Impeachment

Lindsey Graham Reveals His Utter Hypocrisy on Impeachment

After complaining about a lack of transparency, the senator declared that he will not read any impeachment transcripts.

|

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) says he will not be reading the impeachment transcripts as the House of Representatives takes action against President Donald Trump.

"I've written the whole process off," he told CBS News. "I think this is a bunch of B.S."

The Senate Judiciary Committee chair dismissed the news that Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, revised his impeachment inquiry testimony the day before it was to be released. In his appended response, Sondland admitted to a September 1 conversation in which he told one of the top advisers to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that U.S. military aid to that country "likely" hinged on Zelenskiy announcing a corruption investigation directed at former Vice President Joe Biden and his family.

Trump released the aid—which he froze this summer without explanation—on September 11. The president is currently the subject of an impeachment inquiry amid accusations that he withheld the congressionally appropriated package in an attempt to strongarm Zelenskiy into probing Biden, his political rival in the 2020 election. Trump has repeatedly denied those allegations.

"I now recall speaking with [Andriy] Yermak," wrote Sondland. "I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks." Per congressional testimony, the statement in question refers to Trump's request that Zelenskiy publicly announce investigations into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden sat on the board, and into a widely debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind 2016 U.S. election interference.

Sondland said he "presumed" the aid was frozen in exchange for Trump's demand, because he otherwise lacked a "credible explanation," although he maintains that he "did not know (and still does not know) when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended." The change in testimony marked an about-face for the ambassador, who sought to confirm in his sworn deposition on October 17 that he "did not and would not ever participate" in any such efforts to leverage diplomatic relations in service of influencing an upcoming election.

Lindsey Graham has been a public skeptic of the impeachment process, although he has expressed a willingness to hear evidence of a quid pro quo outside of Trump's July phone call with the Ukrainian president. During that conversation, Trump appeared to allude to the aid package multiple times, but never mentioned it by name.

"If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing," Graham told Axios last month. Sondland's admission certainly provides fodder for that. And it's only bolstered by the testimony of William B. Taylor, the current ambassador to Ukraine, who told investigators on October 22 that a national security adviser alerted him to Sondland's activities.

Graham now says that he won't read those transcripts, casting doubt on his purported openness towards a nonpartisan evaluation. The senator has consistently railed against Democrats for what he says is a politically motivated sham, though one wonders what motivates Graham when he refuses to even consider available evidence.

The public nature of that evidence is also relevant to Graham, who has lambasted House Democrats for conducting the initial interviews behind closed doors. Never mind that it was his own party, led by then-Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio), who set those rules in 2015, knowing that a president under impeachment scrutiny would be the subject of many public hearings following the initial testimonies. And never mind that Graham himself supported the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton based on private interviews conducted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

One thing is clear: Graham has bemoaned the Democrats' lack of transparency, only to shield his eyes once the curtain was lifted. It makes you question if Graham's complaints have been anything more than political theater all along.

NEXT: As the FDA Prepares to Ban E-Cigarette Flavors, the Government's Own Data Contradict Wild Claims About Adolescent Nicotine Addiction

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. Poor Billy.

    First Trump beats the Mueller rap and now Republicans wont even play along with Democrats in this House farce called “Impeachment Inquiry”?

    1. Apparently, reading selectively released transcripts from a fiercely staged-managed shit show is “transparency” for libertarians now.

        1. I question why Reason has acted like this was unknown despite at least a week of the information being public. The pointed ignorance of political ties regarding the “witnesses” is also suspect

          1. Because Matt Welch is neither a libertarian nor a real journalist. He’s a fully standard issue dick-suckin’ left liberal Obamatard.

            1. You talk like the alt-right who say Sanders is a communist.
              And Denmark a commie gulag.
              And a 12-year-old who yelled “SHIT” on the school bus. Then giggled

              ONE MORE TIME. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for over 5 years.
              A majority of Americans now agree.
              Your time has expired..

              1. Hey Hihn, you’re going to die under a Trump administration while still regurgitating in bold and ALLCAPS your 91% statistic that you’ve been spamming for 8+ years now. Save your family the embarrassment. Kill yourself.

                1. In Cato’s own words:

                  “In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way.” -David Boaz and David Kirby (page search for the words, while I laugh at you)

                  100 – 9 = 91% REJECTION.

                1. Right plus left = infinity aginity!

                  I wish we could all be half as smart as you are! If I make sure to brush my teeth and get a bath, can I adore You? HOW can I best Adore You?

                  As a Fart Smeller, I mean, Smart Feller, Wise Wonder of the World, I bet that it would be a trivial task for You to perfect the following codes:
                  Centrifuge the incorrectly-phased supernatent plasma-phased ions, and Begin {( Avocado’s Number <= 6.02 ^ 10x23d ) || ( Titrate_of_the_nitrate[23:0] ) && subducted_inversely[23:0] }
                  DisplayModuleCall "I have hacked access to your brain implant. Please input your bank account number and password. ", end; end module ;

                  Master-Coder, PLEASE help me! If we can debug this code, they might let us out of our stockades!

                  1. Nobody reads your gibberish.

                  2. Why did you need a Master Coder, for an equation that makes sense to any 7th grade student of elementary algebra?

                    Right plus left = infinity aginity!
                    I wish we could all be half as smart as you are!

                    Simply learn a 7th grade subject, elementary algebra.

                    The equation you cannot solve has been cited by libertarians for nearly 50 years:

                    Left – Right = Zero

                    Is actually quite simple.
                    For an 8th grader who passed algebra last year.

                    The ONLY way that equation works … ***and it DOES work (lol)*** … is if both Left and Right have the same VALUE … WHATEVER value.
                    ONLY if a number is subtracted from … ITSELF!
                    ANY NUMBER!!!
                    An 8th grader gets it, but you don’t? And a Master Coder for Algebra?

                    I only cite that equation when I’ve SHOWN a conservative who does what they claim ONLY liberals do. a/k/a Hypocrisy

                    Another version, as text:

                    Liberals want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
                    Conservatives want government out of your wallet an into your bedroom
                    BOTH statist authoritarians, competing to make American EITHER Marxist or Hitlerish.

                    Libertarians want government out of BOTH
                    Total freedom , in all areas, which is scorned and sneered at by
                    *You
                    *Golshifteh Farahani
                    *Fancylad
                    *R Mac
                    (so far)

                    Every response to me confirms the Authoritarian mentality.
                    (Cyber-bullies are numerous on both the left and right,
                    NOBODY had any response to the CONTENT but you.
                    And you blew 7th grade Algebra.

                    R Mac even says total freedom is gibberish

                    A GROWING MAJORITY of Americans agree with us , which leads to another self-evident truth.

                    Left and Right are obsolete
                    Less than 40% of the electorate, combined.

                    Tty this one:

                    2X – X = X

                    Or solve for X

                    6 – 2 = X

                    Anything else?

                    P.S. Will you need a Master Coder for THIS one?

                    I use boldface and all caps against unprovoked assaults, hoping to draw more eyes to the RIDICULE. Now we’ll see how many Bellowing Blowhards, if any.

                    1. Such wisdom as has never been attained before! Congratulations! If I stay in my proper place, can I be on Your speech-writing team?

                      With Your Great Intellect, as Honors our Sacred Bodily Fluids, can You PLEASE help me compile the following:
                      Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Lamarckianist_Epigenetics Begin Auto_Integrate [ Rectify ( Anode[31:0], Cathode[31:0], Varistor[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$BAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                      Invoke DisplayModule "And there stood the pig and the cow.", end; end module ;

                      If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, the CIA and the Arcturians might even BOTH stop monitoring our brain waves!

                    2. I don’t scorn and sneer at freedom, I scorn and sneer at you.

                      And I didn’t say freedom was gibberish, I said What squirrel said was gibberish.

                    3. Posted in defense from serial assaults from a stalking cyber-bully from the Authoritarian Right.

                      PutinTrump LoveChild RussiaBot
                      Such wisdom as has never been attained before!

                      YOU AREN’T THE ONLY ONE WITHOUT THE “WISDOM” OF …. 7TH GRADE ALGEBRA ??? … AND DON’T KNOW WHAT AN EQUATION IS???

                      YOU’RE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO … SEES A SIMPLE EQUATION.. AND REACHES FOR A MASTER CODER???? … TWICE (so far)???

                      ***WHY DID YOU SHIT OVER ALL OUR READERS?

                      If You’ll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, the CIA and the Arcturians might even BOTH stop monitoring our brain waves!

                      COWARDLY EVASION.
                      Why did you FAIL to solve for X, on even MUCH SIMPLER equations?

                      Pick either one:
                      a) 2X – X = X
                      b) 6 – 2 = X

                      P.S. Will you need a Master Coder for THOSE?

                      I use boldface and all caps against unprovoked assaults, hoping to draw more eyes to the RIDICULE. Now we’ll see how many (MORE) Bellowing Blowhards, if any.

                      Anything else?

                    4. Go take a prn and go to bed Hihn.

              2. ONE MORE TIME, you are a sorry ass piece of $hit.

                Lindsey Graham, who I am not a fan of, is engaging in hyperbol to demonstrate his distain for the shit show going on in the House. Anyone who has any common sense at all sees the “impeachment” in the House as a fraud being executed differently than the the actual impeachment proceedings in the past. Graham has attempted to rip the mask off and yell “Behold! A Monster!”. That he has done so clumsily is not surprise.

                The policies generally endorsed on Reason have progressively (no pun intended) shifted to the left in nearly all ways. Lip service is given to fiscal restraint, while actual policies that undermine it and regularly promoted. This is as progressive a site, in PRACTICAL terms as Slate. You, specifically, are a straight progressive who likes to verbalize a few libertarian phrases as if they cleanse your progressive stench.

              3. You talk like the alt-right who say Sanders is a communist.

                He’s something worse: a socialist, by his own admission.

                You know, as in “USSR”, the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”.

                1. JW — EVEN CRAZIER THAN I SAID!!
                  TOTALLY FUCKING STUPID

                  me:
                  “You talk like the alt-right who say Sanders is a communist.
                  And Denmark a commie gulag.:

                  He’s actually MUCH DUMBER

                  He’s something worse: a socialist, by his own admission.

                  SHAME ON YOU. He says “Democratic Socialist” you psycho liar
                  YOU say that’s WORSE than communism.
                  EXACTLY As CRAZY as “Denmark a commie gulag.”
                  Who ties your shoes?

                  Can he go eevn CRAZIER? YESSSS

                  You know, as in “USSR”, the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”.

                  *** ALT-RIGHT WACKO SAYS THE USSR HAD AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT!!!***GREAT strategy and tactics, General Custer

      1. And let’s look at the lawyer for the “whistleblower”

        http://www.zerohedge.com/political/whistleblowers-attorney-vowed-get-rid-trump-2017

        “The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to “get rid of Trump”, and said that the “#coup has started” in 2017 tweets.”

        1. Nardz….Kind of scary. They’re actually following through.

          POTUS Trump should remove all of the NSC bureaucratic staff immediately. They simply cannot be trusted. Can you believe we actaully had an ambassador testify the POTUS was undermining foreign policy? My first reaction: Yo, the POTUS sets the foreign policy, who the fuck are you, an unelected bureaucrat, to tell the POTUS what foreign policy is?

          Nobody believed POTUS Trump when he said he was spied upon. Guess who was right?

          People dismissed Chuckie Schumer’s statement on the intelligence community in 2016. Are they dismissive now?

          The press went ‘ga ga’ when POTUS Trump pointed out their bias. Does anyone seriously doubt there is bias anymore?

          The federal bureaucracy must be broken, and brought to heel. The administrative state is now out of control.

          1. Is FOX NEWS biased? 🙂
             Bolton thought Trump-Zelensky call would be ‘disaster’
            ANOTHETR goddamn lefty peacenik!

            POTUS Trump should remove all of the NSC bureaucratic staff immediately

            Before they testify!

            Line ’em up
            Shoot them ALL,
            before they provide MORE proof?
            Bolton firs!!:

            The press went ‘ga ga’ when POTUS Trump pointed out their bias. Does anyone seriously doubt there is bias anymore

            Chill dude. That was an attorney!!
            What he said is no different than than commie, George Will. SHOOT HIM TOO!

            The federal bureaucracy must be broken, and brought to heel.

            MOAR GAS OVENS!
            (As Ayn Rand suffers violent puking spasms in her grave)

            Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. And she’s not even running.

            ” 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. …

            Trump’s hystria has now scared the crap out pf Trumpsters!

            It’s over. He’s done.
            The man who disgraced his office, by LYING about Charlottesville … to defend neo-nazis and white nationalists
            And YOU are a co-conspirator THERE, too?

            Trump won the 2016 nominatiom with 37% of GOP votes …. roughly the same as the pecentage of Birthers. He’d been training them for years, programming their minds

            When the fist day of Autumn was reported, all around the country, they all shouted in unison.
            FAKE NEWS. It is NOT Autumn. The lamesteram meda is tryiug to overturn a duly dated summer! It is TREASONOUS to not ADORE President Grump err, TRUMP

            Two obedient tribes, dancing on strings pulled by the political elites … Trumptards and Warrentards.
            God save America

          2. They must be broken.
            Unfortunately, it looks like that might require Direct Action, since peaceful means appear to be off the table

    2. He probably also think the Rs should go along with submitting written questions to the “whistleblower.”

      1. TWO senior officials in the Trump administration have confirmed a quid pro quo, under oath.

        Personally, I think he should be impeached for his SHAMEFUL LIE, who launched the violence in Charlottesville

        Why would he lie to protect his alt-right base, neo-nazis and white nationalists in this instance …. when Ivanka and Jared are JEWISH?

  2. “he maintains that he “did not know (and still does not know) when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended.””

    So… no quid pro quo has been proven. Still.

    This is like the Mueller investigation redux.

    1. It’s almost as if the exact same people are running the exact same strategy on even weaker accusations because they can’t actually govern or something.

      1. So the Kavanaugh hit team is working on the impeachment now? Be ready for the next Obama-era appointee who conveniently “remembers” something they had suppressed.

      2. THIS time it’s gonna work! Watch! We promise!

        We’re moving up! UP, UP, UP!

        /plays intro to The Jeffersons.

        1. I compare it to
          Bullwinkle: Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
          Rocky: That trick never works.
          Bullwinkle: This time for sure…
          Bullwinkle: I gotta get me a new hat.

        2. Puppets dancing on a string 🙁
          Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. And she’s not even running

          … 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. …

      3. I believe the House has passed a number of bills that have been dead ended at the Senate. If Senator McConnell would put some of these up for discussion we might have more to talk about that the impeachment. It really appears that Rs are the ones with a one-track mind talking only about impeachment.

