shy about giving the Soviet Union the middle finger. The latter is a big reason why the neocons infiltrated the party in the late 70s and early 80s.

      1. Carter was a lousy President but he didn’t use the office to get obscenely rich. For that he deserves a lot of praise.

  22. Democrats continue their use of friendly judges to try to manipulate and change the 2020 elections.

    https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/democrats-launch-effort-to-win-2020-election-in-court/

  23. What if I hate driving to work before the sun is up in a winter storm? Which place is that?

    1. You are right. People who live in cities and take public transport to work or get there for a nine-to-five have no respect for those who lead different lives. Look at the kids standing out in the dark waiting for the school bus. In California they passed a law forbidding early school start times, but that doesn’t address the wait for the bus. Some rural bus routes take almost an hour to complete.

      1. Live closer to the school.

        1. don’t put your kids in public school. problem solved

      2. Apparently, Suderman would find standing out in the cold and dark waiting for the school bus to be fun, too.

  24. Hong Kong riot police rush malls to break up protests

    If you don’t have a 1st Amendment to protect you, the government calls peaceful protests “riots” and then sends in the military.

  25. Our national politics resembles an internet comment section more now than ever. How exciting!

    1. Everyone is the mayhem guy.

  26. “Records of impeachment inquiry interviews were transcribed by an official and non-partisan congressional stenographer”

    Same civil servants that transcribe the President’s calls to foreign leaders, I would reckon.

    You people can trust the impeachment inquiry transcript to be accurate, but the transcription of the call to Zelensky is suspect, for some odd reason.

    1. The Vindman brothers look like real prize assholes as well.

      My question: What stops POTUS Trump from just firing the lot of them, based on his having lost confidence in them?

      1. I think that the “Whistle Blower” is going to end up being neck deep in the IG report and the Barr investigation. Think about it. They took an apparatchik they knew was likely to be indicted and made him the “whistle blower” so that when said apparatchik is indicted they can claim he is being persecuted by Trump.

      2. In the wake of the whistleblower complaint at the heart of the biggest threat to his presidency to date, President Donald Trump has “ordered a substantial reduction in the staff” at the National Security Council, Bloomberg reported late Friday night. 

        https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/trump-wants-to-shrink-the-national-security-council/

        1. Drain that swamp!

    2. This article cannot be right. It says: “After Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart on July 25 to investigate pro-Clinton Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 US election, and allegations of corruption against Joe Biden and his son Hunter…”

      But JesseAZ and others have explained that Trump was only asking for an investigation of Hunter Biden, not Joe.

      1. So you can’t read either.

        “This article cannot be right.”

        “But JesseAZ and others have explained”

        So, you decided to stop pretending you weren’t a sock puppet and bust out the douchey, easily recognizable snark again Jeff.

        Because you know you’re losing.

        1. It is snark. But it has actually been seriously argued here, several times, that Trump only asked for an investigation of Hunter Biden, but not Joe. It’s a very weak, disingenuous argument.

          1. I don’t care where or what has been argued anywhere, it’s retarded. It’s an article framing a point, it isn’t even a gotcha, so snarking stupidly about it like the sad fucking troll you are is pointless, and puts the lie to your attempts to pretend you’re not a sockpuppet just trolling.

            1. “SOME WRITER FRAMED A POINT IN A WAY THAT ISN’T EXPRESSLY ACCURATE!!! I GOT YOU JESSE!!!”

              is literally what you just did.

              1. When you say that the writer wasn’t expressly accurate, in your opinion, what is the accurate framing? Forget JesseAZ’s opinion — are you saying you believe that Trump asked for an investigation of Hunter Biden only?

          2. “It’s a very weak, disingenuous argument.”

            So weak and disingenuous that you rush to defeat it by pointing out that a headline wasn’t strictly accurate.

            No, we can see how devastating it is to your argument. Your rush to find anything you can to refute it, and your failure, make it clear that you know its true.

