Impeachment

Giuliani Engaged in 'Campaign of Lies' to Force Ukrainian Corruption Probe, Says Top State Department Official

"POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelenskiy to go to [a] microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton," George Kent testified.

|

In a newly released impeachment inquiry transcript, a top State Department official told congressional investigators that President Donald Trump tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to announce a corruption investigation targeting Trump's political foes.

"POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelenskiy to go to [a] microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent—alluding to former Vice President Joe Biden, who may become Trump's opponent in next year's presidential election, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who ran against Trump in 2016.

Kent added that he wasn't certain what the deal hinged on. But the testimony of William B. Taylor, the U.S. chargé d'affaires in Ukraine, sheds some light on that: In a transcript released Wednesday, he told investigators that it was his "clear understanding" that Ukraine would not receive security aid "until the President committed to pursue the investigation."

The impeachment inquiry is delving into whether Trump withheld congressionally authorized aid to Ukraine in order to compel Zelenskiy to publicly pursue probes into Burisma Holdings, the energy company where Biden's son sat on the board, and into possible Ukrainian interference on behalf of Clinton's presidential campaign.

A summary of the July phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy was released by the White House in September. In it, Trump seemed to allude to the aid package more than once, but he never mentioned it explicitly. The administration froze the aid this summer without explanation, and it did not disburse the appropriated funds until September 11.

Gordon Sondland, who became ambassador to the European Union after donating $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, initially testified that he had no knowledge of any such efforts. He revised those statements on November 4, the day before his closed-door testimony was to be released, writing that he recalled telling a top Zelenskiy adviser that the aid would not come through unless the Ukrainian president announced the investigations.

"I now recall speaking with [Andriy] Yermak," he wrote. "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."

According to Taylor's testimony, those efforts were consciously spearheaded by Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, with assistance from Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and former special envoy Kurt Volker. On a June phone call, when facilitating plans for a meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy—a meeting the Ukrainian leader was highly keen on having—Sondland requested that "no one was transcribing or monitoring" the conversation as Zelenskiy joined, according to Taylor. "By mid-July," Taylor continued, "it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskiy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U. S. elections."

It was also apparent "that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani."

Kent reinforced those remarks in his deposition, claiming that Giuliani engaged in a "campaign of lies" to smear Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was seen as an obstacle to successfully pushing for the corruption investigations. The president's attorney "had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information about Ambassador Yovanovitch," Kent said. "His assertions and allegations against former Ambassador Yovanovitch were without basis, untrue, period." Yovanovitch was abruptly removed from her post in May.

On Wednesday, Giuliani once again confirmed that he pushed for the corruption investigation, though he contradicted some of his previous claims on the subject. "The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption," he tweeted, "was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven." Contrast that with his September 24 appearance on Laura Ingraham's Fox News program, in which he said he pursued the probe at the government's behest.

"You know who I did it at the request of? The State Department," Giuliani told Ingraham. "I never talked to a Ukrainian official until the State Department called me and asked me to do it. And then I reported every conversation back to them."

Whichever is correct might not matter if it becomes clear that the aid was explicitly conditioned on a favor for the president's personal gain. "I had concerns that there was an effort to initiate politically motivated prosecutions that were injurious to the rule of law," Kent testified, "both in Ukraine and the U.S."

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

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. Are Trumpists ready to move from “It didn’t happen,” to “Ok, it happened but it turns out we’re cool with it,” yet? Better get your act together!

    1. Reasonoids are on the side of Guiliani. All True(tm) Libertarians are on the side of Guiliani. Because he’s Trump’s man. It’s all about making Trump look good.

      1. If it upsets you, maybe you should beg Reason for censorship again

      2. Are you o. The side if ignorance? There is nothing damning in the testimony. Most of it is opinion. If you bothered to read it you would no he had no direction to demand a pid pro quo. It was his “clear understanding” which is a retarded way of saying opinion. No emails. No memos. No direct orders.

        You may be okay with punishing people on opinion, but that’s probably because you’re ignorant.

        1. Nah

          You ever been in a situation. You know, you need me to back you up on this. Sometime, and it may not happen, I am going to request a favor in return.

          So long as the boss has his Giuliani, Cohen, whomever, he has done nothing wrong.

          In chess a queen sacrifice can win a game. Giuliani is not even a rook.

        2. “Talk to Rudy.” That’s a direct order, one that conveniently avoids emails and memos.

          Do you think it is in no way odd that Trump’s personal attorney was involved in foreign diplomacy?

          1. I think it much more odd that the US has and Intel apparatus and mandarin class putting their efforts not into defending the country or performing their professional duties, but instead into sabotaging our elected president – and that there are lemmings on their side.
            In the circumstances, there is nothing odd at all about Trump using his personal attorney to accomplish a task that those officially responsible for have done nothing but try to cover up.

          2. “Do you think it is in no way odd that Trump’s personal attorney was involved in foreign diplomacy?”

            I find it odder that you don’t think that Trump should rely on a legal expert when investigating criminality by the Bidens.
            I also think it’s odder that Binion is pretending a self-declared coup plotter is merely a “State Department Official”, in a purported “libertarian” magazine.

    2. Well, not a trumpist, but I’m still not ready to move from ‘I don’t really care’ to ‘I feel like paying some attention to this circus.’ Oh, well, at least it keeps them from (god-forbid) legislating.

      1. Impeachment is not stopping legislation. Senator McConnell is stopping legislation.

        1. You mean like the Green New Deal?

        2. Stepping on the brakes is a normal and expected part of driving a car.

          Choosing which bills to advance and which to table is likewise legislating.