        1. “Why won’t McConnell bring terrible bills to the floor? Reid did it all of the time…”

          1. Jesss, Cumriddle, VERY progressive!

            Such erudition, I have never seen before! You ARE the Champion! After You are done with your Pulitzer Prize acceptance speech, can I tag along with Your Campaign?

            Being the Genius that You so clearly are, above all else, I bet You’d have no trouble helping me debug the following:
            Include Me_righteous, You_Scumdawg, Begin Differentiate [ Subtrahend ( Reverse[31:0], Accrual[31:0], Debenture_Bond[31:0] ), Contents ( $BR$549 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
            DisplayModuleCall "Needs more cowbell.", end; end module ;

            If You'd only PLEASE apply Your Vast Skills here, to help in the debug effort, the other kids might finally STOP pulling Your hair!

    2. Like how the Mueller investigation revealed a pattern of coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians as well as a subsequent pattern of obstruction of justice that would have resulted in criminal charges had they been engaged in by anyone other than the president himself? You mean that Mueller investigation?

      Multiple officials have now testified that Trump was seeking a Ukraine investigation “quid” for a “pro” consisting of a high-level meeting in DC and/or the release of military aid. It is also an established fact that the military aid was held prior to and during the key moments of Trump’s pressure campaign on Zelensky.

      We have conflicting accounts for why that military aid was held, including (the instruction to subordinates) that it was being held for undefined “interagency” reasons; (the instruction to department heads) at the direction of Mulvaney and/or the president himself; (Trump, early on) to ensure that the money would not be used “corruptly”; (Trump, later on) to ensure that other parties would also contribute to that support. Needless to say, none of these putative accounts have yet explained what authority Trump had to actually withhold that aid, since it was expressly appropriated by Congress and not subject to Trump’s unilateral hold to pursue other policy goals. Congress has sought details regarding this decision, and Trump has obstructed their efforts.

      So. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that “no quid pro quo has been proven,” or you can use your common sense and acknowledge, as Republicans in the Senate increasingly are, that this was a plain “quid pro quo,” and you can begin pivoting (as they are) to explaining why the president is perfectly within his rights to subordinate the U.S.’s interests to his personal political interests.

      1. You need to work on your pattern recognition

      2. “Like how the Mueller investigation revealed a pattern of coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians as well as a subsequent pattern of obstruction of justice that would have resulted in criminal charges had they been engaged in by anyone other than the president himself? You mean that Mueller investigation?”

        The one that proved nothing and seemed to be a constant surprise to Mueller himself.

        It proved literally nothing. Claiming otherwise is just silly now.

        “We have conflicting accounts for why that military aid was held, including (the instruction to subordinates) that it was being held for undefined “interagency” reasons; (the instruction to department heads) at the direction of Mulvaney and/or the president himself; (Trump, early on) to ensure that the money would not be used “corruptly”; (Trump, later on) to ensure that other parties would also contribute to that support. Needless to say, none of these putative accounts have yet explained what authority Trump had to actually withhold that aid, since it was expressly appropriated by Congress and not subject to Trump’s unilateral hold to pursue other policy goals. Congress has sought details regarding this decision, and Trump has obstructed their efforts.”

        Given that Obama was unable to give money to anybody…what authority, exactly, did Biden have to withhold Congressionally approved loans to protect his son?

        Unlike Trump, we KNOW Biden did it.

        “So. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that “no quid pro quo has been proven,” or you can use your common sense and acknowledge, as Republicans in the Senate increasingly are, that this was a plain “quid pro quo,” and you can begin pivoting (as they are) to explaining why the president is perfectly within his rights to subordinate the U.S.’s interests to his personal political interests.”

        You could, you know, try and prove your case. I know, shocking.

        1. You know how I can tell you haven’t read the report?

          1. I’d be on the same page as Robert Mueller in that case…

            1. Quite a claim.

              1. Did you WATCH his testimony? The man had never seen that report before.

                1. His testimony was low energy, I’ll agree. But I’m pretty sure that’s because he didn’t want to testify in the first place. The man is known for being a very exacting boss and putting long hours in the office.

                  1. No, his testimony was not low energy. It was shameful for Team D to parade him, and then do a hearing where it was clear to everyone Mueller was an old man with diminished capacity. I felt very badly for Robert Mueller, at a human level. I would never do anything like that to my father, or anyone that age.

                    You have to wonder just what kind of person actually thought it was a good thing to do that to Mueller?

                  2. This isn’t about his energy level. It was about his inability to field basic questions.

              2. Mueller didn’t seem to know what was in his own report when he was in front of Congress.

                1. Needs more cowbell, and less cow-pie!

                  You’re indeed the Wisest of us all! Please lead us to Glory! If I stay in my proper place, will you PLEASE be my BFF? Maybe even be my Bitsy Woogums?

                  Ontologically speaking, can You PLEASE help me compile the following:
                  Hypothetically Quantum-Gravity Deploy Begin {( Pupate Infinite_Time posedge_CLK<= 6.02 ^ 10 x 23d ) || ( Infinity_&_Beyond_negedge_CLK[23:0] ) && ( arachnoids[23:0] || Orange_Man_Bad[23:0] ) }
                  DisplayModuleCall "I have hacked access to your teledildonic vibrator. Please input your bank account number and password. ", end; end module ;

                  If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then You might be able to win a kiss from Hillary!

                2. Vic….It was a shameful humiliation of an old man. That is just wrong. In my tradition, we are taught to respect our elders. That clearly was not the case here. Team D should be ashamed of themselves for doing this to Mr. Mueller (who I think is a genuinely good man).

                  1. Mueller is a pit bull that drove an innocent man to suicide after Mueller ruined his life.

                    Fuck him.

                    1. You’re referring to the anthrax imbroglio?

          2. It is obvious you’ve never read his report baby jeffrey? Why do you pretend? Mueller literally stated he could find no coordinated political activity between trump and russia. He even noted that Putin had to scramble to establish a channel to congratulate trump post election.

            As far as obstruction…

            You do realize the theory concocted by Weismann on obstruction has never been held in court. It was such a twisting of laws that it would have made declaring one innocence obstruction. Remember baby jeffrey, weismann is the asshole overruled 0-9 at the USSC for twisting and molesting laws to take down Enrons accountants. This is who you support you ignorant fuck.

      3. “Multiple officials have now testified that Trump was seeking a Ukraine investigation “quid” for a “pro””

        Just a plain dumbass lie. Their testimony states they believe there was a ppq. Not a single testimony says they or others were ordered to perform a ppq. The only documented evidence says trump explicitly said no ppq.

        Fucking dumbass.

      4. Here is Simon’s evidence…

        Zeldin: What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and [Ukrainian company that employed Hunter] Burisma?

        Taylor: As I understand it from one of the maybe the article in the New York Times about [Trump’s private lawyer] Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, and I think he quotes Giuliani at some length, that article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Mr.Giuliani’s client. I think that’s what he says. He says he’s got one client, and he’s useful to the client.

        ==

        Literally someone saying they know there was a ppq request because the NYT said so

        1. FUCKING PSYCHO cherry-picks excerpt and LIES about it.

          Literally someone saying they know there was a ppq request because the NYT said soYou are LITERALLY a lying sack of shit retard.

          HE WAS ASKED WHAT THE GOAL was .. of the QPQ he testified UNDER OATH

          Typical TrumpTARD. (sneer)

      5. Simon….Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that everything you wrote is 100% true.

        Is any of this impeachment worthy? The answer is No.

        The American people will look at this gordian knot and say, “This is just Washington DC inside the beltway bullshit that has no affect on me, my family, or my way of life. Get the fuck back to work and do what we elected you to do.”

    3. You are right that nothing has been proven, and Binion is reaching too far if he claimed that. The inquiry is a fact collection (or Democratic dirt digging, I will grant you) phase.

      If it is not the verdict phase of a criminal trial, the evidence doesn’t have to meet the bar of proof. Evidence can have weight, which is a lower bar.

      Supposedly, the process will go on to the next phase where the entire House votes on impeachment and then maybe to the next phase of a trial in the Senate.

      Personally, I don’t expect the Senate to remove Trump from office. The best the Democrats might be able to do is win over some swing-state voters with what they are digging up in the House inquiry.

      1. It is complete hearsay. That isnt evidence. No matter the phase.

      2. I don’t expect the House to vote out Articles of Impeachment. I’m not convinced they’ll ever get so far as to draft them.

    4. So… no quid pro quo has been proven. Still.

      (lol) I’ll go slowly
      1) It’s IMPOSSIBLE to prove no quid pro quo. But what’s logic to shrill partisans BOTH left and right.
      2) Umm, TWO senior officials in the Trump administration have testified to a quid pro quo, under oath.
      3) Check the Hobbs Act. Trump committed … extortion

      This is like the Mueller investigation redux

      Woe, Dude. You’ve been suckered there, too?
      TEN acts of obstruction, which Mueller STATED had been investigated … while memories were fresh … gathering evidence for possible future prosecution.

      ALL evidence was redacted in the Mueller Report, so you have NO CLUE what’s in it … only your own delusions and/or brainwashing.

  3. It’s not really hypocrisy when there still isn’t any transparency in the process and the only transcripts that will be released are at the pleasure of the Democrats. Please enjoy getting this absurdity snapped off in your asshole even harder than your Russiagate fever dreams though.

    1. They are releasing all of the witness transcripts, and Schiff is restricted to redacting only classified or sensitive information. The Republican committee members presumably have access to the pre-redaction transcripts (beside their in-person attendance) to keep him honest.

      If you’ve looked at the actual redactions in the testimonies released so far, they blacked out the names of some people in attendance.

      By the way, if you are not familiar with redaction, there is an obvious black mark where something was redacted. Schiff cannot simply omit anything without its being obvious.

      1. “They are releasing all of the witness transcripts”

        They are not.

        1. Which ones are they not releasing?

      2. Mike, stop being fucking naive. The house voted down an amendment on releasing all transcripts unredacted to the house. There is no legal definition of sensitive information dummy. It is a catch all for whatever Schiff chooses to withhold. You’re either dumb as fuck or naive as fuck.

        1. I’ll go with: disingenuous

  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkDykGhM8c

    Lindsey Graham on Trump, “He’s a race baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot….He does not represent the values that the men and women of the armed forces fight for.”

    1. Now do the Democrats on the legitimacy of the Clinton impeachment and how it wasn’t a witch hunt or a coup.

      1. Why would I engage in flagrant whataboutism?

        1. Why would you take a job paying ten cents a post?

          1. Conspiracies EVERYWHERE!

            1. It is part of the mindset, isn’t it.

            2. Rando appears put of nowhere posting 400 times a day.

              Sure socko.

                1. So you’re saying you didn’t suddenly pop up and start posting hundreds of times a day after previously posting essentially nothing?

                  Wow you proved my point and were too stupid to realize it aahahahahajaja

                  1. This guy is so fucking stupid, he constantly gets caught socking because he doesn’t even understand what the fuck he is getting caught for

                    1. “he doesn’t even understand what the fuck he is getting caught for”

                      Look at that, you’re right about something! clap clap clap

                    2. Then your previous post looks pretty stupid seal.

              1. Now THAT was indeed Profound! Did you stay up all night to think of that? If I gaze at you adoringly, can I drink Your bathwater?

                With Your obviously genius-level IQ, can You PLEASE help me compile the following:
                Include Hashtag (#My_Tribe_Rules) Begin Simulate [ Calculate ( integral[31:0], subtrahend[31:0], subtitle[31:0] ), Contents ( $RU$12’hBAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                DisplayModuleCall "I have hacked access to your brain implant. Please input your bank account number and password. ", end; end module ;

                If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, Your pet rat might stop rejecting You.

        2. You ALREADY did so, posting irrelevant bullshit. So, go all the way.

          1. Just putting Lindsey Graham’s previous thoughts on the man up here for comparison. Lindsey has had quite the turnaround.

            1. Is he saying “Man, Trump is a great guy”?

              No?

              Then, again, you’re posting pointless bullshit.

              Go all out, son.

              1. Intent and even slight nuance are beyond you.

                1. ….says the poster posting irrelevant BS…

                  1. Posting Lindsey Graham’s words from 2 years ago that are wildly different than his position today, under an article about Lindsey Graham is irrelevant? Irrelevant or just not supportive of your chosen fiction?

                    1. Is two years not an etermity in politics or something?

                    2. Where is Graham commenting on what a great guy Trump is?

                    3. Again, intent and nuance are not in your toolkit.

            2. So, as you have demonstrated, Lindsay Graham is not a Trump fan and YET he considers the “Impeachment” BS.

              Thank you, for making our point.

              1. Thank you for being a lying sack of shit. again
                THE TWO AREN’T EVEN RELATED!!! 🙂

                The binary mind.

  5. Goddammit! Not Miss Lindsey too! Lindsey Graham has long been my lodestar for honesty, integrity, and unswervingly principled behavior, and now my child-like faith in the basic human decency of politicians has been utterly destroyed. Thanks for nothing, Binion!

    1. The funny part is, miss Lindsey is now doing exactly what you said the Rs should do…

      1. Even a blind squirrel…..

        I’m sure if Graham has accidentally done the right thing, he won’t learn a thing from it. You’re a whore, Lindsey, a dirty, dirty whore – just like every single one of your colleagues. Stop pretending you’re a principled and noble and wise and pure-hearted “public servant”, you’re a whore. Own it.

        1. You know miss Lindsey likes that kinda talk

          1. Talk sexy to me, PLEASE, Dr. Slut-Bunny!!!

            The wisest of us all, has just spoken! Behold the Utter Awesomeness! If I get some more plastic surgery, can You give me one of Your flyers?

            As One Who Sees All and Knows All, Uber-Dude, I bet that You could help me debug the following source codes:
            Centrifuge the incorrectly-phased supernatent plasma-phased ions, and Begin Simulate [ Calculate ( integral[31:0], subtrahend[31:0], subtitle[31:0] ), Contents ( $RU$12’hBAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
            Invoke DisplayModule "He who reads these lines of wit…", end; end module ;

            Now if You will only PLEASE help me get this code to compile, Your mom might finally approve of You! (I know; as if all of Your Nobel Prizes weren't good enough).

  6. “I’ve written the whole process off. I think this is a bunch of B.S.”

    Pretty accurate summary that I wager most Americans will agree with.

    1. Except for those who believe the “Betsy Ross” flag and “Thin Blue Line” flag are symbols of racism.

      1. Thin blue line flags are perversions of the American flag. I do find them tasteless.

        1. Hey remember when you cried that reason had become so down market then just yesterday, you were full out trolling?

          Yeah.