            1. What headline are you referring to? I quoted from the body of the article.

        2. I’ll gladly refrain from ever using snark, if you will agree to refrain from snark, calling people names, and hijacking their handles.

        3. Jesse didn’t explain anything.

          The transcript did.

          Or are you blind?

          There is nothing in that description that contradicts what’s in the transcript. Trump asked for help with getting to the bottom of foreign meddling. And he asked if Zelenskyy could find out if Biden actually DID the crime –the only actual quid-pro-quo for personal benefit in this whole thing–that Biden had bragged about committing on video.

          He didn’t say anything that resembled, in any way or permutation ‘do what I say or your aid will be cut off’.

          1. Vindman testified that there was a quid-pro-quo for the Ukraine to even get to have a call with President Trump.

            1. But it wasn’t in the call.

              There’s no hint of it in the transcripted notes that existed BEFORE any of this came out.

              Did Trump foresee that this was all going to happened and psychically command all but one person to lie when the transcript was made? Before any of this happened?

              Because Vindman and the rest wrote this in July.

              Which means that Trump just declassified it and it just happened to not show anything Schiff is lying about.

              You need to get yourself a razor, Mike–try Occam.

            2. Vindman testified that there was a quid-pro-quo for the Ukraine to even get to have a call with President Trump.

              No. He didn’t. Not at all.

              Here’s his opening statement. Cite it.

              Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman

              Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform

              October 29, 2019

              Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committees concerning the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation.

              Background

              I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and a deployment to Iraq for combat operations. In Iraq, I was wounded in an IED attack and awarded a Purple Heart.

              Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this role, I have served in the United States’ embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia. In Washington, D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the National Security Council.
              Trump Impeachment Inquiry: A Guide To Key People, Facts And Documents
              Politics
              Trump Impeachment Inquiry: A Guide To Key People, Facts And Documents

              The privilege of serving my country is not only rooted in my military service, but also in my personal history. I sit here, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant. My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three and a half years old. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics.

              For over twenty years as an active duty United States military officer and diplomat, I have served this country in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

              Introduction

              Before recounting my recollection of various events under investigation, I want to clarify a few issues. I am appearing today voluntarily pursuant to a subpoena and will answer all questions to the best of my recollection.

              I want the Committees to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the Committees’ attention. I do not know who the whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower.

              Also, as I will detail herein, I did convey certain concerns internally to National Security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command. As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me. On many occasions I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities. I believe that any good military officer should and would do the same, thus providing his or her best advice to leadership.
              Bolton Deputy Wants Court Ruling Before He Talks In Trump Impeachment Inquiry
              Politics
              Bolton Deputy Wants Court Ruling Before He Talks In Trump Impeachment Inquiry

              Furthermore, in performing my coordination role as a Director on the National Security Council, I provided readouts of relevant meetings and communications to a very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relevant need-to-know.

              My Service on the National Security Council

              When I joined the White House’s National Security Council (“NSC”), I reported to Dr. Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to John Bolton, the National Security Advisor. My role at the NSC includes developing, coordinating, and executing plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic national security issues for the countries in my portfolio, which includes Ukraine.
              Democrats Now Have An Unlikely Ally In Trump Impeachment Inquiry – John Bolton
              Politics
              Democrats Now Have An Unlikely Ally In Trump Impeachment Inquiry – John Bolton

              In my position, I coordinate with a superb cohort of inter-agency partners. I regularly prepare internal memoranda, talking points, and other materials for the National Security Advisor and senior staff.

              Most of my interactions relate to national security issues and are therefore especially sensitive. I would urge the Committees to carefully balance the need for information against the impact that disclosure would have on our foreign policy and national security.

              I have never had direct contact or communications with the President.

              The Geopolitical Importance of Ukraine

              Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to U.S. national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.

              In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards integrating with the West. The U.S. government policy community’s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.

              Given this perspective and my commitment to advancing our government’s strategic interests, I will now recount several events that occurred.