        3. Senator McConnell is stopping legislation

          Good for him. If you can’t undo excessive legislation, it’s better to stop it entirely.

    3. “Are Trumpists ready to move from “It didn’t happen,” ”

      I’m gonna say “It didn’t Happen”. Because Binion is actually not telling the truth. This is what I have observed over and over. People like Binion “Summarize” the facts in a misleading way. Case in point:

      “”POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelenskiy to go to [a] microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent”

      What Binion leaves out is that this is Kent’s opinion. It is not a fact. Kent was never told by POTUS (Trump) what he wanted. Kent is summarizing what he “understood” to be true. He has no first hand knowledge.

      Further: “He revised those statements on November 4, the day before his closed-door testimony was to be released, writing that he recalled telling a top Zelenskiy adviser that the aid would not come through unless the Ukrainian president announced the investigations.”

      This one is so infuriating because Binion actually QUOTES Sondland. And he said nothing about restarting investigations, but just making an “Anti-corruption statement”.

      So Sondland talks about an anti corruption statement, but because another guy says that Trump “wanted” investigations, Binion thinks these are corroborating details, when in fact they are contradictory.

      1. Every time anyone talks about Trump wanting an investigation, it is someone inserting it into the conversation without any basis. It is almost like they were trying to create the impression so that it could be used against Trump later.

      2. So many Trump employees had the somehow wrong impression of what he wanted. I wonder what Rudy was telling them all when they were directed to “talk to Rudy”. It’s almost as if Trump is a simpleton mimicking mob bosses who think they can’t get in trouble for anything they make their lawyer do on their behalf.

        And who could blame him for thinking that, after all? Poor Michael Cohen is currently in Federal prison instead of Trump.

        1. Fortunately people a lot smarter than you formulated our political and justice systems and your feelings aren’t sufficient for anything other than your masturbatory fantasies. Your sweet, delicious, salty tears for another 5 years will be served with generous helpings of crow.

        2. “I wonder what Rudy was telling them all when they were directed to “talk to Rudy”.”

          Well, where is the witness who says they talked to Rudy, and Rudy told them that there needed to be an investigation?

          Seriously, all of this testimony is a bunch of hearsay- very very cleverly crafted hearsay, designed to allow people like you and Binion to make these damning summaries. Except when you dig in, they are actually not true at all. Contrast that with witness testimony from LBJ’s spying on Goldwater. You actually had agents testify, “I was told by my boss to bug Goldwater’s airplane, and to pass information to a whitehouse aid.” Hoover actually said, “The president told me to spy on Goldwater. What are you gonna do? He is the president.”

          Where are those witnesses? Because every single one of them is just saying “It was understood”. A possible difference is that Taylor says he was told by Morrison that Sondland told him that the President said that the aid would be withheld pending investigation into Burisma. Sondland denied that in testimony. But in his later update, Sondland said: “Mr. Morrison recalls that I said to him in early September that resumption of U.S. aid to Ukraine might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation.”

          Notice the weasel wording there. Sondland is not admitting to saying that. He is just saying that Morrison recalled that from their conversation, not that he actually said that.

          Do you get how this works? They are carefully saying one thing so that hopeful pundits will assume far more than what is actually true.

          1. Notes from Vindman, who was present on the infamous call, paint a different picture.

            https://www.memorandumdaily.com/2019/11/document-shows-white-housed-changed.html

            1. Did you read the part where he brought up his objections during the summary of the call and everyone else declined to modify? Did you read the articles on Vindman k owing and working with Ciaramella, basically inferring he was the original source of the leak? Did you read the part where Vindmans main issue was trump not agreeing with interagency assessments… not realizing the president is elected not vindman.

              Jeff. Keep staying stupid shit.

              1. The part where Trump’s staff cover up the content of the call because it’s damning as fuck, that part? Yeah, I read it.

                Oh no, Vindman knows the whistleblower! Let me guess, their testimonies are not valid because they are nevertrumpers or democrats?

                1. “The part where Trump’s staff cover up the content of the call because it’s damning as fuck, that part? Yeah, I read it. ”

                  So you read something, assumed your interpretation is the correct one and now think the walls are closing in?
                  One more fucking TDS victim. Seek help.

            2. “Notes from Vindman, who was present on the infamous call, paint a different picture.”

              And see HERE YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. FUCKING AGAIN.

              That article says nothing about a smoking gun. None of the differences that Vindman noted are incriminating to Trump. The first is that the transcript says “There are recordings of Biden…” But Vindman says that the actual text was:
              “there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out — to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general, that would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it. There are recordings – in my – the way I had it. It sounds horrible to me.”

              The second dispute from Vindman is that the Transcript says “The company” instead of naming Burisma specifically.

              So here you are claiming that the article shows proof that someone with first hand knowledge is claiming that IN FACT the call had evidence of quid pro quo. You are either mistaken or you are deliberately peddling a lie. None of those “quotes” implicates Trump. In fact, they just make things look WORSE for Biden.

              1. Overt: ctrl+f: “smoking gun”

                No Results

                Overt: YOU FUCKING IDIOT

                1. DOL
                  YOU FUCKING TDS VICTIM.

        3. Trump employees? How fucking dumb are you? These are career bureaucrats, not trump hires you ignorant fuck. The ones who started talking about the resistance on Jan 21st. Jeff, you get dumber by the post.

          1. *Trump appointees.

            Sorry wrong word. I know you cultists love to talk about pedantics instead of issues. Can’t say I blame you.