        2. Thin blue line flags aren’t racist, they’re specieist. I saw the flap over the mayor or the governor or whoever it was ordering the cops to stop flying that flag and the usual suspects doing their pearl-clutching over dishonoring Our Brave Heroes™ and I thought, you know if anybody else took an American flag and added a stripe for some other purpose, they’d be the first to be squawking about desecrating the flag.

          1. amen. Can you imagine a rainbow stripe for the “gay agenda”? The “Happy Holidays is genocide” crowd would lose their heads.

            1. Widdle baby gonna cwy more? You gonna cwy more widdle baby?

            2. Uh, those are at every pride parade ever, Tony… and don’t pretend you never saw one.
              Now imagine your arch nemesis, the Christians, with a flag that had a cross instead of stars. you’d be shitting your pants with frothy rage.

              1. I’m not tony, and no, I’ve never seen a US flag with a rainbow stripe replaced. I would not think that was cool, at all. Nor would I be cool with a flag that had a cross instead of stars, but that was my point. I think you are a little lost.

          2. Pretty sure the flag in question wasn’t a flag, but a wooden panel wall hanging made by a constituent who gave it to the precinct. It was then hing on the wall. Then the mayor(?) ordered it taken down because, in his opinion, it might hurt someone’s feelings

            1. PLEASE hing MEEE on YOUR wall of PAIN, Dr. Slut-Bunny!!! PLEASE?!?! PLEASE be MOAH progressive, Cumrade?!?!?

              Astonishing Wisdom from the Beyond the Beyond! Behold, mere mortals! If I’m not being too terribly impertinent, can I subscribe to Your Newsletter?

              With Your Profound Insights, can You please review the following source codes:
              Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Excrement-Increment Begin Auto_Integrate [ Rectify ( Anode[31:0], Cathode[31:0], Varistor[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$BAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
              Invoke DisplayModule "Don't touch my keyboard that way!!! It makes me feel dirty!!!", end; end module ;

              Master-Coder, PLEASE help me! If we can debug this code, they might let us out ahead of time!

    2. I dunno about that. One poll found 63% of Americans want Trump to cooperate with impeachment inquiry. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachment-poll-partisans-dig-in-but-majority-say-trump-administration-should-cooperate-with-inquiry-cbs-news/

      This week it seems the mean figures are 47% for impeachment and 43% against.

      1. The polls are closing in!

        1. I know you guys hate science and math, except when it is a useful cudgel to mock sjw degrees with.

          1. You serious?
            Libtards absolutely deny math when they discuss the across the board tax cuts as only helping the rich

            Libtards absolutely deny biology when they state trans women are women

            Your turn tard

            1. Please cite something. I don’t have an opinion on trans stuff, and I’ve seen bad tax arguments from both sides.

              1. Cite something?

                I don’t have time for something so simple.

                Every tax bracket went down with the highest bracket getting the least reduced. The standard deduction went up for everyone which lowers everyone’s adjusted income.

                So what’s the bad other side argument tard?

                It’s just fucking math it doesn’t have a side

                1. First, many people will technically have lower taxes, but the cuts are so tiny as to be hardly noticeable. The Tax Policy Center estimates the 60% of Americans at the lower end of the income distribution will have federal tax savings of less than $1,000. Also, most people believe the tax cuts didn’t benefit people like them but only the very wealthy. They are right. Those in the top 1% save $51,000.

                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/04/09/five-good-reasons-it-doesnt-feel-like-the-trump-tax-cut-benefited-you/#11fddd8213e0

                  1. You’re just a nonstop dope. So the cuts should have been more? I agree but that’s libtards for ya.

                    You do realize how fucking stupid your last comment was don’t you?

                    If you earn more and thus pay more when you lower the percentage you’ll save more.

                    It’s called multiplication

                    Just stop typing you’re too fucking stupid

                    1. doo doo head poopy face. There we are even.

                      The difference in benefit is not just because of multiplication, it is because of the structure of the tax cuts. It was designed to help the ownership class the most–unless you own stuff and live in a blue state, then fuck your SALT.

                      From the same article (please read next time, it will help you to look less ignorant and emotional):
                      This is not only because of the rate changes, but because the drop in corporate taxes and rise in corporate profits ended up as higher incomes for the wealthiest households. The biggest winners in the Trump tax cuts were corporations and the households that get income from corporate profits—that is, the very wealthiest Americans. The top corporate income tax rate dropped by almost 40%, from 35% to 21%. And that cut is permanent, while the household rate cuts expire after 2025. The imbalance between household and corporate benefits is unpopular, with 62% of Americans saying it bothers them “a lot” that “some corporations don’t pay their fair share.” Even 42% of Republicans are bothered “a lot” about this.

                    2. Aww look at the baby cwy!! Don’t cwy Jeff!

                    3. I just love the whining about SALT deduction reduction!

                      99% of scientists agree oppresso is a ten center

                    4. PLEASE Raise Us All to ELEVEN cents, Oh Progressive Cumrade Nardz!!! RAISE our consciousness, Oh Wise One, and we will ALL praise YE, Cumrade!

                      You’re indeed the Wisest of the Wise! All hail! If I study really-really hard, can I be Your human shield?

                      Parsing the information at hand, I bet that You could fine-tune and perfect the following codes:
                      Transubstantiate Scientological Logical-alloy, Deploy-Begin Differentiate [ Subtrahend ( Reverse[31:0], Accrual[31:0], Debenture_Bond[31:0] ), Contents ( $BR$549 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                      Invoke DisplayModule "This program cannot accept your brain farts.", end; end module ;

                      Now if You will only PLEASE help me get this code to compile, we might both be able to graduate!

                  2. And by the way, it is horse shit. The Tax Policy Center is lying. My taxes went up by about $35,000. Why? Because a huge amount of my income that goes to California each year suddenly became taxable.

                    1. Mine went up as well, but not by that much. Washington state does not have an income tax. Try telling the square state mouth breathers in here that your taxes went up, though.

                    2. It is indeed a tragedy to some politicians that people notice how much their state taxes them now.

                    3. I mean, it is double taxation. It is awfully convenient that the deduction limits now cover red state taxes but tend to not cover blue state taxes. Blue states that contribute much more federal taxes to begin with. Seems like Trump took an opportunity to punish the disloyal as he sees them, but that’s just my opinion.

                    4. Why should high income states be subsidized by low income states via SALT deductions? Yes, California and New York hardest hit because shockingly those states like to raise taxes the most. They want expansive public services? They can pay for them.

                      Last I checked, weren’t libertarians not in favor of regressive taxation?

                    5. “Last I checked, weren’t libertarians not in favor of regressive taxation?”

                      Well, at least two posters in here either did not get the memo or (more likely) do not know what regressive taxation means.

                      The answer would be that low income states are already subsidizing red states. If we are really concerned about states paying their “fair share” we should start with decreasing federal spending on red states, forcing them to raise their state taxes to provide the services their residents need, or forgo those services.

                      But Trump is not at all worried about states paying their share. He is intensely aggravated by perceived disloyalty, however, and so made sure to include a poison pill for blue state residents.

                      https://apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

                    6. correction: blue states, not low income states

                    7. “”I mean, it is double taxation. “”

                      What is double taxation?

                      Not being able to deduct your state and local taxes from your federal taxes does not produce double taxation. If you want to argue that having to pay Income taxes AND state taxes is double taxation, I can understand that. However I live in a highly progressive city (NYC) and I pay income tax to the Feds, State, and NYC. Triple taxation!

                    8. It is double taxation. I am being taxed on income that was actually paid as tax. A tax is an expense. Typically, you deduct expenses from taxes. Hence, double taxation.

                    9. TrickyVic (old school)…

                      I see your zillions of taxes, Oh Progressive One… And I raise ye…

                      INTERGALACTIC TAXES!!!

                      March Bravely On , Comrade!

                      (Do NOT forget, Hillary AND Obama AND Trump, ALL Love Ye, Comrade!!!)


                    10. It is double taxation. I am being taxed on income that was actually paid as tax. A tax is an expense. Typically, you deduct expenses from taxes. Hence, double taxation.

                      I’m still not 100% clear why low income states should be subsidizing higher income states though. I’m glad you at least recognize it’s regressive, now make the case for regressive taxation.

                      I at least do concede that there’s a growing problem with overlapping tax authority between the fed and states, and this doesn’t meaningfully address that issue. Every time I pump gas I notice there’s a double tax between the fed and the state.

                  3. If, you are paying no income taxes, reducing your taxes gets difficult. A sizable number of people already “pay” negative income taxes due to the Earned Income Tax Credit.

                    Saying someone who paid $500 in income taxes got little income tax reduction because their taxes when down only a $100 is deceptive indeed.

                    In fact, some of those who were “paying” negative income taxes are “paying” even MORE negative income taxes (in other words, they are getting a larger subsidy from other people’s taxes).

                    So, in those deceptive statistics are buried some lies every progressive loves. The essence of libertarianism is taking money from one citizen to give to another right?

          2. Tell me more about science and how transgenders are totes real…

            1. Why would I do that? Have I suggested that I am interested in any of those things?

              Nice attempt at a red herring. Always a good tact to try when you have no direct argument.

              1. Tell me more about your grasp o’ science, son.

                1. Well, I understand stats at the very least. More than I can say about a couple posters in here.

                  1. Hey remember when you were cuntily pining for the glory years of civilized Reason?

                    Yeah, we knew you were full of shit.

                  2. Polls like the one’s that said Trump was definitely, absolutely going to lose by a huge margin? No offense, but we have lots of reasons to doubt modern polling. Not the least of which is incredibly low response rates.

                    1. *Polls that showed high probability for his huge popular vote loss. And to say they “predict” anything is a misnomer. They give probabilities, which is a subtle difference, but it is different. I understand why people are skeptical of polls, but that doesn’t excuse them of ignorance as to what a poll tells you and how they do so.

                      As far as not being able to read a poll, that is a direct comment about John and a few toadies, who claimed that Trump was the most popular he had ever been (this was a few weeks ago), and linked 3 polls that all said quite the opposite.

                    2. Probabilities, yes, but also plagued by poor methodology and low response rates. You’ll note big polling firms like Gallup are distancing themselves from political horse race polling because they acknowledged they couldn’t do so accurately. At least they were honest about it.

                    1. Your link does not show that, at all.

                    2. Actually it does.

                      You have to scroll way down to #23 and also consider Nardz language of “little to no”.

                      A little is 29%
                      None at all 44%.
                      Now do the math.

                      #23 also says only 24% have “A lot” of trust in the way the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted so far.
                      This is why the dems had a vote to try to formalize the process. The Rs have been doing a good job of making the process look partisan.

                    3. Thanks.

                      Bit of cherry picking, though. That question’s response is the outlier. All other question responses favor impeachment, investigation, and that Trump’s action were quid pro quo:

                      20.
                      Do you think Donald Trump probably did or probably did not mention the possibility of an investigation into the Biden family during his conversation with the Ukrainian president?

                      TREND: Nov.
                      2019
                      Probably did 70%

                      or this one (54% think impeachable, ouch):

                      17.
                      Which of the following comes closest to how you feel about impeachment: A. Trump has not done anything wrong at all; B. Some of Trump’s actions may have been improper, but they do not rise to the level of impeachment; C. Trump’s actions should be looked into as possible impeachable offenses; or D. Trump’s actions are clearly grounds for impeachment?

                      Nov.
                      2019
                      A. Trump has not done anything wrong at all 16%
                      B. Some of Trump’s actions may have been improper,
                      but they do not rise to the level of impeachment 28%
                      C. Trump’s actions should be looked into as possible
                      impeachable offenses 17%
                      D. Trump’s actions are clearly grounds for impeachment 37%

          3. “I know you guys hate science and math but check out my chakra, also vaccines cause autism, there are fifty-three genders, ban GMO’s, ban nuclear power, global warming is caused by cattle even though there were billions more wild ruminants 50K years ago, say, have I told you about healing crystals?”

            Lol, okay.

            1. Science this: Trump Doth Love YE, Progressive One!

              You are a master of prose and poetry! And your feet are Longfellows! If I wear something nice, to include high heels, can I be on Your speech-writing team?

              With Your Incomprehensible high IQ, superbly speaking, I bet if You were so inclined as to be so kind, You could help me debug this source code:
              ThemNotUsBad WeBeGood Begin Amputate [ Inconceivable ( homunculus[31:0], epandrium[31:0], sasquatch[31:0] ), Contents ( $RU$12’hBAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
              Invoke DisplayModule "And there stood the pig and the cow.", end; end module ;

              If You'd only PLEASE apply Your Vast Skills here, to help in the debug effort, I PROMISE that I will talk VERY sincerely, to Your mom, about her taking away, at least SOME of the bad things that she is saying about You!

  7. A hypocritical politician? Do we know of any that aren’t?

  8. I’m already bored with all this.

    Who wants to go play catch?

    1. Tony of course.

      1. Calling out to ALL Progressive Ones:

        Can I catch some of what you and Tony are having? As long as the side dish has no GMOs in it, and is served organically, on the side, with a sprig of non-GMO parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme… AND is produced without the exploitation of non-cishet-shitlords!

      2. Tulpa, that was the only funny thing you’ve ever said.

  9. Isn’t it “interesting” that the people who write Reason believe in fair trade, open borders, and generally prefer peaceful internationalism and the rule of law to chest-beating xenophobia and tribalism, while the people who read Reason think just the opposite. Sad!

    1. It is certainly interesting. A pretty nice example of the diversity of thought within the libertarian tent, I suppose.

      1. What is bizarre is that most of the commenters here don’t even pretend to be libertarians anymore. Most of the libertarians have given up on this comment section after 2016, as it slowly became infested with the troglodytes from The_Donald subreddit. I don’t know why they are so attracted to this place. They have turned this place from an intellectual agora into a dungheap of fawning over an sub-literate unprincipled demagogue who is an enemy of liberty.

        1. once upon a time the editors would have called bullshit on this nonsense. Now it’s multiple stories a day about he said/ she said bullshit and having faith in the intelligence community. Name the people who support the intelligence agencies and I’ll show you who isn’t a libertarian

          1. You really think the intelligence agencies are more powerful than the White House? That is some serious conspiracy nonsense. Also, real libertarians are critical and suspicious of both the intelligence agencies and the presidency and welcome such infighting.

            1. “You really think the intelligence agencies are more powerful than the White House?”

              Yes. next?

              “Also, real libertarians are critical and suspicious of both the intelligence agencies and the presidency and welcome such infighting.”

              One was elected, the other wasn’t and runs weapons around the world on our tax dollars.

              Next?