              Relevant Events

              When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.
              Trump, Ukraine And The Path To The Impeachment Inquiry: A Timeline
              Politics
              Trump, Ukraine And The Path To The Impeachment Inquiry: A Timeline

              April 21, 2019: President Trump Calls Ukraine President Zelenskyy

              On April 21, 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide victory. President Zelenskyy was seen as a unifying figure within the country. He was the first candidate to win a majority in every region of the country, breaking the claims that Ukraine would be subject to a perpetual divide between the Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking populations. President Zelenskyy ran on a platform of unity, reform, and anti-corruption, which resonated with the entire country.

              In support of U.S. policy objectives to support Ukrainian sovereignty, President Trump called President Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019. I was one of several staff and officers who listened to the call. The call was positive, and President Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.

              May 21, 2019: Inauguration Delegation Goes to Ukraine

              On May 21, 2019, I was directed by Ambassador Bolton and Dr. Hill to join the delegation attending President Zelenkskyy’s inauguration. When the delegation returned, they provided a debriefing to President Trump and explained their positive assessment of President Zelenskyy and his team. I did not participate in the debriefing.
              Then-National Security Adviser Called Rudy Giuliani ‘A Hand Grenade’ On Ukraine
              National
              Then-National Security Adviser Called Rudy Giuliani ‘A Hand Grenade’ On Ukraine

              Oleksandr Danylyuk Visit – July 10, 2019

              On July 10, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland also attended, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

              The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short.
              Trump Gave Giuliani The Ukraine Portfolio And Boxed Out Diplomats, Sondland Says
              Politics
              Trump Gave Giuliani The Ukraine Portfolio And Boxed Out Diplomats, Sondland Says

              Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.

              Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel.

              Election Call – July 25, 2019

              On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.

              On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.
              Ambassador William Taylor Ties Ukraine Aid Holdup Directly To Trump
              Politics
              Ambassador William Taylor Ties Ukraine Aid Holdup Directly To Trump

              I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.

              Conclusion

              The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community. Our partnership is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace.

  27. Mmm… let’s meditate and imagine the world and the reason comment board if Obama had told Democrats to come up with their own transcripts during the BENGHAZZIIII!!!! hearings

    Ummm… Ummm… Ummm… … ACK! Aggg… I think i’ve Just seen Hell!

    1. I think i’ve Just seen Hell!

      Glanced at your wife again, huh?

      1. No, I have a hot wife. It’s when I glance in the mirror that I see Hell.

    2. Lying is ok because Republicans are mean.

      1. Wait… is this the real buttplug or the butthole handle thief?

        1. Sounds like the real one.

          1. It’s is the real one. Just not the old one.

    3. I thought the Benghazi hearings were aired live on TV?

      1. Yeah, he’s a idiot. You think explaining things to an idiot like him is worth the time?

    4. “…Mmm… let’s meditate and imagine the world and the reason comment board if Obama had told Democrats to come up with their own transcripts during the BENGHAZZIIII!!!! hearings…”

      When fucking lefty ignoramuses have nothing, they lie or offer some fantasy hypothetical. It’s what they do.
      Fuck off and die, commie kid, but pay your mortgage first.

    5. Those were on TV, dipshit

  28. Layman: I’m concerned by how the impeachment is being conducted.
    NPC: Why do you like Orange Man Bad?
    Layman: I didn’t vote for him.
    NPC: Then why for you not follow flock?
    Layman: Can’t you see why this is a bad precedent?
    NPC: But….Orange Man Bad.

    1. NPC: What’s a “precedent”?

  29. I wonder if Trump will get more immigrant and minority support because Democrats embraced free healthcare for non-Americans. I’m friends with a few nationalized Americans and their general attitude has been “I went through the whole process to earn my citizenship, why should you get to skip it?”

    I think immigrants and minorities are more complex than the Democrats and their journalist servants give them credit for.