            1. “…I know you cultists love to talk about pedantics instead of issues. Can’t say I blame you.”

              I know you fucking TDS victims love to offer bullshit and then get called on it.
              I don’t blame you, since you have shit for evidence.

        4. So many Trump employees had the somehow wrong impression of what he wanted.

          Are you suggesting that Trump speaks and tweets clearly and unambiguously? If there is anything that both the Donkeys and Heffalumps agree on it is that Trump is enigmatic and frequently self contradictory. All the more reason to get clear, documented evidence of directives, not mere Orange Man brain farts.

      3. You might want to move on to being ok with it:

        https://www.memorandumdaily.com/2019/11/document-shows-white-housed-changed.html

        In notes taken contemporaneously by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the President of Ukraine specifically mentioned the energy company Burisma in response to President Trump’s insistence that an investigation take place.

        This line, as well as the previous sentence in the phone call, was edited out of the memorandum that the White House released to the public over a month ago. Mr. Trump has repeatedly insisted that the memorandum was a “word for word” transcript. We now know that to be a lie.

        In Lt. Col. Vindman’s deposition, he told Congress that he had taken notes of the conversation between the two Presidents in July. Vindman explains that the White House edited the memorandum to remove specific mentions of Burisma.

        “It’s not just the recollection,” the Lieutenant Colonel told the House, “I took notes from the call… They’re in my highly classified notebook.”

        When asked to read what his notes said, Vindman stated that the President said, “There are recordings of Biden” discussing a prosecutor. This entire comment was instead changed to an ellipsis by the White House.

        In response, President Zelensky said, his prosecutor would “look into the situation specifically to Burisma that you mentioned.” The White House changed Zelensky’s words from “Burisma” to “the company.”

        1. You are literally losting Vindmans notes to prove Vindmans testimony… this could be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen. Even for you baby jeffrey. The others on the call disagreed with Vindmans interpretation. We now know Ciaramella and Vindman knew and worked together, likely making Vindman the original source. He has demonstrated his bias in his testimony based on trump not agreeing with his or the intragency assessment.

          1. Even if the notes are accurate, Liber is trying to steal a base AGAIN.

            Note, the article he quotes says, “In notes taken contemporaneously by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the President of Ukraine specifically mentioned the energy company Burisma in response to President Trump’s insistence that an investigation take place.”

            See how they slip in “Insistence”? Even though nothing on that transcript- either Vindman’s or the official version- is Trump insisting on anything. Trump specifically asks for a favor. He says something along the lines of “If you could look into it, that would be great.”

            And when you look at Vindman’s suggested edits, they do nothing to change the transcript. I post the full quotes above. There is no “Insistance” from Trump, but by dropping “New Evidence” and choosing the insistence word, they are trying to mislead people into thinking that Vindman’s testimony showed that Trump was insisting on this investigation. Now Liber is either a hopeful dupe who is letting these tactics work, or he is complicit. Either way, he should understand that he is peddling lies.

        2. This is actually interesting.

          Because they said “coverup” because the transcript was moved to a system he could not access and edit the transcript.

          This was a little detail everyone just skipped right over. The guy wanted to go in and edit the transcript after the fact. Now we have a second guy talking about wanting to edit the transcript after the fact. And rumor has it that he’s the source for the first guy who wanted to go in and edit the transcript. And at least one of them had been working with Ex officials and House Democrats.

          I think you could have a completely different interpretation of this one, were you so inclined.

          1. Cyto….Great point. And I have to wonder what the nature of those edits would have been. And just who would have made them.

            1. It also makes one wonder why they suddenly decided to start locking transcripts up in a different secure system that these guys wouldn’t have access to.

              I mean, sure, they might have just randomly decided to do that for no reason.

              But one certainly suspects that there was a reason. And that reason pertains to actions that predate the Ukraine thing – since the Ukraine stuff didn’t get put in the other system and then get moved.

              So somebody felt that the “secure, top secret” system wasn’t actually secure. I mean, not that the system itself wasn’t secure…. but that it wasn’t secured from access by the wrong people.

              1. They moved the transcript to a more secure location because transcripts of POTUS Trump’s conversations with Australia and Mexico were leaked. That the leaks happened is an objective fact. It was unprecedented.

                It is against this backdrop of leaking that the action to move the Ukraine transcript to a more secure location has to be assessed.

          2. Let’s be careful with language here. It’s been reported that Vindman requested revisions. But you seem to be saying that he wanted to actually go into a text editor and edit the transcript himself.

            Which of those two things are we talking about? Requesting a revision, or wanting to directly edit the document?

            1. Somebody went looking to access the transcript and was evidently upset s/he couldn’t do so where s/he expected to.
              Presumably, that person had something motivating them to access that transcript.
              What could that motivation have been…

              1. Can you provide a link to a story about how somebody went looking to access the transcript?

      4. Yup.
        The the real takeaway from these articles is that Binion is a liar.
        He is being willfully and deliberately dishonest.

        My question is why? Is this merely a display of tribal allegiance, or is he polishing up his resume for gigs with the state media?

    4. Did you read the transcripts? It was his “clear understanding” ie his opinion you retarded fuck.

        1. That states nothing on Kent’s testimony you retarded fuck.

          Keep posting conspiracy theories like they mean something lol.

        2. Jesus christ, this is even stupider than I thought. This is using Vindman to prove vindmans testimony. You honestly cant be this fucking stupid jeffrey.

          1. How far these IC shills have fallen

          2. I showed that there is quite a lot of disagreement about the accuracy of “transcripts”, and that people on the call clearly understood the quid pro quo aspect. Both claims have been repeatedly rejected by Trumpists.