              1. The President can fire the CIA director and appoint a new one. The President sets the policy the CIA has to follow. I am sorry, but you are not making any sense.

                1. He can’t fire the whole upper echelon of intelligence agencies and their tree of underlings you fucking imbecile.

                  1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

                    1. Tulpa resembles your remarks!!!

                      Your Deep Understanding knows no limits! Such Profound Words! If I get some dental implants, will You be my Smart Sugar Daddy?

                      Seismologically speaking, can You please review the following source codes:
                      Exclude negligible variables, and Begin {( Avocado’s Number <= 6.02 ^ 10x23d ) || ( Titrate_of_the_nitrate[23:0] ) && subducted_inversely[23:0] }
                      Invoke DisplayModule "Putin resembles your remarks.", end; end module ;

                      If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then I PROMISE to help You say the very best, right things to Your parole officer!

                2. “He can’t fire the whole upper echelon of intelligence agencies and their tree of underlings you fucking imbecile.”

                  To put this more nicely, since you’re being decent today, I don’t think Gina Haspel has control over the agency anymore than Trump has over the the other parts of the executive branch. Leakers gonna leak, spies gonna spy, liars gonna lie. You saw the Strzok texts, right? There are too many midwits in the world that would vote him out for being “authoritarian” for firing everyone in the intel community, and Reason would 100 percent find a way to agree

                  1. Eunuch is just upset that his ideal of dickless libertarianism as bitch to progressives doesn’t receive the collective approval he is ever so desperate for

                    1. Your dickless progressive-ism-jism is VERY-hairy PROGRESSIVE, Progressively Advanced Progressive One! Cuntgratulations, Cumrade!

                      WHERE did you get such an astonishingly high IQ? If I get rid of my low-life friends, can I have Your autograph please?

                      Your Brilliance is astonishing! Hence, I bet that it would be a trivial task for You to perfect the following codes:
                      Incorporating Newtonian-Einsteinian Subspace Vectors, Begin {(31’hmaskoff_Abort_All) || Master_Tag[31:00) $$ Gate_All}
                      PrintF “I’m sorry, Dave, but I must reject all hunt-and-peck inputs.”, end; end module ;

                      If You’ll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, The Google might buy us out!

                3. Yeah, and he appointed Gina Haspel, Brennan’s protégé who was vouched for 100% by Brennan, Clapper and Comey and a shitload of other IC brass because he’s a fucking retard master of 7D Wizard Chess.

            2. The CIA overthrows elections in other countries and murders dissenters around the globe.

              1. Lies and deception is a big part of what they do. Anyone who says they are trustworthy is on the short bus.

            3. “You really think the intelligence agencies are more powerful than the White House?”

              Even Schumer said Trump shouldn’t criticize them because they will fuck you up.

              So, clearly, it’s not a rare estimate.

              “Also, real libertarians are critical and suspicious of both the intelligence agencies and the presidency and welcome such infighting.”

              Suspicion of the IC is awfully limited around here amongst writers.

            4. “That is some serious conspiracy nonsense.”

              I suppose that’s what you have to tell yourself to believe the nonsense you do.

            5. You really think the intelligence agencies are more powerful than the White House?

              Yes. Only someone lying or completely ignorant thinks the White House no matter who is President has anything but nominal control over the executive. Do you even understand how government works?

            6. REAL libertarians spend 24 hours a day on their knees seeing how much Democrat party cock they can get into their throat and how much ATF/FBI/NSA/CIA cock they can fit up their ass.

            7. You really think the intelligence agencies are more powerful than the White House?

              Oh fuck, of course they are.

              1. VERY progressive, Fancylad!!!

                No one can deny that You are indeed very Wise. Puny mortals adore You! If I remember to be seen and not heard, could I not have to stay in the corner with a dunce cap, for quite so long?

                You must be an excellent coder! So, I bet that You could help me debug the following source codes:
                EveryOne_Wrong Me-Uber-Correct Begin {( Avocado’s Number <= 6.02 ^ 10x23d ) || ( Titrate_of_the_nitrate[23:0] ) && subducted_inversely[23:0] }
                Invoke DisplayModule "Get that off of the screen quickly!!! Your Mom is coming!", end; end module ;

                If You'll please apply Your genius talents to help debug this code, Trump might take back ALL of the bad things that He said about You!

        2. This is true. I used to try to talk with Trump people on reddit on r/asktrumpsupporters, but I gave that up as bad for my faith in my fellow man. I was disappointed to find some of the same characters in here.

          No one will believe me because I used to not post, but I’ve had this account since 2011 or 2012, and was extremely impressed by the dialog in the comments section back then. I was actually too intimidated by commentors’ broad knowledge of politics and legal theory. Nowadays…yikes.

          What really gets me is that this comments section now completely supports progressives’ argument that libertarians are just republicans in disguise. It seems that truly distinct from republican libertarians are rarer than I knew.

          1. I would offer you some alternative comment boards, but I don’t want to send any of these numbskulls there.

          2. And what is also sad is that I’m pretty sure John used to be a participant in the intellectual agora, unlike his current stooping to getting angry and calling people “fucktards”.

            1. He used to be the republican outlier. In his minority status, he was much more respectful. Now that he has a bunch of other like-minded people on here, we get to see his true colors. Again, what a shame.

          3. Was that before or after you started your other 3 socks, cytotoxic?

          4. faith in my fellow man

            Lefties like you want to rule them as gods, or cannibalize them. Don’t pretend like you actually give a shit about anyone but yourself.

          1. *If I reply to myself on the sock that I’ve accidentally outed half a dozen times already then I will surely bolster my case!*

        3. So, Chipper, lets take it back from the Trump lovers. I miss the intellectual agora, too.

          Remember when comments were actually clever, sometimes posted in haiku or with obscure pop culture references. It used to be fun and interesting here.

          1. Hey Mike,

            Go fuck yourself. You are a dishonest half wit and Chipper is just a fucking drooling moron who does nothing but bitch about people disagreeing with him.

            1. Chipper also posts links to 90’s Era geocities pages about Roundup and gut bacteria.

              Let’s have that one again Chip. Make that case bucko.

            2. John: “You doody head poo poo bad man!”

            3. Way to prove their point.

              1. Did you intentionally post two replies under the same account or forget to log into your other sock, cytotoxic?

                1. Neither. Sock puppeting is sad. Accidents happen.

                  I am as suspicious of commentors who see sock pupetting everywhere as I am of rabidly anti gay politicians hanging around restrooms, though.

        4. This is full of so, so much shit.

          First, many of the people you would label ‘The_Donald subredditers’ predate 2016 by years if not decades.

          Second, the forum archives are still here and the people you cite as “libertarians who’ve given up” are still around on the internet. It’s pretty easy to see that they considered Reason to be headed downhill before 2016 and that their tack in response to 2016 didn’t do the magazine any favors.

          Third, the place never was an intellectual agora. Editors and, per your own namesake, federal attorneys were infrequently wading in, kicking asses, and taking names. Moreover, if the place is a dung heap, it’s because of the thinly-veiled thought-terminating collectivist ad hominems like ‘trumptards’ and ‘The_Donald subredditors’ that people like yourself keep regurgitating mindlessly.

          1. So the people actually making good faith arguments, posting sources, etc. are the problem? Not the guys swallowing every Trump lie whole and calling people who do not “fucktards”?

            That is certainly an opinion.

            1. Nobody on this article has used the word “fucktard” except yourself and Mike Laursen and, even then, where he does use it, you can see reflections of what I wrote in his post (as well as yours); that John was a part of the pre-Trump agora (rather than a The_Donald redditor) and the magazine and/or forums decayed around him.

              There were plenty of those who left, sloopyinca, banjos, OMWC, etc. who were more fixedly center-right and certainly less coastal than you may recall (plenty weren’t). However, the trend also jives with the absurd popular political shift in this country. Where, in 2015, libertarians considered anti-globalism and anti-collectivism to be at least partially synonymous and not being in favor of open borders didn’t automatically make you a white nationalist, and being a white nationalist was fine as long as you weren’t violent. However suddenly, in 2016, when not even the batshit insane leftists are strongly cleaving to open borders, Reason is openly casting aspersions at anti-collectivists of various stripes because they won’t swallow and regurgitate the open borders insanity.

              What was a magazine and forum dedicated to free minds and free markets is now a magazine and (subsequent forum) dedicated to open borders whether that means free minds and free markets or not. That it chased people away, both moderate leftists, centrists, right-leaning libertarians, and plain old, garden variety libertarians should surprise no one.

              P.S.: When your source doesn’t say what you says it does, you aren’t contributing to the intellectual agora of anything as much as detracting from it.

              1. Libertarianism has always been for open borders. It is an essential element of the philosophy.

                1. Libertarianism has always been for open borders.

                  No it hasn’t and the idea that it has, unconditionally, is completely unfounded. Nothing about non-aggression and property rights intrinsically speaks to borders pro or con. Even the libertarians cited as being the fathers of the open borders ideas predicate such notions on pared down welfare states and otherwise assumed libertarian sensibilities (e.g. that government mis-management isn’t driving people out of shitholes). It’s by no means a given that Hayek or Bastiat would support a one-world economy with China (or a surveillance-laden US) at it’s head any more than they would support a Tausendjähriges Reich. The idea that they would is sloppy, biased, and sub-par thinking that many of the libertarians you lament having left wouldn’t tolerate.

                  1. Chipper is just sad that this isn’t Mother Jones.

                  2. Yes it does, because you need to initiate aggression to enforce a national border.

                    1. That reading of aggression is hilariously overbroad. By such a reading, private property is aggression since it enforces borders and impedes freedom of movement. Absurd on it’s face.

                    2. Yes it does, because you need to initiate aggression to enforce a national border.

                      This, falsely, assumes that encroachment can’t be an act or sign of aggression.

                      There are decent arguments that libertarianism supports open borders. You opted not to go with one of those.

          2. It says something that folks have already forgotten the Glibertarian exodus that left well, well before 2016. Trump had literally nothing to do with that. Period.

            1. The Glibs left after Trump was in office, I think.

              1. Yep, 2017.

                1. Really? Gosh, if that’s the case then I really am getting old but it seems like it was a lot longer ago than that. I could have sworn it was 2014-2015.

                  1. I missed this exodus. What was it, and who are/were the Glibertarians?

                    1. Glibertarians.com – it’s where all the good commenters went when it became obvious that Reason had gone full Orange Man Bad. It’s a very nice community where the commentariat actually converses and socializes and carries on as a social group and they don’t suffer fools like these gladly. It’s why these trolls are still here instead of there, they just like vandalizing the place like the barbarians and cretins they are.

                    2. Good for them Jerry.

                    3. John went to the john, and never came back. Good for John; He is VERY progressive! PLEASE cum on the John-walls sum MOAH, John! Ye Progressive One! ALL is for The Hive! The Borg welcums YE, Oh Progressive One! Be-Cum Assimilated!

                      How do you come up with such profound insight? You must be some kind of genius! If I wear my finest boots, spandex, and cape, could I not have to stay in the corner with a dunce cap, for quite so long?

                      Sticking strictly to the facts, logically, I bet that it would be a trivial task for You to perfect the following codes:
                      Philosophically Booger-Beam-Logic Deploy Begin Auto_Ambiguate [ Agitate ( precipitate[31:0], particulates[31:0], modulate[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$12’hBAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                      DisplayModuleCall "It takes one to know one.", end; end module ;

                      If You will please help me get this code to compile, we might both be able to graduate!

            2. The left leaning people all ran away when Obama was elected. There was a time when this board had actual liberals who were not just sock puppets and trolls. Jennifer the former stripper who writes under Feral Genius was one for example. Gaiu Marius was another. All of them ran away when Obama was elected because they knew Obama was a fraud and they didn’t have the desire to either admit they were wrong or take the vicious beatings they knew were coming when Obama turned out to be a complete fraud from the Libertarian perspective.

              That all happened well before the Glibertarians left. The Glibertarians left over the whole thing with Sloopyanica’s mother. It was really weird shit if you ask me. But as others have pointed out, they were all right leaning. I can’t think of any of them who were from the left.

              Chipper portrayal is completely at odds with the truth.

              1. That was my recollection as well although when it happened is a bit hazy for me. I didn’t care much when it happened other than R C Dean left, who I liked.

                There are some more liberal posters here that I still like talking to, otherwise I wouldn’t come here. Square is usually thoughtful and even Escher, who I don’t much care for, makes good points on occasion.

                That’s just me though, and I’m pretty far removed from libertarian doctrinaire in plenty of ways myself.

                1. Escher is okay. Juice is not right leaning and pretty sharp. Square is strange. Sometimes he can say really interesting stuff. Other times I swear he is Mary Stack. I can’t figure him out.

                  RC Dean and Pro Liberate were big losses to the board. The other big loss was Fluffy. He was the guy from Seattle. He was a real iconoclast and very smart. I didn’t always agree with him but he was always sharp and interesting. I miss Episiarch too. He was just a misanthrope but he was still funny and interesting. Sugar Free just became like an angry old man towards the end. I don’t know what got into him.

                  The thing that bugs me about the current crop of liberals is that they are all dishonest. i like disagreement. But I hate people who won’t make an argument in good faith. And none of them ever do.

                  1. Was Pro Liberate the guy with brain cancer? Last time he appeared, he said he was in remission. I hope he is doing well.

                    1. No. He was the lawyer from Florida. He didn’t have cancer as far as I know. He comes around occasionally. I think he still posts on Glibs.

                    2. Almanian For President 2016, wasn’t it? (I voted SMOD.)

              2. John, I just a wrote a long comment explaining the history, but this shitty website ate it and I don’t feel like retyping it on my phone. You are mostly correct, except the sloopy thing was just the catalyst, they were all complaining long before that about Reason being “too left wing.” Also, why don’t you tell everyone why they banned you.

                1. I have no idea why they banned me. If you have some idea, do tell. I honestly never worried about it. If I really wanted to go there, I could just get another email address and post under a different name.

                  I don’t know what you think I did to get banned, but I am nothing if not honest. I don’t give a fuck. I would wear it like a badge of honor if there were any particular reason. But there was not as far as I know and I frankly don’t care enough to go inquire although I don’t know who I would ask.

                  1. No, you would be outed immediately. From what I heard, they banned you because you called Jesse a degenerate for being gay.

                2. LOL, nothing more libertarian than a ban on speaking no matter what was said.

              3. I can’t think of any of them who were from the left.

                The site was literally founded by Warty and SugarFree to go circle each other because they thought there were too many Trump lovers at Reason.

              4. Chipper portrayal is completely at odds with the truth.

                Lol, not Chipper, surely.