    1. Yes they are. But remember, it is you and not the people who think they all think and act alike who is the racist.

    2. Maybe your friends lack empathy like you.

      1. Or they’re realistic and intelligent, like me.

      2. “Maybe your friends lack empathy like you.”

        Maybe they’re not scumbags who skip on their obligations like you.

    3. naturalized* Damn auto-correct.

  30. So, as I was listening to a couple of Never Trump Republicans bemoaning the evils of Trump demanding anything in return for US aid. Oddly these people never seem to remember George H.W. Bush. Bush spent the entirety of 2002 and 2003 giving billions in aid to any country who would take it in return for token support of the Iraq War. The entire purpsose of doing this was so that George Bush could then claim to the American public that he wasn’t acting unilaterally but had a broad international coalition in support of the war. If that is not using US Aid for the purpose of domestic political benefit, I don’t know what would be. Yet, none of the “meh principles” conservatives who are so horrified over Trump possibly delaying some aid to Ukraine were ever bothered by it. Indeed, while the left called it out as phony and not indicative of a broad coalition, I don’t recall even Bush’s worst critics claiming what Bush was doing was a crime.

    But, it is now because principles or something.

    1. Did John Kerry bitch about this? However, the media wasn’t about to bring this up because they couldn’t afford to be “soft on terrorism” at the time. With the country essentially split today, the media can let loose the dogs.

      1. He did in that he said it was a phony coalition. But he never as I remember said doing it was some kind of a crime. No one ever dreamed that it would be wrong to do until Trump allegedly did it.

    2. Barack Obama sent $400 million in cash on a palate to the Iranian so that he could make an empty claim to have brought a path to peace between our nations.

      1. Barack Obama sent $400 million in cash on a palate

        Talk about putting your money where your mouth is!

        1. I might have more respect for him if he’d been able to get something of value in return!

          1. It was their own money, brainwashed tools. And he got a deal that the entire world says Trump is also full of shit about. While every “deal” Grump has announced is now a known lie. Or do you have a brain fart every time North Korea “violates” the deal Grump claimed?

            Then again, Obama is the illegitimate son of a Kenyan prostitute.

            And George W Bush did not bribe any foreign government, with taxpayer dollars. to interfere in our elections. And what other President got a foreign adversary to hack into the opposing party … during a campaign?

            Turns out that Orwell’s “Newspeak:” brainwashing was correct, but does not require a dictatorship. Our two political parties each have their own tribe of eagerly manipulated puppets. Luckily, both a growing majority now rejects loyalty to both corrupt swaps. A yet Voiceless Majority, and we could well have a fascist and a socialist competing for the White House on 2020.

            1. “It was their own money”

              According to Iran, American courts have awarded $56 billion in compensation to various claimants, who sued the government of Iran in American courts for acts of international terrorism–Hezbollah is effectively an arm of the Iranian government.

              “By Iran’s account, these judgments totaled over $56 billion ($30 billion of which consists of punitive damage awards) as of June 2016.”

              https://www.justsecurity.org/62604/unpacking-icj-judgment-certain-iranian-assets/

              It isn’t clear to me that the money was Iran’s, and it certainly wasn’t Iran’s money just because you regurgitated what the Obama administration said in its own defense.

              1. TOTAL FAlLURE AND DIVERSION, FROM YOUR ORIGINAL BULLSHIT ABOUT $400 MILLION.

                The amount alone .. now $56 BILLION!!! … justifies this open ridicule of your french-kissing Trump’s ass for one of his crazier lies

                However, the $400 million dollar transfer was actually an openly announced one, paid in settlement of a nearly 40-year dispute between Iran and the United States — a settlement that likely saved the United States several billion dollars.

                <Back in late 1979, after Iranian revolutionaries took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America. Among those frozen assets was a $400 million delivery of fighter jets from the U.S. that Iran’s previous government had already paid for.

                IT WAS THEIR FUCKING MONEY
                $400 MILLION … NOT $56 BILLION.