            1. De Oppresso Liber
              November.8.2019 at 7:53 pm
              “I showed that there is quite a lot of disagreement about the accuracy of “transcripts”…”

              And to dimwit TDS victims, that’s, uh, well the tipping point, right?
              That’s bullshit hearsay, in case you are confused, as you seem to be.

            2. I showed that there is quite a lot of disagreement about the accuracy of “transcripts

              Great way of confirming that we shouldn’t take your word or any other leftist’s on what was actually said.

    5. Are Trumpists ready to move from “It didn’t happen,” to “Ok, it happened but it turns out we’re cool with it,” yet? Better get your act together!

      Taylor’s ‘testimony’ is based on his interpretations of a NYT article.

      We’ve reached the point where it’s becoming pretty clear to everyone that, whatever the Democrats say, the opposite happened.

    6. Are Trumpists ready to move from “It didn’t happen,” to “Ok, it happened but it turns out we’re cool with it,” yet?

      Clearly the answer from the comments is no. They are not going to move from anything. And my guess is that until Trump is standing in the middle of the street holding a smoking gun with bullet-ridden bodies all around, they will not move from there to ‘See he’s delivered on a campaign promise and I’m more than ok with that’.

      Maybe it’s possible that throwing a whistleblower into the arena so the crowd can watch him get mangled in the way that most pleases the crowd. Maybe that will move the crowd more quickly towards – ‘ok it happened and I’m perfectly ok with that’ – before Trump actually has to start shooting bystanders.

    7. There is no moving. Many people have said that there is neither evidence of a quid pro quo, nor that it would matter if there were. Both of those statements are still true.

    8. Why? Not only would it be cool anyway (many people have said so from the start, even though there is clearly no “there” there, because if Biden is as corrupt as his wealth and his son’s income suggest then we should know about it) but this evidence is entirely in line with the fact that Trump made no quid-pro-quo. The evidence that TDS sufferers like Mr Bunion tend to fail to mention supports that
      * Trump said there would be no quid-pro-quo on multiple occasions according to witnesses in the current fake inquiry
      * The phone call contains only a mild request for an investigation, no request for publicity or for a particular result. No threat or exchange is stated or implied even in the mildest way.
      * it appears Ukraine did not know of the delay in the aid until late August.
      * it appears Ukraine made no promise of an investigation before the aid was released in September, long before any of this came to light.

      The last two suggest that any quid-pro-quo was impossible, as it removes two mainstays of such an agreement.

      The evidence discussed in Bunion’s hack article above is nothing more than innuendo. Either he knows it and is dishonest, or he is a useless journalist. Kent said that POTUS wanted an investigation. So what? Kent admitted he knew of no deal, and there is no indication of why Kent thinks this. It is just his opinion, based on … what? Irrational, manic hatred of Trump, like Bunion’s? Like his claims that Giuliani has been lying? Do you really doubt, after the whole spying scheme against the Trump, involving lies to the press and perjury, after top officials perjuring themselves in front of Congress, and lying to the FBI, do you really think he is above lying about something that could never be objectively shown to be more than an opinion, no risk of perjury?

      Taylor had a clear understanding that the aid would not be released until the investigation happened (note he makes no mention of there being a pre-conceived result; what is so wrong with investigating apparent corruption Biden boasted openly about?). Taylor, who had never met nor communicated with the President. Taylor who has, apparently, not explained how he formed that opinion.

      Sondland, who has perjured himself one way or the other again is testifying on his own opinion. Literally nothing in there says that any reason he had for thinking there was to be quid-pro-quo came from POTUS.

      1. the aid was released in September, long before any of this came to light.

        Dan Coats (DNI) and Sue Gordon (deputy DNI) both resign by early Aug. Coats three days after the phone call.
        ‘the whistleblower’ made his complaint to the IG on August 12.
        That complaint was forwarded to the new acting director of NI (Maguire) – also the ICIG’s boss – on August 26 who legally had one week to report his findings on that claim to Congress and IG himself legally had two weeks.
        Maguire failed (Sep2) to deliver those findings to Congress.
        The IG informed intel subcommittees (Sep 9) of Congress of the existence of whistleblower complaint and that IG had informed DNI of same two weeks earlier.
        Next day (Sep 10) – Schiff writes letter to Maguire demanding info about contents of the complaint
        Next day (Sep 11) – Aid to Ukraine is released
        Two days later (Sep 13) – DNI attorney writes back to Schiff saying the complaint was not deemed to be urgent. Schiff subpoenas Maguire to testify.

        When Coats, Gordon and/or Maguire (who’s being set up to be the fall guy) testify in public, this will likely confirm the preferred narrative on all sides.

        1. Oh also – that Sep9/Sep10 is when John Bolton was fired/resigned. Now that the Ukraine story is unfolding, my guess is that will change the nature of what that was all about – something specific re the Ukraine thang or a come-to-Jayzus moment re Trump/noninterventionism

          1. You’re trying really hard there

            1. Not ‘trying’ anything at all.

              At this point now, it has become pure partisan DeRp. Which means there are only two possible event/narrative/subplot timelines. Either something happened – or something else is trying to be created and imposed on the past AS IF it happened.

              Obviously you will believe whatever the R’s say no matter what that is.
              I OTOH will see the different timelines – put events on that with both sides interpretations of same – and in the end see which side creates a story which makes sense and which one is trying to impose a narrative on the past.