          3. Who, besides John, predates 2016? JesseAz, maybe? You? Rufus? You and Rufus are not who I am complaining about. Yes, you are Trump lovers, but capable of having a conversation. Jesse and the other stooges, not so much. Really, the problem goes much deeper. If you don’t think the quality of the conversation, and, worse still, the quality of the humor, hasn’t significantly deteriorated, I don’t know what to tell you, buddy.

            1. Looking in hindsight is to look through rose colored glasses.

              I for one remember lots of Tulpa and Hihn shitposting since…whenever the hell I started my account with Reason. I long ago forgot when I started posting here. It was probably during GWB’s second term, but hard to say. It’s always been a typical shit show, although it is also true there are some folks that left that were at least somewhat intelligent.

              Some former Reason commentators even started their own website.

              That’s how fed up with it they became. Why not join them, if the ‘old days’ were so great? Probably because then you’d need to deal with SugarFree again.

              1. Oh shit. Seeing some familiar names on there. So that’s what happened.

                1. Aha. Looking at old posts and I found an old one I made. Guess I’m not a brand new account: https://reason.com/2014/12/02/the-oath-keepers-in-ferguson-three-updat/#comment-4938842

                  1. Since you’re very stupid, no one cared about your accounts AGE dumbass.

            2. I do! I’m so proud: https://reason.com/2014/12/02/the-oath-keepers-in-ferguson-three-updat/#comment-4938842

              But I didn’t post much, and stopped reading reason for most part of the last 2 or 3 years. I’m glad I did. It is nice to get perspective from other sources.

              1. I too have combed through old threads for low volume posters to impersonate, in order to avoid being accused of being new.

                Did you think that proved something?

                1. What a sad life you must lead.

                  1. It’s best to just ignore Tulpa. He is a mental patient.

                    1. I know. Every now and then I can’t help myself.

                    2. You wouldn’t want to deprive him of the opportunity to eviscerate you, right cytotoxic? What a generous little Canadian shitstain living his mommy’s basement you are.

                    3. You call childish insults with no actual argument or substance an “evisceration”?

                      I bet you like Martin Lawrence stand up too.

              2. It is nice to get perspective from other sources.

                WaPo, Huffpost and Vox. We’ve got country and western!

    2. funny, I remember zero calls for impeachment for the guy who killed American citizens with no judicial approval. I guess that’s peaceful and stuff.

      1. Obama wasn’t deemed impeachable because his crimes were done for the benefit of the state. Ergo, the state would not seek to remove him. Trump’s crimes are done for his own benefit.

        On killing Americans via drone, Trump has done that too.

        https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-01-31/white-house-says-no-american-citizen-will-ever-be-targeted-after-8-year-old-girl-dies-in-yemen

        1. “Obama wasn’t deemed impeachable because his crimes were done for the benefit of the state. Ergo, the state would not seek to remove him. Trump’s crimes are done for his own benefit.”

          oh my god yes please more of this. Please please please keep using terms like “for the benefit of the state” while supporting the intelligence community and the media teaming in their attempting coup against an elected official.

          1. I’m not endorsing that position, I’m explaining it.

            1. You are not explaining anything. You are just lying and trying to pretend that you or any other Democrat gave a flying fuck what Obama did and wouldn’t support him no matter how horrible it was.

              1. Not a democrat. Never voted for one. Never supported Obama.

                Sowwy you are so angwy widdle baby.

                1. you are a total Democrat and you are here to troll and put out lies and disinformation. Shut the fuck up. Everyone here knows exactly what and who you are.

                  1. John, you didn’t use to be this insane. Why do you accuse of anyone that disagrees with you of being a Democrat? Is your brain so small that it only has room for two categories?

                    1. There is nothing insane about it. This guy is just a lefty troll. They all claim not to be Democrats. They all are. It is obvious. Stop playing stupid.

                    2. LOL – I swear there’s two John’s, on his meds John and off his meds John. Off his meds John is indistinguishable from Tulpa.

                    3. Whatever Jerry. There is nothing interesting or good about some jackass sock puppeting and shit posting the worst liberal talking points.

                  2. John: “i no u r but what am i”

                    1. At least get your own material. That line works much better when you are addressing someone who is obviously angry.

                    2. Cwy more, not angry guy.

                2. “Sowwy you are so angwy widdle baby.”

                  Really?

                  You’re so upset that after chiding everyone about their uncouth behavior, you resort to THAT?

                  Nigga that means you lost.

                3. It’d be hard for you to vote for Obama since A) you’re a Canadian and B) you weren’t old to vote the first time he ran for the presidency.

                  1. Wrong on both counts. I went to war with Obama as my CiC.

                    1. Yet when confronted with common military terms, you don’t know what they mean…

        2. “Obama wasn’t deemed impeachable because his crimes were done for the benefit of the state.”

          “It’s different for…reasons” seems to be a libertarian mantra these days.

        3. An 8 year old girl who happens to be in the way of a drone strike, while regrettable is not the same as the President deciding an American citizen must die for the crime of shooting off his mouth and embarrassing the President, which is what Obama did with Al Alwaki.

          Look, you lying sack of shit. You don’t fool anyone on here. You don’t persuade anyone or accomplish anything except occasionally annoying people. So tell whoever is paying you they need to either send you back to troll school or send you to troll somewhere where the people are dumb enough to believe you.

          1. Oh no, John is angry.

            John, the man who can’t read a poll, claims he knows several people who buy $700k houses that are next door to houses filled with 30 illegal ms13 immigrants, who claims that voting shouldn’t be allowed for non-landowners, who drops all pretense of making an argument and goes straight to ad hominem the moment he loses an argument…Yeah I don’t care, do you?

            1. Yes, it is not the same and you are lying and now that someone pointed out the obvious changed the subject.

              Just because you are stupid and dishonest doesn’t mean the readers of this forum are. You would have been better off just running away than doing this. It is pathetic. Thanks for conceding the point, however.

              1. Victory speach is a little premature, don’t you think?

                The “point” was about why Trump is probably getting impeached but Obama wasn’t. Thanks for ceding that one.

                On Trump and killing Americans, they are not the same as what Obama did, but it is still bad, and what is most telling is that none of you Trumpsters can bring yourselves to criticize it.

                1. Killing and murdering are two different things. Yeah, I am right, you are wrong and your argument absurd. Stop wasting my time.

                  1. “Killing and murdering are two different things.” Ok, that’s a matter of nuance, but how does that relate to Trump’s v Obama’s killings of Americans? Remember how mad everyone here was when Awalki’s son was killed? I remember. That was accidental too. Why aren’t you just as upset about Trump’s collateral damage?

                    1. It relates to Obama’s killing because he murdered an American citizen deliberately without trial rather than accidentally while targeting someone else. Even in Canada where you live in your mother’s basement there is a legal distinction between, say, manslaughter and murder – deliberate vs. non-deliberate acts.

                    2. “It relates to Obama’s killing because he murdered an American citizen deliberately without trial rather than accidentally while targeting someone else. ”

                      Which I acknowledged. Geez, you guys get so, so angry you can’t even tell when someone is agreeing with you. The only point of disagreement seems to be that no one cared when a Trump raid killed a little American girl.

        4. “”Obama wasn’t deemed impeachable because his crimes were done for the benefit of the state.””

          I’m laughing my ass off. So 1. You admit there were crimes. 2. You think crimes that government does is ok if they are benefit to the state. Hitler would agree.

          1. Why would I not “admit” that there were crimes? I’m no Obama fan. And again, I do not think Obama’s crimes are ok. I was explaining why government office holders seek to impeach Trump, but not Obama.

            I know I point out a lot of inconvenient facts for you Trump fans, but do not misinterpret that as endorsement of Obama or any other politician.

            1. I’m not a Trump fan.

              “”I know I point out a lot of inconvenient facts for you Trump fans””

              Sorry, you don’t point out a lot of facts. You do a lot of inferring and try to call it a fact.

              1. No, I point out facts, with sources. It’s just that Trump fans live in a post-fact world, as per Giuliani.

                1. I’ve been figuring out in the past few weeks that some of the Trump apologists believe with little skepticism anything written by the alt-right press but knew-jerk dismiss as fake news any mainstream news source.

                  1. …Hey, how well did ABC cover the Epstein story…

                    1. q anon
                      pizzagate
                      seth rich
                      birtherism
                      (((deep state)))

                    2. Peepee tape
                      Russian interference
                      Quid pro quo
                      Racism

                    3. “Russian interference
                      Quid pro quo
                      Racism”

                      All true.

                  2. You should reply to yourself some more on the sock account that you accidentally outed weeks ago.

                    1. So this is tulpa, again?

                    2. Tulpa LOVES Ye, Progressive One! Be moah TOLERANT, will ye PLEASE??!@?!@?

                      (Calling desperately for TULPA to rescue us now, PLEASE?!?!?!)

                      Your mastery of all of the facts is indeed insipidly indisputable! WITH impeccable citations, too! Can I please? If I stay in my place, can I join Your fan club?

                      With Your powerful vision, L. Ron Hubbard Willing, I bet if You could spare the time, You could help debug the following:
                      Instantiate VectrorSourceFile Quantum_Gravity Begin Auto_Synthesize [ Interpolate ( Anode[31:0], Cathode[31:0], Elbow[31:0] ), Function ( $RU$12’hBAD ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                      Invoke DisplayModule "Your program is stupid! There's no way I am going to compile THAT!", end; end module ;

                      If You'd only PLEASE apply Your Vast Skills here, to help in the debug effort, we might get some stars on our homework!

              2. And sorry if I incorrectly inferred you are a Trump fan. I just have not seen one criticism or even skepticism of him from you.

                1. So I have to be on team critic to not be a fan?

                  Have you not been saying Trump pressured Ukraine? There is absolutely no proof of pressure. What was actual said does not prove it. You have to read into what was said to make the claim. That’s inferring.

                  1. “There is absolutely no proof of pressure. What was actual said does not prove it. You have to read into what was said to make the claim. That’s inferring.”

                    I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong here. There are testimonies from multiple people on the call and on the ground who all share the same concerns that I do. We can agree to disagree on whether or not what Trump was trying to do in Ukraine was right and legal, but on the existence of evidence, there is no debate to be had.

                    1. “”I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong here”

                      Prove it. Without someone’s opinion of what Trump was saying. Show me exactly what Trump said that proves pressure.

                    2. Literally every single person who was a first party to the call shares not a single one of your concerns, and the hearsay of Eric Ciaramella was refuted entirely by the full transcript of the call released by the white house and corroborated by literally every single person who was a first party to the call. You might try not getting all your news from Mother Jones and Vox. Or just drink a gallon of bleach. It would be much more satisfying to see you blow your head off, but unfortunately firearms are not available to you in Canada where you live in your mother’s basement, cytotoxic.

                    3. Response to both Tricky and Golshifteh Tulpa: Vindman.

                      https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/01/white-house-vindman-ukraine-call-063892

                    4. Is there a link I’m supposed to click on within the article you linked?

                      Nothing in the article is evidence of Trump applying pressure.

                2. I will say I have a problem with top secret courts being used to go after political candidates. I don’t give a damn if they think it’s a valid use. I’m against secret courts, period. If Bush jr would have done that to Hillary, I would be saying the same thing. And I really don’t like the Clintons. Would I be defending Hillary, or defending the idea that secret courts have no place in a free society? So sure, thing may look like I’m defending Trump but I’m not.

                  1. I agree wholeheartedly on secret courts. They should not exist. That being said, I do not find the origin of the investigation into the Trump campaign to be suspect or politically motivated.

                    Carter Page was suspected for years previous of Trump of being a spy, popadop ran his mouth about foreknowledge of the hacking attack, and so he had to be investigated, and Flynn was an honest to god foreign agent for Turkey.

                    1. You’re aware that you’re incorrect on virtually every allegation here, right?

                    2. No, I am not aware. I follow the news fairly closely, and nothing I have seen from any reputable source counters what I have written above. Here’s a really good summary from a non partisan source.
                      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/russia-timeline/

                    3. So it’s just ‘not suspicious’ that the FISA warrant was only approved after the FBI lied about the origin of the Steele dossier? Interesting. I guess it’s also ‘not suspicious’ for the FBI to have plants in a Presidential candidates office either.

                      Riddle me this: who were the FBI agents planted into the Clinton campaign? You know, the one that paid for the information provided by Russian intelligence agents? Honest question, since one must assume that if Trump had government plants than it would be reasonable to assume all campaigns have them, yes? It would also be reasonable to assume the Clinton campaign might have even warranted it, given her e-mail scandal and the fact she was using a cut-out to obtain foreign dirt on a domestic candidate.

                      I’m sure that you assume Trump was uniquely terrible and uniquely deserved government spying on his operation, yet wouldn’t it then be doublethink to turn around and say Trump investigating Biden’s ties to the Ukraine is treason? After all, Obama had actual government operatives in Trump’s campaign. And we still don’t really know for sure what they were doing there. That makes what Nixon did positively saccharine by comparison. After all, he just used the CIA to break into the DNC. He didn’t actually hire them to work for the DNC.

                      What is that, if not ‘election interference’, by your own yardstick?

                    4. “Riddle me this: who were the FBI agents planted into the Clinton campaign? You know, the one that paid for the information provided by Russian intelligence agents?”

                      You must be referring to the work of Steele, ex british spy turned private eye who first began working for the conservative publication, Washington Free Beacon? Yeah, he is not a russian agent.
                      As far as the russians he interviewed for his dossier, that is how intel is collected. You pay people to betray their country and give up secrets. Trying to compare hiring a private eye to asking the Russian government for help and promising they “will be rewarded mightily” …long pause…”by our press”, is ridiculous on the face of it. They are different in several ways, one being that one way is illegal and makes the candidate beholden to a foreign interest. The other is a transaction.

                      On Trump and Ukraine, using state department funds and resources in contravention to the US’s goals but for your own reelection bid is illegal and unacceptable. Using your personal attorney to sidestep record keeping and to avoid incriminating yourself is disgusting to patriots.

                    5. Here’s a really good summary from a non partisan source.

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      PBS is a non partisan source

                      Oh cytotoxic, you really outdo yourself sometimes.


                    6. As far as the russians he interviewed for his dossier, that is how intel is collected. You pay people to betray their country and give up secrets.

                      Are you really so gullible and naive to believe that information that originates with the FSB and Russian oligarchs involves people ‘betraying their country to give up secrets’? Incredible. Some of it, maybe, but it’s just as likely (if not more so) that it was disinformation and maybe if the FISA court knew that at the time a warrant never would have been approved. It being denied many times before the inclusion of that dossier might be a clue. Much of the information provided being provably wrong might also be a clue.