                AND IRAN RELEASED OUR PRISONERS, WHICH HAD TRIGGERED TRIGGERED THE THE SEIZURE

                Ken Schultz, king of Bullshit Mountain

      2. Yeah, of their money, Ken. Jesus, you fucking birds are amazing.

        1. “Private lawsuits against Iran for injuries caused by terrorist acts have generated billions of dollars in damage awards in U.S. courts . . . . By Iran’s account, these judgments totaled over $56 billion ($30 billion of which consists of punitive damage awards) as of June 2016”

          https://www.justsecurity.org/62604/unpacking-icj-judgment-certain-iranian-assets/

          You regurgitating what the Obama administration said doesn’t change the fact that a plethora of juries and judges said that Iran owes the victims of its terrorism far more than the palate of cash Obama sent them.

          I oppose Trump on trade and immigration.

          Have you ever looked at something the Obama administration said critically? Did you oppose Obama on anything? If you didn’t oppose sending a state sponsor of terror and a self-described enemy of the United States $400 million in cash, what did you oppose?

          I bet your parents are proud of you, too.

          1. SCHULTZ REPEATS HIS PYCHO BULLSHIT … DEMOLISHED HERE https://reason.com/2019/11/04/trump-asks-house-republicans-to-release-their-own-versions-of-impeachment-transcripts/#comment-7997664

            “Private lawsuits against Iran for injuries caused by terrorist acts have generated billions of dollars in damage awards in U.S. courts . . . . By Iran’s account, these judgments totaled over $56 billion

            YOUR LIE (AND TRUMP’S) WAS ABOUT THE $400 MILLION … NOT A TOTALLY SEPARATE $56 BILLION ISSUEm/B>

            JESUS FUCKLING CHRIST … BUT TYPICAL kEN SCHULTZ

  31. This fits what’s become a pattern
    Trump/conservatives allege something, which is dismissed and ridiculed, only to be admitted after a few months when it is then justified
    http://www.zerohedge.com/political/metamorphosis-deep-state

    1. It is almost like everything the media says is the exact opposite of the truth or something.

  32. Looks like a junior grade Obama Momma just got himself cut from the Cleveland Browns for making a bunch of death threats against whitey on Twitter after the Browns lost yet again yesterday.

    What a stupid fucking retard.

    1. Played every snap on defense and didn’t have even 1 tackle…

    1. somebody deserves a medal for depositing her in Chile

  33. Watching Trump’s slow motion collapse into unhingery is getting scary, as his desperation grows more intense.

    Thank God, senior military will refuse to follow any orders that would risk nuclear war by this future inmate

    1. Watching Trump’s slow motion collapse into unhingery is getting scary, as his desperation grows more intense

      Watching Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s rapid descent into unhingery, on the other hand, is funny as fuck.

      1. Did you see him lose his fucking mind yesterday? Holy shit..

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano gets hyper butt-blasted whenever he gets pushback against the gun bans he supports.

    2. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

    3. If anyone knows about a collapse into “unhingery” it’s Hihnsanity.

      1. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.

        A Fox News poll released Sunday did not have great news for President Trump. His approval rating was 42 percent, with 57 percent of registered voters disapproving of his job performance and 46 percent strongly disapproving. A year before the 2020 election, he is behind all of the top-tier Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden (51 percent to 39 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (46 percent to 41 percent), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (49 percent to 41 percent). Even worse, Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton, who isn’t even running, 43 percent to 41 percent.

        .(smirk, again)

  34. Mark Cuban is the stupidest billionaire in the club.

  35. Biannual reminder that if you hate it when the sun sets early, you hate STANDARD TIME

    The sun sets at the same time regardless of what the clock says, celestial bodies don’t follow human schedules

    1. does anybody really know what time it is?