              And gotta say – it ain’t looking good for your side so far. Good rule of thumb – the one telling the truth is usually the one constructing the timeline one piece at a time. The side that is waiting waiting denying each event one at a time is usually forced into that precisely cuz it’s hard as hell to impose a narrative/story on the past in some piecemeal manner.

              Best events timeline I’ve seen so far (dating back to 2013)

        2. So? That is internal talk. There has been deep state churn against Trump since before his inauguration. Given that the whistle blower complaint was obvious nonsense (the only relevant parts of it did not accord with the phone call, which he had not heard) that is just more of the same. This only blew up a couple of weeks after the money went across.

          Even if you connect the final release of the money to this trivia which I think is a stretch but one you could argue, you still cannot have a quid-pro-quo. You address only one small part of the problem. You are missing three: Trump being reported to have repeatedly said there was no quid-pro-quo; the phone call that triggered the whole thing being, far from insistent on dirt being dug on Biden, a rather tepid request for an investigation to find the truth; and most damning of all the fact that Ukrainians didn’t even know the aid was being delayed. I might add one that I had forgotten, which is the fact that the Ukrainian president also said there was no quid-pro-quo.

          Then consider the hypocrisy. They are literally investigating Trump for quid-pro-quo and for asking for a legitimate investigation of a potential political opponent from which he may gain slightly but probably not. Biden demanded quid-pro-quo for which his son has directly gained and Obama set up an completely unwarranted spying process against the Trump campaign.

          So what is the problem? Quid-pro-quo? Then why is Biden still a viable candidate for the Democratic Party, not hounded out of the primaries? Asking for an investigation of a political opponent? Then why are they not condemning Obama?

          That is what truly shows this is just political theatre.

  2. Exposing corruption, even that of a political opponent, is not a personal favor. It is part of the job description.

    1. Do you not understand that this itself is corruption? Tit for tat is corruption.

      1. If the executive suspects corruption seeking investigation is an objectively appropriate response. You can ascribe ill motive all you want but you cannot change that one iota.

        1. Withholding congressionally authorized payments to get a foreign government involved in domestic electoral affairs is corruption. It’s not an appropriate response to anything. It’s not about motive it’s about corruption.

          1. The aid wasn’t withheld. They got the aid. And aid is withheld all of the time. Moreover, there is no evidence that it was withheld for that reason. No one with any direct knowledge thinks that. The Ukrainians themselves didn’t think that. The transcript of the call doesn’t say that.

            So why do you persist in claiming something happened that obviously didn’t?

          2. Withholding congressionally authorized payments to get a foreign government involved in domestic electoral affairs is corruption.

            No such thing actually or was even remotely suggested, and the transcripts of the call and every person who was a first party to it confirms that. Raping Nancy Pelosi on the National Mall would be corrupt too. Let’s see if you can imagine any other wonderfully fictitious scenarios.

          3. Withholding congressionally authorized payments to get a foreign government involved in domestic electoral affairs is corruption.

            So you would like for Biden to be investigated, right? I mean you’re not a mindless hack SJW partisan cocksucker with no principles,and you apply the same standards across the board, right?

          4. Appropriation doesnt mean you have to spend the money the second it is appropriated dummy.

          5. “Withholding congressionally authorized payments to get a foreign government involved in domestic electoral affairs is corruption.”
            Bullshit.

            “It’s not an appropriate response to anything.”
            Aw, gonna cwy for us?

            “It’s not about motive it’s about corruption.”
            I’m sure that makes sense at your local TDS meetings. Tuesday nights in the church basement?

          6. “Withholding congressionally authorized payments to get a foreign government involved in domestic electoral affairs is corruption.”
            Sorry, I wasn’t clear in pointing out your bullshit:
            “…to get a foreign government involved in domestic electoral affairs…”
            Well, let’s see. IF Trump used congressionally authorized payments to finance murder, that would be corrupt.
            Get back to us when your bullshit is based on facts rather than your TDS affliction.

          7. Well, we don’t need to debate that point because nothing like that actually happened.

      2. “Tit for tat is corruption.”
        Which we have video of Biden bragging about.

        His pathetic campaign gives him cover for this?
        He is not even officially running against Trump yet as he has not won the Donk nomination.

        1. Have you ever been involved in a political campaign? If Trump and Biden have filed the paperwork with the FEC as Presidential candidates then they are political opponents in a race against each other. It doesn’t matter about nomination. They would be opponents even if they were from the same political party running against each other in the primary.

          1. Mike Laursen
            November.8.2019 at 7:07 pm
            “Have you ever been involved in a political campaign? If Trump and Biden have filed the paperwork with the FEC as Presidential candidates then they are political opponents in a race against each other….”

            Doesn’t all that spinning make you dizzy? or does TDS make you so stupid you don’t even realize you’re stooopid.
            Are you suggesting that ‘filing paper work’ makes someone immune to investigation?
            You are not real bright.

            1. It gets tedious repeating the same explanation, but I will say it again. I would welcome an investigation of the Bidens. Such an investigation should be conducted and competent manner and anyone (such as Trump) who might benefit politically should make sure not to be directly involved.

              1. That’s your preference. It’s not law. It’s also not common practice.

                1. Because Trump didn’t take care in how the investigation was conducted, it was vulnerable to being derailed by charges of corruption. So, now, we’ve ended up with an impeachment inquiry and no investigation of the Bidens.