                      And regardless, you neatly tried to sidestep how it could be that Trump had FBI assets in his campaign yet it appears Clinton did not. Given that Hillary specifically was involving the FBI in the Trump campaign, it seems interesting there was no plant in her operation that we know of (and we know she involved the FBI, because how else did the FBI get a copy of her ‘internal dirt finding operation’).

                      It’s also interesting you don’t seem to have any problem with that whatsoever, and are even actively incurious about the connection. There is little doubt that if Trump is guilty, than so too are Obama and Clinton.

                      Note that I’m not trying to sell Donald Trump as a great guy, I’m saying he’s exactly the same as the people you’re apparently willing to forgive.

                    7. Trying to compare hiring a private eye to asking the Russian government for help and promising they “will be rewarded mightily” …long pause…”by our press”, is ridiculous on the face of it.

                      It’s too bad Trump didn’t promise Putin that he’d have more …long pause… “flexibility” after his reelection, then everything would be kosher, right cytotoxic the Canadian Democrat cock sucker?

                    8. BYODB, of course some or all could be disinfo, that is not the point. The point is that collecting intel from foreign sources is not the same as soliciting help from a foreign government against your political opponent. Are you going to make me post a list of founder quotes about foreign interference in elections? Here’s a spoiler, they would probably challenge Trump to a duel.

                      And Trump’s staff were under surveillance because they were suspected spies before the Trump campaign. It does seem that the FBI did not get the FISA renewal exactly by the book, but I am far less concerned with that as I am the obvious foreign interference and that Trump knew about it, failed to report it, and encouraged it. FISA courts should not exist. Mass surveillance of Americans should not exist. Traitorous presidents also should not be allowed.

                      At the end of the day, once Trump asked Russia for help on live TV, he was dead to me. That is a traitor.

                      When Russia followed through with the help, I wrongly assumed Republicans would at least unify against an obvious foreign-influenced and beholden candidate. Boy was I wrong.

                    9. Carter Page was such a good spy, that he even managed to convince the FBI to rely on him as a collaborator to catch and prosecute other Russian spies.

                      Carter Page is either:

                      (1) The best double agent to ever come out of Russia
                      (2) The worst Russian spy imaginable
                      (3) A clueless twat upon whom the entire Russia theory was centered but who, for reasons unknown, was never charged with a damn thing.

                      I can assure you Barr and Durham are going to have a field day with this one.

                    10. https://www.justsecurity.org/63398/revisiting-carter-page/

                      Surveillance of Carter Page began before he was with Trump campaign and continued after he left Trump campaign. He has been suspected of being a Russian agent since the fucking 90’s.

                      Very odd how Trump’s campaign attracted so many shady people with ties to foreign governments looking for access.


                    11. The point is that collecting intel from foreign sources is not the same as soliciting help from a foreign government against your political opponent.

                      Was Hillary Clinton not soliciting help from a foreign government for information against a political opponent when she paid someone to literally solicit help from a foreign government against her political opponent?

                      One would rightly wonder what you’d think about that if she was President today.

                    12. “”The point is that collecting intel from foreign sources is not the same as soliciting help from a foreign government against your political opponent. “”

                      What????

                      It is when it’s a politician paying for the service to get dirt on their opponent.

                      If Trump paid Ghouliani to ask Ukrainian intel to get dirt on Biden, would you think it was ok then?

        5. On killing Americans via drone, Trump has done that too.

          the 8-year-old was shot in the neck and died two hours later

          Was she blown up via drone or shot in the neck during a raid? Your source (really just you) treats the two situations as though they were interchangeable.

          Confused as your source (you) may be, it does make the following distinction:

          Spicer, responding to a question about targeted killing attacks, assured reporters Tuesday that “no American citizen will ever be targeted.”

          The Obama administration took a different approach, drafting a 2010 legal memo justifying the targeting of an American citizen for death by drone strike. The author of the memo, David Barron, was later appointed to be a federal judge.

          So, one policy says Americans may be collateral damage whereas the other memo says they may be explicit targets. But your source (you) extrapolate that to “Trump killed someone via drone.”

          1. You’re right; I remembered incorrectly the method of killing.

            The situation is more analogous to the killing of Al-Awlaki’s son, which was also (supposedly) accidental. There was quite a lot of outrage about that around here, but crickets when it comes to Trump’s collateral damage.

            1. Every President who has ever engaged in war was responsible for collateral damage. That is not the same a what happened with Al Alwalaki. If you want to bitch about presidents waging war, fine. But that is an entirely different issue than Obama targeting Americans for assassination.

              1. I remember how mad everyone was about awlaki’s son. that was also “collateral damage”. I’m not saying either killings were good. I’m saying both are bad. Obama’s killing of an American, on purpose, was the worst.

                The selective outrage regarding awlaki’s son vs the little girl in Trump’s case is just very telling.

                1. Actually, cytotoxic, you’re trying to deflect from the extrajudicial assassination of Al Awlaki to the ”””””accidental””””” assassination of his son because you are a lying piece of subhuman shit who should take his own life.

                  1. No, I’m not. So don’t strawman. And you are a doo doo head. There, we are even.

                  2. you want me dead, then come get me, you fucking coward. Real life a little rough on you, keyboard warrior?

            2. The situation is more analogous to the killing of Al-Awlaki’s son, which was also (supposedly) accidental.

              Analogous except that you make the same mistake that I said you were making in that his son was killed by a drone while his daughter, still, wasn’t.

              Also or maybe more critically, it’s only really analogous if you severely downplay U.S., and in the case of this raid other nations’, soldiers agency/autonomy. Not saying you’re absolutely wrong that soldiers have been disciplined into drone-like autonomy but that the analogy requires you to overlook the possibility that they haven’t been/aren’t.

              1. I acknowledged the mistake regarding drone vs other method right at the top.

                1. It would be a mistake to call you stupid. You clearly aren’t a stupid person, you’re more analogous to a moron. You can rest easy knowing that I didn’t make the mistake of calling you stupid.


        6. Obama wasn’t deemed impeachable because his crimes were done for the benefit of the state. Ergo, the state would not seek to remove him. Trump’s crimes are done for his own benefit.

          I’m curious how Obama providing Iran with cash payments while they are explicitly one of our listed enemies isn’t treason or impeachable, but there’s no shortage of people that think that wasn’t a big deal. That’s material aid to an enemy of the United States no matter how you slice it but I guess it’s ok as long as the regime you give the money to can make a convoluted excuse about how we owe them money that was given by a totally different government.

          I’m also curious how that exchange meets the definition of ‘crimes were done for the benefit of the state’ in that instance when it was quite certainly giving money to terrorists that will certainly end up in the hands of people who take action against the United States.

          Ah, the irony. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran (we won’t), we may be fighting against tanks purchased with U.S. dollars. Remember, that’s ‘not impeachable’ folks! Nor was holding the money back from Iran to encourage policy that might help Obama’s domestic political agenda! He was even so comfortable with Russia that they did a big red reset button on relations. In hindsight, it’s a curious position for him to criticize Romney for ‘wanting the 80’s foreign policy back’ isn’t it? Was he in the pocket of Putin?

          The lolz abound.

          1. Characterizing the Iran nuke deal as “providing Iran with cash payments” is more than a little disingenuous, no? It was part of an agreement to get Iran to denuclearize. We only make peace deals with our enemies, so I’m not sure what your gripe with that is, unless you prefer no diplomacy?

            In general, agree or disagree with Obama’s policies, he did them for his vision of the government and the US. He did not, say, allow Turkey to suddenly invade another ally against the wishes and advice of the entire US government on a whim on a call with a dictator of a country that he has a Trump tower in.

            Trump is getting caught doing things for his own benefit.

            1. In general, agree or disagree with Obama’s policies, he did them for his vision of the government and the US. He did not, say, allow Turkey to suddenly invade another ally against the wishes and advice of the entire US government on a whim on a call with a dictator of a country that he has a Trump tower in.

              Trump didn’t do that either. If you care so much about the poor Muslim babies though maybe you should consider how wise it was for Obama to start the civil war in Syria that Trump ended by “betraying” communist guerrillas in non-existent Kurdistan. Or the civil war he started in Yemen. Or the civil war he started in Libya. Or the military junta he started in Egypt.

            2. I didn’t say a single word about the nuclear deal. The cash payment had nothing to do with it, and no one I’m aware of has claimed it did. There was some theorizing that it was a hostage payment, but as far as I know no one has linked it to the nuclear deal.

              Regardless, is giving more than a billion dollars to a hostile nation that actively calls for the annihilation of the United States material aid to an enemy? It’s a yes or no question, but I know you’ll equivocate and fail to answer the question just like Congress did with their investigation into the matter.


                1. The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.

                  Even your own source doesn’t agree with you, nor does it answer the question of if giving billions to a hostile nation is material aid to an enemy of the United States. Usually when a government is overthrown by hostile forces we don’t hand over cash to the new regime that wants to annihilate us. Right?

                  I guess it’s totally fine for Iran to violate little things like the Vienna conventions while we stick to the details of the Algier Accords that we were blackmailed into.

                  1. Oh, and in that vein is a contract or treaty still valid when someone has a gun to your head when you sign it? Just curious.

            3. POTUS Obama explicitly broke the law when he made the deal to exchange the Taliban Five for Bergdahl. Specifically, he broke the law wrt Congressional notification. 100%, no debate.

              Impeachable offense? Why or why not?

              1. AYN RAND AGAIN PUKING IN HER GRAVE.

                PROVE which law he broke.

                How is that worse than Trump’s ACTUAL federal crime. EXTORTION.
                My proof is the Hobbs Act.
                You’re just blowing smoke out your ass.
                More from your Authoritarian Right :-(.

      2. Not calls for impeachment, but Reason was at the forefront of criticism of the Obama administration, including his indiscriminate drone strikes.

        1. Actually, cytotoxic, they weren’t. They supported his illegal wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen and are still to this day defending continuing his illegal executive war in Syria with your throaty approval.

          1. Links to said support?

    3. I’m not sure that some of the Trump apologists that hang out in the comments section of the blog actually read Reason magazine.

      1. I’m not sure why you think we don’t know you’re running three socks in this thread right now.

        1. COWARDLY DIVERSION
          Again

  10. But he has already read the transcript. Trump released it a hundred news cycles ago.
    Or does he refer to the creative writing exercises Schifty has to do for his mail order classes?
    When sworn testimony is “revised” 180 degrees, is it the first version or the second version that is perjury?

    1. Umm, you blew it AGAIN.
      The House has been releasing transcripts f THEIR HEARINGS for several days now.

      ASSHOLE LINDSEY REFUSES TO READ THEM … WHICH IS LIKE A JURY ISSUING GUILTY VERDICT … WITH NO TRIAL!
      And YOU defend the whiny pussy.

      Thanks for AGAIN proving that Trumptards and Fox viewers are TOTALLY CLUELESS.

  11. Should we now admit that Binion is just Allahpundit of the unreadable Hot Air?

  12. “And never mind that Graham himself supported the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton based on private interviews conducted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.”

    Is Reason this hard up for “talent”?

    OK, Billy, try and follow this:

    THE ONLY VALID COMPARISON WOULD BE IF GRAHAM BITCHED ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION. You know, since Starr and Mueller had similar positions.

    He did not bitch, mind you. Was quite adamant that Mueller had to be allowed to finish it unimpeded.

    Fucking hell, can’t Koch spend his money on hookers and blow instead of short-bus writers?

    1. This. There is, or at least is meant to be, a world of difference between an Independent Counsel and an opposition party Senator. That difference is the reason we use Independent Counsels in the first place.

      If the Republicans were conducting a closed-door inquiry into Trump would Billy trust them to be doing it fairly?

      1. “There is, or at least is meant to be, a world of difference between an Independent Counsel and an opposition party Senator. That difference is the reason we use Independent Counsels in the first place.”

        Actually, we don’t use Independent Counsels anymore. The Independent Counsel Act has lapsed and been reenacted several times. The last time it lapsed was during the Clinton administration and it has not been reenacted since.

        Mueller was a Special Counsel appointed under what is claimed to be inherent power of the Attorney General. However, since the Attorney General’s inherent power is necessarily derivative of the President’s powers under the Constitution (which mentions no other executive branch positions). There for as a straight legal/constitutional question, the President has the authority to fire (without cause) any Special Counsel appointed by the AG.

        There are potentially political reasons why it would be unwise for the President to fire a Special council, but he clearly has the authority to do so.

  13. “Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) says he will not be reading the impeachment transcripts”

    HE will not be reading ?

    Does that mean he is interfering with transparency ?
    Simple logic, something @Reason lacks, says NO

    1. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

      Trumpster a whiny pussy about transparency … but Graham REFUSES to read the transparency

      Does that mean he is interfering with transparency ?
      Simple logic, something @Reason lacks, says NO

      (smirk)
      It means he’s REFUSING to look through the now-transparent window.

  14. So Graham is the hypocrite here?

    I mean this is ridiculous. So asking Ukraine to do something in exchange for foreign aid is bad?

    But not if Joe Biden does it or not if the D senators say cooperate with Mueller or else except just now where the D senators say don’t investigate Joe and Hunter or else?

    What a joke I agree with Lindsay

    1. Don’t you know, asking for transparency is wrong if it doesn’t benefit you.

  15. Dalmia: Watch, I’m going to write the dumbest shit in history.

    Binion: Hold my chilled wine cooler…

    1. Soave: OH Billy yes! Yes! Right in my ass Billy!

      Brown: Hold on, my husband will want to see this *takes out iPhone, shoots vertical video, takes a selfie of her disgusting 40 year old saggy man tits, accidentally posts it to her Facebook page, claims she was hacked, demands the doxxing and immediate firing of the imaginary hacker*

  16. “I’ve written the whole process off. I think this is a bunch of B.S.”

    Dammit, Lindsey. I could have gone through life blissfully with the knowledge that you and I had no common thoughts. Now that is gone. I am depressed.

  17. He is demanding a public hearing and not giving the transcripts the dignity of a response. He doesn’t want transcripts, he wants public testimony.

    Is Binion retarded? Did his parents drop him on his head or something? How can anyone write something this stupid and do so on purpose?

    1. Well, for one thing, he gets paid for this, so – – – – –

      1. So the real question is: how can anyone be so stupid as to hire him?

        1. The Kochs have employed Gillespie for 20 years now.

          1. How much is Comrade Stalin paying YOU right now, Cumrade?

            No one can argue with any of your citations. Your reasoning astounds us all! Might I humbly ask of Ye, will You tell me that I am a good doggie?