      1. Time for Peter Cetera to retire.

    2. The sun never moves relative to the Earth. You are being tricked by your status on the Earth’s surface as it rotates.

      The sun does move around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way

    3. Apparently, it is just as impossible to seasonally adjust the hours that schools, businesses, and stores are open.

  36. I am assuming that the transcripts are recorded by the Congressional equivalent of a court room reporter. Obviously the transcripts are reviewed by both sides and some confidential material is redacted. What is more likely is that each side will take selected portions of the transcript to prove their argument. To this I say fine.

    1. Yes, it just seems like Washington D.C. partisan business as usual.

  37. People need to focus on this–

    “The Times/Siena results and other data suggest that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown

    and what it means.

    For all the endless negative coverage. For all the impeachment screeching. For all the talk of how poorly Trump’s doing in the polls the fact seems to be that he is holding his lead or doing better.

    Because that’s what that sentence means. That’s what they’re talking about when they say “relative to the nation as a whole “–that he appears to be on track to win the states he won last time–which is a way of saying that despite everything they’ve done, he’s on track to winning again.

    That’s why impeachment is so important.

    1. Yes, of course, the House impeachment inquiry is a politically-motivated ploy to sway the court of public opinion against Trump. That’s obvious, since there is no way the Senate will actually remove Trump from office.

      The question is, though, why do supposed libertarians hanging out here at the Reason website get so bent out of shape to see the Democrats and Republicans playing their usual political games? Aren’t we libertarians outsiders, not Democratic or Republican partisans?

  38. So today the President tweeted “Virginia has the best Unemployment and Economic numbers in the history of the State. If the Democrats get in, those numbers will go rapidly in the other direction. On Tuesday, Vote Republican!”

    Is anybody going to tell him (and will his blind supporters ever know or even care even if they did know) that in Virginia, the Governor, Lt. Governor, both U.S Senators and 7/11 seats in the US H.o.R. are all Democrats?

    1. If Trump said the world would explode, 80% of his cult would commit suicide. The other 20% would shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue.

  39. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.

    A Fox News poll released Sunday did not have great news for President Trump. His approval rating was 42 percent, with 57 percent of registered voters disapproving of his job performance and 46 percent strongly disapproving. A year before the 2020 election, he is behind all of the top-tier Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden (51 percent to 39 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (46 percent to 41 percent), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (49 percent to 41 percent). Even worse, Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton, who isn’t even running, 43 percent to 41 percent.

    (more)

  40. ANOTHER ONE for America;’s top fraudster
    TRUMP defrauded … OUR VETERANS with a fundraiser … then THE SLIME pocketed the money

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-donald-trump-ordered-pay-2m-collection-nonprofits/story?id=66827235

    President Donald Trump ordered to pay $2M to collection of nonprofits as part of civil lawsuit

    President Donald Trump has been ordered by a New York State judge to pay $2 million to a group of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement in >a civil lawsuit stemming from persistent violations of state charities laws.

    The payment is the final resolution to a case brought by the New York attorney general’s office after the Trump Foundation held a fundraiser for military veterans during the 2016 campaign.

    The televised fundraiser took in nearly $3 million in donations that were dispersed on the eve of the Iowa caucuses as directed by then-campaign chief Corey Lewandowski.

    The two million must be paid by President Trump himself for breaching his fiduciary duty to properly oversee the foundation that bears his name.

    “I direct Mr. Trump to pay the $2,000,000, which would have gone to the Foundation if it were still in existence, on a pro rata basis to the Approved Recipients,” Judge Saliann Scarpulla wrote.

    The lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general accused President Trump — along with his children, Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka — of conflating charity with politics, repeatedly using charitable donations for personal, political and business gains, including legal settlements, campaign contributions and even to purchase a portrait of Trump to hang at one of his hotelsThis was a civil verdict for repeated criminal actions. Guess what’s next?

    Remember, Trump was the first President EVER forced to pay a $25 million settlement … for FRAUD … while in office.

    What kind of SCUM screws veterans charities and nonprofits … to enrich himself …. and his campaign … by FRAUD?

    Look for MANY more crimes and/or lawsuits, as Trump is forced to provide ever mote financial records.

Please to post comments