                  1. Because servile wannabes, like yourself, exist, anything Trump does is vulnerable to being derailed by charges of corruption.
                    So now we’ve ended up with a bunch of lemmings cheering on a pseudo-coup

                    1. Because I’m a Congressman? How am I involved in this, other than discussing it here?

                    2. You’re the whistleblower

                    3. And I still would be if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

      3. Brandybuck “first one to be corrupt wins!”

    2. I’d say exposing corruption happening in other countries is optional. But not necessarily inappropriate.

      In this case, I find I can’t be bothered to care. Democrats in the house are going to do their thing whatever the facts may be.

      1. ^This^

        Everybody gets their own truth nowadays, and you expect everyone to have the same facts?

      2. Corruption restricted to other countries is entirely optional, to the extent that their corruption creates corruption here it is not optional, it is a duty.

    3. Even if we are to assume that Trump’s motives here were entirely commendable in wanting to expose what he believed to be genuine corruption, the methods he chose to do so were not.

      1. Like false statements on FISA warrant applications?

      2. Like holding up a billion dollars if a pesky prosecutor wasn’t fired within less than 24 hrs?

        1. Imagine still using this talking point.

          1. Who are you going to believe, cytotoxic’s 99th sock or your lying eyes?

            Kill yourself. It would be no loss to yourself or anyone else. You are less than worthless.

            1. Oh no, someone used mean words at me. Sorry you have no argument. I understand that that makes you very upset. But if you want me dead, come and get me, coward.

              The timeline doesn’t make sense regarding Hunter Biden, all of our allies and the IMF wanted that prosecutor gone, and it was the official policy of the US government to have him gone. It was not Biden’s initiative, despite whatever boasting Biden wants to make after the fact.

              https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/

              “Rudy Giuliani’s only interest in Ukraine was to push the idea of an investigation into Biden and then push that idea with the American media, to hype it, and to attack Biden’s son ahead of the U.S. election” next year, said Sergii Leshchenko, a former lawmaker who worked under former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

              1. “The timeline doesn’t make sense regarding Hunter Biden, all of our allies and the IMF wanted that prosecutor gone”

                John Solomon is killing this laughable false talking point.

                1. You don’t need to dig into all sorts of arcane interpretations.

                  Burisma had a board entirely composed of political sycophants from western countries. Why? It sure as hell didn’t have anything to do with oil and gas production. The US doesn’t even do business with that company.

                  The mere existence of that job is prima fascia evidence of corruption. You don’t give the son of a prominent and powerful government official millions of dollars just because you think he’s a nice guy.

                  You might want to debate what the payoff was for, but you certainly can’t argue that it wasn’t a payoff.

                  1. It was probably a payoff, but there is another possibility: Burisma might have initiated offering Hunter Biden the position because they hoped for an “in” with Joe Biden, or at least wanted to give the appearance to their investors, etc. that they had an “in”.

                    In this possible scenario, the deal wasn’t brokered by Joe Biden. Even if not illegal, it would still been unethical as hell for Hunter to take the position, and for Joe to sanction his taking the position.

                    One thing that is absolutely sure is that Hunter Biden had no qualifications to be on the board of Burisma.

          2. Well, truth tends to be a rock solid talking point.

          3. So baby jeffrey… you ignores the recently released emails from FOIA showing state department running around at the behest of burisma name dropping Hunter like its hot?

            1. “Let’s talk about something else. I’m not able to defend the indefensible!”

              Because it’s not 2015? Wadabout wadabout wadabout your mother?

        2. Yeah that wasn’t exactly a Profile in Diplomacy either.

          Now can you address what Trump did without resorting to Biden whataboutisms?

      3. It’s not just that the methods may have been illegal. It’s also that he chose a completely incompetent, non-serious way to pursue an investigation.

        Note that it has resulted in no substantial investigation of the Bidens, so the goal was not accomplished in any way. Trump handled the investigation in an incompetent manner.

      4. Gee what a surprise. Three of Trump’s bootlickers immediately try to change the subject.

        EVEN IF Trump was sincerely and genuinely trying to fight “corruption”, and not just going after Biden, the method he used to try to do that – attempting to leverage military aid in order to manipulate the Ukrainian government to pursue that goal – and via his own personal lawyer no less – was the wrong way to do it.

        Can you address that point without resorting to a bunch of whataboutism?

        1. Using the salad fork to eat the main course is wrong too. But it is not an impeachable offense.

      5. “Even if we are to assume that Trump’s motives here were entirely commendable in wanting to expose what he believed to be genuine corruption, the methods he chose to do so were not.”

        You are welcome to your opinions. The rest of us are welcome to point out that they are NWS.

    4. Do you believe Trump approach to pursuing an investigation of Burisma was orchestrated in a competent manner?

      What do you think of Trump’s request for an investigation not accomplishing any actual investigation of Burisma?

      Do you believe there was any consistent follow-up on the investigation?

      Do you believe anyone in Washington, D.C. was consistently managing the investigation to make sure it stayed on track, didn’t stall out, etc.?

      1. Mike Laursen
        November.8.2019 at 7:04 pm
        “Do you believe Trump approach to pursuing an investigation of Burisma was orchestrated in a competent manner?”
        Do not care.

        “What do you think of Trump’s request for an investigation not accomplishing any actual investigation of Burisma?”
        Do not care

        “Do you believe there was any consistent follow-up on the investigation?”
        WIH is that supposed to mean?

        “Do you believe anyone in Washington, D.C. was consistently managing the investigation to make sure it stayed on track, didn’t stall out, etc.?”
        How much of your day is spent coming up irrelevant bullshit in pursuit of your TDS fantasies?

      2. ML, all those questions merely point out the lack of serious intent on behalf of Trump, I.e. this was an offhand suggestion not an order.