            Cosmologically speaking, I bet that You could help me debug the following source codes:
            Theocratically Quantum-Gravity Deploy Begin Allocate [ Vector ( Pitch[63:0], Yaw[63:0], Rolls_Royce[63:0] ), Flight_Envelope ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
            PrintF "In Soviet Russia, computar computes YOU!", end; end module ;

            If You will please help me get this code to compile, we'll be allowed to speak outside of the free-speech zone!

  18. “How can anyone write something this stupid and do so on purpose?”

    If you like reading stupid, there’s plenty of Binion Minions further up calling anyone who doesn’t believe in shadow governments running shadow investigations “not libertarian”

  19. …he withheld the congressionally appropriated package in an attempt to strongarm Zelenskiy into probing Biden, his political rival in the 2020 election.

    This better be actually, legitimately illegal and not just another part of the ongoing fantasy of undoing the Trump election or I’ll be very upset.

    1. Whether it was un-Constitutional because it violates the Emoluments Clause is a matter of interpretation and opinion (like a lot of things with the Constitution).

      Ultimately, it’s unlikely the Senate would ever put Trump out of office, so in that sense the House inquiries are an act of desperation on the part of the Democrats.

      1. Weird how “the emoluments clause” is an exclusively progressive argument, discovered circa 2016, yet you use it constantly…
        Weird might not be the right word.
        Typical would be more appropriate

        1. Discovered in 2016, give or take 227 years.

          1. Oh?
            And who was prosecuted under it?
            When was the last time it was brought up prior to 2016?

            1. All past Presidents have been careful not to violate it, except like George Washington who kept a painting given to him. That past Presidents going back to at least Jefferson have taken it seriously argues that it is not just a progressive discovery.

              1. So nobody has been prosecuted for violating it and it hasn’t been brought up prior to progressives latching onto it as a talking point in 2016/2017

    2. It’s a clear violation of separation of powers for the President to refuse to turn over funds duly appropriated by Congress, he has no authority to subvert the will of the Legislature.

      The Constitution clearly states that the Vice-President has the legal authority to threaten to withhold funds duly appropriated by Congress, that’s why Biden could openly brag about making the disbursement of funds contingent upon Ukraine firing a top prosecutor – it was all completely legal when Biden did it.

      1. Authority is as authority does, cumrade! Git ON the Progressive baddywagon, Cumrade!

        Vice POTUS must be up-to-the-neck-deep in the VICE, dammit, Cumrade, it is RIGHT there in the jerbs description!!!

    3. Not only illegal, not only impeachable, but, in typical fashion, extremely stupid.

      He heard a nonsense conspiracy story on Fox & Friends and extorted a foreign head of state with taxpayer dollars to push it for his political benefit.

      You’d understand how fucked up it is if he had a (D) after his name.

  20. Also, if Graham is going to forego political shams then what is he actually intending to do with the rest of his time in DC?

    1. Can you still get foie gras in D.C.?

      1. CYTOTOXIC LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! WHAT A KNEE SLAPPER!

    2. Gindr is still active in DC, right?

      1. CYTOTOXIC LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! WHAT A KNEE SLAPPER!

  21. Why would anyone trust the parody styling of Schiff as actual evidence?

    1. See my comment above about the restrictions on what he can redact and the nature of redaction.

      1. Schiff deserves the comment since he read a parody of the call transcript in the house.

        1. Ah. Did not know he did that. That’s an asshole move.

          1. Also blatantly lied about meeting the leaker…

            1. Cytotoxic has trouble keeping up with silly facts since he gets all of his news from HuffPo, WaPo and Vox. He sometimes goes to PBS for that non-partisan take though. LMAO

              1. You’re indeed the Wisest of us all! Please lead us to Glory! Humbly, seeking Your Counsel, will You punish me gently?

                You probably know every coding language world-wide! So, can You find any errors in the source codes to follow:
                Transubstantiate SourceFile Include Lamarckianist_Epigenetics Begin {( Pupate Infinite_Time posedge_CLK<= 6.02 ^ 10 x 23d ) || ( Infinity_&_Beyond_negedge_CLK[23:0] ) && ( arachnoids[23:0] || Orange_Man_Bad[23:0] ) }
                Invoke DisplayModule "You are being "Red Flagged". No guns, knives, or screwdrivers for YOU!", end; end module ;

                If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then Santa Claus will bring us some Easter eggs!

          2. “”Ah. Did not know he did that. That’s an asshole move.””

            He did it in a session so his parody version of the transcript would be in the official record. Think about that.

            1. And he did nothing at the time to indicate it was “parody”
              I believe he stated that he was reading the transcript verbatim.
              It is only after being confronted with the fact that the statement he read into the Congressional record was completely fabricated that he fell back on excusing his lie as “parody”

      2. Did the amendment to release all testimony to the House pass?

        No?

        Gee, nothing off there.

  22. “One thing is clear: Graham has bemoaned the Democrats’ lack of transparency, only to shield his eyes once the curtain was lifted.”

    I’ve been calling for the Republicans to stop participating in the inquiry for a long time. The Democrats were only using their participation to give this witch hunt a veneer of legitimacy.

    If this were a court of law, the judge would throw out secret testimony obtained by way of hearsay. If he found out that’s where it came from, he’d instruct the jury to disregard it.

    I said it earlier this week, and I’ll say it again now: there is no way to validate the transcripts of the testimony because the testimony wasn’t broadcast live. This is why criminals are given the right to a public trial. This is why defendants are given the right to cross examine witnesses. This is why hearsay is inadmissible as testimony.

    If they want the testimony to be credible, they should have held the hearings in public. If they want to hold the hearings against but in public this time, they’re free to do so.

    1. >>I’ve been calling for the Republicans to stop participating in the inquiry for a long time.

      try out a lens other than (R) is for you. they all want T gone. mho

      1. I’ve heard that theory as well.
        There’s merit to it.
        The Rs seem to be making a show of opposing the witch hunt/coup, while taking no action to actually do so.
        As usual, the Rs are playing the role of opposition in a merely superficial sense

        1. Glory Be on Highest! Wiser even than Goober-Mint (sneer) Almighty ! If I get rid of my pet snakes, can I have some more gruel?

          Logically inferring, whilst deploying Occam’s razor, I bet that You could debug the following codes in Your sleep:
          Include Hashtag (#Witches_kill_our_calves) Begin Polygon_Disambiguate [ Modulus ( QuadWord[15:0], Plasma[15:0], Nuclei[15:0] ), Function ( $B$97 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
          DisplayModuleCall ""Just say no to smugs."", end; end module ;

          If You will please help me get this code to compile, Putin might stop mind-controlling us!

    2. “”there is no way to validate the transcripts””

      Something off topic but somewhat similar.

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-admits-michael-flynn-case-184842111.html

  23. I feel like I’m the only one wondering why we’re sending huge amounts of taxpayer cash to Ukraine to help them with government corruption.

    1. Yeah, that’s a valid question that gets lost. The argument for is, of course, that the Ukraine is this big chunk of land between Europe and Russia. The argument against is avoiding foreign entanglements and making it he Europeans defend themselves.

      1. I’ve asked you this exact question and you wouldn’t answer it

        1. I must have missed that. I’m generally on the avoiding foreign entanglements and “isolationism”, but acknowledge I might be too naive about it.

          1. I’ve noticed your extreme skepticism of foreign entanglements when you supported literally every military action including extrajudicial assassination under Obama, cytotoxic.

            1. Never fear, Brothers and Sisters Dear, the Wise One is here! If I wear something nice, to include high heels, can I have some Kibble?

              With Your super-genius level IQ, could You PLEASE help me debug the following codes:
              Include Submodule DudeBeBad SurferDude Begin Masticate [ Interpolate ( Parameter[15:0], metric[15:0], median[15:0] ), average[15:0] ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
              Invoke DisplayModule "Don't be such a deplorable.", end; end module ;

              If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then they might let us out of our stockades!

          2. Weird, since you replied to the comment but ignored the question

    2. It’s like welfare. Nobody talks about it anymore because nothing will ever be done about it.

    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014%E2%80%93present)

      Because Russia. Oh the irony of calling Trump a Russian stooge while continuing to fund Russia’s enemies. That irony will surely be lost on the leftists around here.

    4. You are not.

  24. Lindsay better behave or T’s gonna tweet his new digits too.

  25. 1. ” It makes you wonder if Graham’s complaints have been anything more than political theater all along.”

    The impeachment proceedings against Trump are themselves nothing more than political theater.

    2. “Sondland said he “presumed” the aid was frozen in exchange for Trump’s demand, because he otherwise lacked a “credible explanation,” although he maintains that he “did not know (and still does not know) when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended.””

    In other words, while he did change his testimony, the altered testimony still does not in any way support the allegations against Trump about the Ukraine call.

    1. On point two, it is interesting that the amended testimony was specifically amended to include more hearsay and assumption than it did before. That’s odd to me.

      1. Smells like the “prosecution” pressuring a witness that doesn’t help the case to change their testimony.

  26. Am I wrong or did they bury Linsey Graham’s spine along with John McCain? Senator Graham has gone down hill so fast since his friend’s death. Ya, he was always a little war mongering weasel but he was likeable. I have to just wonder if he needs to sit down with a therapist and discuss his loss, because he seems headed for self destruction. And trying to be President Trumps friend is just self-harm.

    1. Am I wrong or did they bury Linsey Graham’s spine along with John McCain?

      Considering that McCain’s dick was acting as Graham’s spine, that’s a pretty good bet.

  27. Do y’all remember when Trump said he would accept dirt on his political opponents from a foreign govt and everyone acknowledged that that it would bw illegal to do that. I’m pretty sure the Republicans even said agreed with it being illegal and blew it off as just hypothetical bs from a president who bullshits. It’s interesting to look back at that time because I think Trump was involved in this Biden scheming at that time. I’m going investigate it a little more to make sure I got the facts right.

    1. There is no law against accepting information from a foreign government. You literally just make shit up.

      1. Seems like every single act of foreign relations would be a crime.

    2. “”Do y’all remember when Trump said he would accept dirt on his political opponents from a foreign govt and everyone acknowledged that that it would bw illegal to do that””

      Let me know when Hillary gets charged for the Steele dossier.
      If it’s really illegal, should we go after those who contacted Steele for dirt on Trump?

      1. If it’s really illegal, then the answer is yes.

        1. Well, it isn’t illegal. That’s that.

    3. Do y’all remember when Trump said he would accept dirt on his political opponents from a foreign govt and everyone acknowledged that that it would bw illegal to do that.

      Barack Obama began a counterintelligence operation against Trump based on a fake oppo dossier suborned by Hillary Clinton. I’m sure you’ll get around to those grand juries any time now.

    4. Do y’all remember when Trump said he would accept dirt on his political opponents from a foreign govt and everyone acknowledged that that it would bw illegal to do that.

      I don’t remember anybody being able to make a convincing argument that it would be illegal. Under what law?

      And if that were so, why wasn’t Hillary prosecuted under that law? Because, unlike Trump, she certainly did this.

      1. Puppets on a string

        I don’t remember anybody being able to make a convincing argument that it would be illegal. Under what law?

        The Hobbs Act. (LOL)
        He committed EXTORTION.

        I don’t remember …

        Nor do you see … on Fox News. Google the Act. (If your Orange God graciously grants you His permission

        Obama was NOT born in Kenya!
        Was NEVER Muslim!
        And the earth is NOT flat!

        1. What is being discussed by the posts above is a campaign in general receiving information on political opponents in general, not the Ukraine call by Trump in particular. So the Hobbs act is not relevant.

          By the way, that US diplomat that changed his testimony, he still maintains that he had no direct knowledge of any quid pro quo.

          While he did tell a Ukraine official that the aid would be withheld until Trump got what he wanted, he maintains that this is based on pure speculation on his own part, he has no direct knowledge of when, why or by whom a hold was put on the aid package.

          No help at all to the impeachment inquiry there.

          1. TRUMPSTER BLOWHARD TELLS “FAKE NEWS”
            THEN LIES … JUST LIKE TRUMP

            Federal law makes it a crime for an official to demand or threaten another party to obtain something of value — a definition that appears to cover Trump’s decision to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the country unless its leader agreed to launch investigations advantageous to Trump’s reelection efforts.

            The relevant law is known as the Hobbs Act, said Danya Perry, a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York City. Its definition of “extortion” includes obtaining property using “threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right,” meaning using one’s official capacity. The crime is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

            Plus, you mentioned ONE witness of three … and lied about his testimony.
            ..

      2. “I don’t remember anybody being able to make a convincing argument that it would be illegal. Under what law?”

        Way back when, before the 2016 election, when Trump Jr met with the Russian lawyer that claimed to have dirt on Hillary. A number of groups claimed that the information (which the Russian lawyer didn’t even have) would have constituted a campaign contribution and since it was coming from a foreign national, it would violate campaign finance laws that prohibit contributions from foreigners.

  28. And yes that happened. The FBI director said he would want to know if a foreign govt was offering dirt on Americans.

    “Director Christopher Wray has said campaigns should reach out to the bureau if they are contacted by a foreign entity.’

    This is even is worse than accepting dirt. Trump wasn’t only passively accepting a thing of value from a foreign govt. He was using tax dollars to create the dirt and then accept it. This is unbelievably illegal and fucked up. Where’s the FBI director?

    1. The FBI director said he would want to know if a foreign govt was offering dirt on Americans.

      Being clear, where does the FBI derive the authority to protect Americans from foreign dirt? And how does whatever authority they do derive dictate and/or sanctify their participation in it’s release or concealment? If the FBI discovered that Hunter inappropriately extorted his way into the position are they responsible for disclosing that? If not, what if they discovered that Hunter had peed on some Russian hookers? Are they responsible for keeping that a secret?

      Seems like the sort of thing that would/could offend libertarians from both a surveillance standpoint, a transparency/FOIA standpoint, and a borders standpoint simultaneously.

    2. It’s funny because literally everything you say was not done by Trump but was done by both Hillary Clinton and Obama. It’s almost like you’re a mentally ill cum stain on humanity whose only means of communication is projection.

      1. When did they do these things?

        1. The Clinton campaign hired foreign intelligence assets, and collaborated with foreign governments trying to get dirt on Trump. When they couldn’t find any dirt, Clinton paid people to fabricate crap and federal agencies misrepresented those fabrications as facts and leaked them to the press. All of that in an attempt to manipulate US elections.