        1. Exactly, BigT. It counters the argument made here that Trump was acting out of the heroic motivation of rooting out corruption in the Federal government, and makes it more likely he was impulsively pursuing a political vendetta.

          1. An idiotic opinion, one shared by yourself and psychotics.
            Your slavish devotion to technocrats is contemptible, as is your concern trolling and fraudulent claims of motivation.
            Executives deal with each other, not underlings.

            1. Why would either executive, Trump or Zelensky, need to be involved in a matter that could have been handled between a Department of Justice investigator and the equivalent Ukrainian official?

              Why was Trump’s personal lawyer involved in foreign diplomacy. Would you think it odd at all if Zelensky had told Trump, “You’ll have to my personal lawyer about the Burisma investigation. I’ve put him in charge of it.”

              1. Presidents routinely use private envoys where they don’t particularly trust the career bureaucracy, and I don’t know a President who’s ever had as much cause to distrust the professional bureaucracy as Trump.

                But he was having Guliani and Barr working together, and that would be a very strange thing to do if it were an entirely private matter, rather than just being a public matter Guliani was familiar with.

                1. Has it been routine to have Presidents who don’t trust the career bureaucracy?

          2. No, ML, Trump just said the first thing that popped into his head, probably because these things were mentioned in some prep session, and he felt the need to say something about them. That fits his style better than every other explanation.

            1. Could be. It does fit his style.

      3. I don’t think Trump is particularly competent. But such incompetence is not sufficient grounds for impeachment.

        1. That’s a fair view of the situation.

          I actually don’t think it is grounds for impeachment, either, but the whole matter clearly shows Trump’s incompetence and it also strongly suggests he wasn’t pursuing an investigation into the Bidens because of some altruistic motive of caring about rooting out corruption.

          1. Again, your opinion on competence is literally worthless

    5. Hmmmm. Even if you follow this premise, you still have to somehow argue it’s a duty of the executive branch to pursue a (second) corruption investigation in a foreign nation, which seems like an unreasonably expansive view of executive power to me. Note that when Obama was screwing around with the original corruption investigation into Burisma, that seems like an executive overreach to me too. So why would Trump get a pass?

      1. Not a second investigation in the Ukraine. If one were seriously investigations the Bidens, one would do a domestic investigation here in the U.S.; one would set up coordination with the investigators in the Ukraine (and China, by the way); and one would appoint an investigator to oversee and coordinate the entire effort.

        If you were a thoughtful, non-impulsive President running for re-election, you would also consult with your professional campaign staff and other advisors, and they would tell you to avoid any appearance of personal involvement for political gain. Otherwise, you would risk derailing the investigation (as has happened now).

        Also, you would have taken up the matter at least three years ago.

        1. You don’t have a clue what a thoughtful, non-impulsive executive would do.
          All you’re capable of is parroting DNC talking points.
          You show the intellect and character of a cup bearer

          1. Is it your view that Trump is a thoughtful, non-impulsive chief executive?

            1. More so than “popular” opinion.
              The most incompetent people in the world – corporate media personalities/functionaries, career bureaucrats, you – squawk about Trump’s incompetence, but he appears to be far more than yall

        2. Trump asked for Ukraine cooperation with the US investigation. He also asked for Ukraine anti corruption efforts. The fact that you conflate the two doesn’t mean they actually were the same thing.

          1. What U.S. investigation is that?

        3. Yeah.

          You would go to the state department and the CiA to investigate ….

          Oh, wait. The allegation is that the Obama State Department and the CIA were party to the Biden corruption and Clinton election push.

          So you can’t exactly ask them to go investigate and expect an honest answer.

          Well, except, like an idiot, it appears that he did go to the state department and ask them to investigate. Which some apparently did, and some apparently moved to block. Hence the presence of Giulliani.

          Maybe he should have gone to the FBI. You know, the same FBI that sent spies to infiltrate his campaign and transition team. And the same FBI that set up people around him for process crimes or prosecution for matters long settled in order to get them to testify to their lie in order to derail Trump’s presidency.

          Yeah….. maybe things are a little more complicated than people who are looking at the world with partisan blinders on might think.

          1. Is he the chief executive or not? If the CIA, State Department, and FBI were all conspiring against him, he is ultimately their boss.

            1. Yes, he’s ultimately their boss, and unless he’s going to spend all of his time standing over their shoulders, that does squat to assure that they will faithfully obey his orders if they’re conspiring against him.

              1. How have last Presidents dealt with similar situations?

                1. Provide an example of a similar situation

                  1. Exactly. We’ve had Republican presidents before but no whistleblower complaints filed by career IC bureaucrats. Some of those bureaucrats are the very same people who are testifying now.

                    Perhaps they are responding not just to Trump’s being a Republican but as much or moreso reacting to his impulsiveness, blabbing about diplomatic matters on Twitter, lack of interest in reports and briefings, or their advice on matters.

  3. “Gordon Sondland, who became ambassador to the European Union after donating $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, initially testified that he had no knowledge of any such efforts. He revised those statements on November 4, the day before his closed-door testimony was to be released, writing that he recalled telling a top Zelenskiy adviser that the aid would not come through unless the Ukrainian president announced the investigations.”

    I’m not convinced that’s what happened at all, but I do know that there is a text message from Sondland after the fact insisting that the president had told him explicitly that there was no quid pro quo.

    Why leave that out?

    1. Notice not a single person from the Ukrainian government who had knowledge of all this has ever been found to have said there was a prid pro quo. We are to believe that the Ukrainians were being extorted yet somehow didn’t realize it.