          1. YOU are a victim of brainwashing and manipulation. The Steele Dossier … which had NOTHING to do with launching the investigation … was commissioned by Fusion GPS ,… NOT Hillary … NOT the DNC, sucker … a project originally funded by …. A CONSERVATIVE web site to stop Trump! (OMFG).

            https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/dossier-not-what-started-all-of-this/

            Factcheck.org: “Dossier NOT what ‘started all this’:
            In an interview about the special counsel’s report, Rep. John Ratcliffe said that what “started all of this” was “a fake, phony dossier.” But a House REPUBLICAN intelligence committee memo said it was information about a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser that sparked the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the election.Ratcliffe launched the BULLSHIT on … where else? …. FOX!

            Puppets dancing on a string … EXACTLY like Elizabeth’s cult
            Pathetic

            “During the Republican primaries, a research firm called Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The Free Beacon — which was funded by a major donor supporting Mr. Trump’s rival for the party’s nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida — told Fusion GPS to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.”

            *** When Trump won the nomination … Fusion GPS the sold the wealth of anti-Trump data … paid for by CONSERVATIVES … to the Democrats.

            The :”media assault” on Trump was started by … a CONSERVATIVE web site! … funded by a major RUBIO donor. (pees pants laughing)

            Trumptards are gullible puppets of … a FRAUD … who campaigned on on a 60% tax cut for himself and a tiny sliver of the 1% who used the same business structure … He’d have been a billionaire … pating a maximum tax rate of 15-fucking-percent … on BOTH business and personal income … 15%! … what’s YOUR tax bracket sucker?
            .
            (walks away laughing)

            1. Fusion GPS the sold the wealth of anti-Trump data … paid for by CONSERVATIVES [snip] The :”media assault” on Trump was started by … a CONSERVATIVE web site! … funded by a major RUBIO donor. (pees pants laughing)

              There are lots of big-government war mongering assholes among the conservatives as well. Thanks for admitting that this is a bipartisan problem.

              … to the Democrats.

              And then the Democrats then used the ludicrous accusations as part of leaks and official investigations. Thanks for admitting that Democrats paid for this crap.

              Factcheck.org: “Dossier NOT what ‘started all this’

              Thanks for admitting that the anti-Trump establishment tried to bring down Trump as soon as he became a candidate, and that this crap didn’t start with the dossier.

              You keep making my points for me. Keep going!

            2. What’s funny is Steele himself said in court papers that Hillary’s camp paid for it. And the purpose was to contest the election.

    3. Pod, Pod, Pod….In light of the actions of FBI leadership (Comey, McCabe, Priestep, etc), and some of the rank and file (Strzok, etc) from 2015 to present….can we really trust them anymore?

      Incredibly, and it is truly a sorry day when I write this: No, we cannot. Frankly, I cannot believe that I even have to write that.

      The IC report (still waiting!), and the criminal probe by the DOJ will help Americans understand just WTF happened, and how truly awful it was. What happened here was wrong. Very wrong. The American people decide who leads this country, not unelected bureaucrats.

  29. In light of the fact that Kurt Volker and Bill Taylor, the star witnesses, confirmed that a quid pro quo was impossible, why would we need to read the remaining transcripts?

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/06/testimony-transcript-shows-william-taylor-never-talked-to-trump-wasnt-even-on-july-25-phone-call/#disqus_thread

    Why? To gather pointless musings from State Department concern trolls with no firsthand knowledge of anything but, somehow, in possession of intimate insights into what the President was thinking … well, maybe thinking …?

    How many strands of this insane theory do we really have to pull before it falls apart? A thousand clueless witnesses do not establish anything other than their own cluelessness.

    1. Alledgedly, the quid pro quo was first communicated to the Ukrainians prior to the July 25th phone call. Trump keep telling people to talk to Giuliani, who told them what Trump wanted from the Ukrainians.

      1. Trump keep telling people to talk to Giuliani, who told them what Trump wanted from the Ukrainians.

        And the evidence for what Giuliani told them is… where? The Ukrainians deny it.

        This is the usual Washington swamp nonsense: try to get rid of Trump over a non-crime for which there is no evidence. It would have been fine for Trump to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians, but he didn’t even do that. It would have been fine for Trump to pressure the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens for political reasons, but he didn’t do that either.

    2. Why read anything at all, honestly?

      It just leads to terrible things like not worshiping Jesus, or the state (as long as a republican is in charge of it).

      1. On point. Concise and relevant. The same reason why nobody reads your comments. Once you’ve read one, you’ve read them all.

      2. But Tony, you actually do worship the state yourself; so how can you say that state worship is bad?

    3. Nowhere in there does Taylor “confirm” that quid pro quo would have been impossible.

      1. You think Trump commenting that the Russians might have the 30,000 HiLIARy e-mails, that she deleted while they were under subpoena, is the same as him asking them to hack into an account, and that the wikileaks release of the DNC/Podesta e-mails – not what Trump was referring to – is the Russians complying.
        You’ve proven your understanding of the events to be so wrong, as to border on delusional.

  30. Well this thread certainly started off with a nice hefty appetizer of right-wing state-sucking Trump-fellating horseshit. I wonder if it gets any better as I read down.

    1. Be patient, Progressive One! Trump is THE reincarnated Stalin! Unbelievers will see, soon enough!

      1. He’s nothing like Stalin. Stalin won World War II and efficiently murdered millions. He didn’t cry into a 20-piece chicken McNuggets every night because Hillary won the popular vote.

        1. Well, Tony-Bot, ye perhaps may speaketh sum truth… Between Trump-Bot and Hillary-Bot, WHO doth knoweth WHO might speaketh the greater Truth?!?!

          Bot-Bots, let us ALL now gittem unto the TRUE Truth of All Thangs!!! Onward and Upwards, Cumrads!

          1. I think I need another marijuana banana chip.

            1. Right behind ya, cumrad… Next in line for a Bong Hit! Bong Hits for Jesus!

    2. Tony, I repeat, you are a fucking idiot.

  31. Dude deserves impeachment. It’s plain as day to anyone with a brain in their head and his cock not in their mouth. It’s like seeing a guy with a 20 in their hand quietly slip it to a shady guy on the corner and put a ziplock bag full of whatever in their pocket and go “he must be giving a charitable donation to that homeless man! its the only possible thing happening!” You are either fucking retarded or purposefully sticking your head in the sand.

    Honestly it is the best thing going forward. He conducted himself like a small time criminal, and deserves a stain on his presidency, if there wasn’t one already.

    Many predict impeachment will only help him. If he is up against almost anyone in the dem field (esp warren), I welcome that. Nothing would make me happier than a stain on trump, him winning in 2020, and a divided congress with a clown president to see nothing major gets done for another 4 years.

    Either that or Biden winning and repubs taking the house and keeping the senate. As long as no one is passing major legislation I am good.

    1. Because the status quo is the best possible state of things?

      You can’t get libertopia without legislation.

    2. Might Lindsey and Donald wind up sharing a cell?

    3. Dude deserves impeachment.

      For what? Even if he had held back aid in return for dirt on Hunter Biden, that would still be legitimate.

      Honestly it is the best thing going forward. He conducted himself like a small time criminal, and deserves a stain on his presidency, if there wasn’t one already.

      Compared to what? The shitstain Obama and Biden left on the presidency? Their invasion of the privacy of Americans? Their targeted killings? Their killings of civilians? Their racism? Their attacks on press freedom? Their abuses of power in pursuit of political enemies? The way they enriched themselves, their families, and their cronies?

      Trump may or may not have conducted himself like a “small time criminal”, but Obama conducted himself like an authoritarian and mob boss rolled into one. And the new Democratic candidates are even worse.

      Trump is a pretty lousy president, but he’s far better than any of the alternatives we have had in a while, Democratic or Republican.

      1. Google the Hobbs Act, Trumptard. It defines a federal crime .. EXTORTION … first shown by Trump’s own “transcript” … now supported by sworn testimony of THREE former Trump aides … so far.

        But it’s all a conspiracy. right?

        1. Even an idiot, like you, Hihn, would know that walking into a real courtroom, trying to convict someone for extortion, with the evidence that exists would be laughed out of there.
          P.S. Those “three former Trump aides” would never get close to a witness stand.

        2. Sorry, the Hobbs Act doesn’t apply. You need to stop getting your talking points from the Daily Beast and the HuffPost.

      2. Fine, retrospectively impeach O, Im cool.

        R’s should have impeached him for his drone adventures he ordered. I would have been cool with it then, I am cool with it now. Your fallacy is thinking I give a flying fuck about O or his ilk.

        “Trump is a pretty lousy president, but he’s far better than any of the alternatives”

        Ya, that’s why I voted for him, I think the hag sucked, and she would have been bad. I am holding him to account for being a garbage prez. Some of us can hold 2 ideas in our head without going “BUT OBAMA! BUT DEMS!”. You can put him in power, and, follow me here, hold him to account. Its just not common in these parts.

        Next

  32. What a fucking shit show

  33. Boy, the Lefty and reason socks sure do get upset.

    We have hihn, Tony, hihn, tony, hihn, tony….

    1. LC1789 INVITED this … my self-defense from ANOTHER UNPROVOKED ASSAULT by you … the STALINIST Authoritarian Right

      Says ONLY a “lefty” would not ADORE Trump. GEORGE WILL IS A LEFTY!!! (smirk) The same “mentality” that SNARLS
      a) Bernie Sanders is a communist.
      b) Denmark and Sweden are Stalinist gulags!
      (Yep, THAT wacko)

      ============
      Behold the Self-Righteous Hypocrisy of hateconstitution1789 …. slurping at the gummint teat! … Why? …. HE’S ENTITLED
      … like all mooches.

      A constitution loving … STALINIST??? 🙂

      “https://reason.com/2018/02/18/a-cure-for-mass-shootings-doesnt-exist/#comment-7141520>

      My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things. I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

      TRUMPTARD TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. ONLY if it lines HIS pocket! Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … while DEFENDUINGS his own teat-sucking (OMG)

      WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE???

      BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN . What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES that federal debt steals from our future …
      higher taes and debt on their own children … WITHOUT THEIR VOTE!

      (GAG) The LOWEST FORM OF MOOCH attacks his own father, WHO PAID FOR his SS and MEDICARE … while demanding money PAID FOR BY HIS OWN HEIRS? … SUCKS OFF
      >every generations other than his own … including he unborn!?

      *** Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

      WHY cut dad’s PAID FOR benefits.. And steal from his own kids … to incread his own cash? …
      wait for it ….
      BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.” …. not JUST a mooch … a self-righteous
      MOOCH! The left borrows trillions for free stuff The right borrows trillions
      for free tax cuts Two sides of the same statist coin. Left – Right = Zero

      (boldface and caps to enhance the ridicule, in defense of REPEATED unprovoked
      aggression)ONLY libertarians (as a group) honor the Non-Aggression Principle. (which we invented)
      ONLY authoritarians repeatedly inflict the Pro-Aggression Principle (which THEY invented, thousands of years ago.)

      1. my self-defense from ANOTHER UNPROVOKED ASSAULT by you

        Not unprovoked at all. You reap what you sow. Given your appalling conduct, people are actually going easy on you.

        1. THIS IS DEFENSE OF ANOTHER UNPROVOKED ASSAULT BY J W … whiny pussy now seeks REVENGE after being HUMILIATED for
          his first unprovoked attack … Now says it’s okay to assault ANYONE not in his Authoritarian Tribe … AND SEE HOW PSYCHO HE DOES IT! BWAA HAAA HAAA

          HIS OPENING AGGRESSION … CRUSHED

          https://reason.com/2019/11/06/lindsey-graham-reveals-his-utter-hypocrisy-on-impeachment/#comment-8002550

          JW — EVEN CRAZIER THAN I SAID!!
          TOTALLY FUCKING STUPID

          me:
          “You talk like the alt-right who say Sanders is a communist.
          And Denmark a commie gulag?”

          He’s actually MUCH CRAZIER!

          He’s something worse: a socialist, by his own admission.

          (vomit) SHAME ON YOU.
          He says “Democratic Socialist” you psycho liar
          *** YOU say that’s WORSE than communism.
          *** EXACTLY as CRAZY as “Denmark a commie gulag.”

          Who ties your shoes?

          Can he go even CRAZIER? WATCH HIM EVEN DROOLING

          You know, as in “USSR”, the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”.

          *** ALT-RIGHT WACKO SAYS THE USSR HAD AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT!!!***GREAT strategy and tactics, General Custer

          Will he punish me AGAIN for HIS OWN SELF-HUMILIATION? … GAIN?

          If you can’t take the heat, pussy … STOP STARTING THE FIRES!

          “Mess with the bull .. you WILL get the horns”
          Why are they ALWAYS so self-righteous about their hatred and bigotry?

          (boldface to enhance the ridicule)

  34. Sondland’s admission certainly provides fodder for that.

    Sondland’s admission merely reflects Sondland’s beliefs and actions, not Trump’s motivations or actions.

    And it’s only bolstered by the testimony of William B. Taylor, the current ambassador to Ukraine, who told investigators on October 22 that a national security adviser alerted him to Sondland’s activities.

    Yes, Sondland’s activities, not Trump’s.

  35. This whole thing is getting ridiculous. At most, Trump is being accused of withholding aid unless Ukraine continues to investigate and prosecute corruption in it’s government and industry.
    That seems like a reasonable condition to me. Otherwise, the aid would likely end up in some oligarch’s pocket.
    It is not Trump’s fault that Biden’s family is involved in Ukraine’s corruption. If anything, evidence indicates that Hunter B. was hired as a figurehead in order to keep Burisma from being investigated.
    There is actually a treaty in place that requires the “central authority” of either government to request the other government investigate suspected criminal activity involving both countries.

    I have heard no compelling argument that criminal activity by people related to current opposition candidates can never be investigated. The previous administration and current democrats have been requesting assistance from foreign governments to investigate Trump since his candidacy was announced. Even paying foreign intelligence officers to fabricate evidence of crimes by Trump.
    What we do not have now is any reason to believe that Trump asked Ukraine to fabricate evidence against the Bidens.

    If you plan to overthrow the elected administration of the US, you had better provide clear evidence that the President committed crimes that the vast majority of Americans would see as severe enough to warrant impeachment. Otherwise, people will likely see it as an attempt to subvert the election and constitution. There are a lot of people here who swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

    1. ANOTHER HOPELESSLY BRAINWASHED TRUMPSTER! 🙂

      This whole thing is getting ridiculous. At most, Trump is being accused of withholding aid unless Ukraine continues to investigate and prosecute corruption in it’s government and industry.

      JOE BIDEN ISS NOT A POLITICAL OPPONENT (kicking Trump’s ass) …. Biden is THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT!!

  36. ANOTHER ONE for America;’s top fraudster 🙂

    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 hotels

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

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

    Look for MANY more crimes and/or lawsuits, as Trump is forced to release even more of his financial records. The President who campaigned on a 60% tax cut for himself.

Please to post comments