      Only someone as dumb as Hihn or Binion could believe this shit.

      1. Well if I am Ukrainian I am going to try and stay the fuck out of it. Nothing good can come out of this for their national interest. If you side with Trump, you risk pissing off the Dems and vis versa. I would just take my phone off the hook, now that the check has cleared and hope the DC political machine moves on before grinding my nation up.

        Also if I am Ukrainian getting millions of US tax dollars, I wouldn’t feel I was ever being extorted. Of course maybe that’s why my Mafia business failed; I kept giving the store fronts money instead of taking it.

        1. That is nice except that if the Ukrainians thought that at the time, they would have said something to their allies in the US government. All these fuckers are in bed with the Ukrainian government and working on their behalf inside of the US Department of State. Hell, read the linked testimony from this article. Literally the first 100 pages of it is this guy going on and on about how wonderful the Ukrainian government is and all the great work he has done for it.

          So, if the Ukrainians had thought anyone in the White House was extorting them, they would have at least bitched and moaned to their sympathizers at DOS. Yet, all of these sympathizers keep testifying and not one of them can say the Ukrainians thought this.

          1. “All these fuckers are in bed with the Ukrainian government”

            Like Rudy “My two Ukrainian fixers were caught trying to flee to Ukraine” Giuliani?

            Long nickname, I wonder how he got it.

            1. Like cyto “this is my 99th sock and I accidentally outed it multiple times but keep replying to myself as if I didn’t and hope everyone will indulge my delusions like a fat-cocked tranny in the Target fitting room” toxic?

              Long nickname, I wonder how you got it.

              1. Trump baby hurt that someone talked bad about his Trump daddy.

                1. De Oppresso Liber
                  November.8.2019 at 6:39 pm
                  “Trump baby hurt that someone talked bad about his Trump daddy.”

                  TDS victim called on bullshit one more time.

            2. Why have you never brought up Obama’s Saud Arabian peeps or the entire DNCs chinese peeps?

          2. If the US is offering you hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to fight off the literal invasion of your country and all they want is some political theatre, would you complain about that? It’s corrupt, but from the Ukrainian perspective it doesn’t seem like it’s a bad deal.

            1. With a Democrat House controlling foreign aid and a Republican President the Ukrainians have a hell of a job just trying to not get caught up in American red-blue politics.

            2. “fight off the literal invasion of your country”

              Nice to see “libertarians” swallowing neocon narratives so enthusiastically

        2. “Well if I am Ukrainian I am going to try and stay the fuck out of it. ”

          At the point they were having this conversation it was a little bit too late to stay out of it. The prior Ukrainian government had been neck deep in cooperating with the prior US government in trying to sink Trump’s campaign.

          Now just staying out of it isn’t going to mend those fences.

      2. John : “Notice not a single person from the Ukrainian government who had knowledge of all this has ever been found to have said there was a prid pro quo. We are to believe that the Ukrainians were being extorted yet somehow didn’t realize it”

        John isn’t keeping up very well. His bullshit was discredited weeks ago, but this little gem from yesterday’s released testimony puts a bow on it :

        “Kurt Volker had an “awkward conversation” with President Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak at the early-July Ukraine Reform Conference. Special Representative Volker was lecturing Yermak how it would be inappropriate for the new administration to investigate it’s predecessor, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

        “And then Yermak said: What? You mean the type of investigations you’re pushing for us to do on Biden and Clinton?”

        This was about three weeks before the infamous phone call. Now imagine hearing this same testimony when things go public. Maybe the 70% of people who think Trump’s call was either unethical or illegal will jump to 99%. Who knows, maybe John will be last bootlicker standing……

        1. A) Pushing them to investigate is different from saying that they don’t get money unless they investigate.

          B) Where is the source. If it is Volker, then John’s statement is accurate. They have not been able to find a single Ukrainian to go on the record saying that they felt that they were being extorted.

          1. Ukrainians have talked about Rudy’s odd vendetta against the Biden’s. Why was the president’s personal attorney involved, at all? Almost as if Trump is using his tried and true technique of letting his lawyer be the fall guy.

            https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/

            “Rudy Giuliani’s only interest in Ukraine was to push the idea of an investigation into Biden and then push that idea with the American media, to hype it, and to attack Biden’s son ahead of the U.S. election” next year, said Sergii Leshchenko, a former lawmaker who worked under former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

              1. In fact it is largely an opinion piece. Jeff posts shitty citations.

            1. Exactly. Why is someone’s personal attorney involved in diplomacy?

              1. Why is someone’s father involved in investigations of a son’s business?

                  1. Why am I not the least bit surprised that you don’t understand that?

                    1. I don’t know. It was kinda incoherent. Trump and Biden are both fathers with sons. Which one is which in each part of your sentence?

                    2. Gee, which one (here, let me help you: that would be the son) was part of a business under investigation by a country (let’s see, Ukraine is a country, isn’t it?) central to this whole thing?

                      It’s a puzzle eating an enigma being disgorged by a riddle.

                    3. Or just stop being coy and just use proper names in your sentence. You’re not as clear a writer as you apparently think you are.

                    4. Went back and re-read your question. Got it. You were doing a whatabout because you wanted to distract from my question.

                      Answer is I think Joe Biden is probably corrupt, just like you do, presumably.

                    5. No, it’s not a whatabout, it’s an about.

                    6. Mike Laursen
                      November.8.2019 at 8:13 pm
                      “I don’t know. It was kinda incoherent….”

                      You.
                      Are.
                      Full.
                      Of.
                      Shit.

                    7. Must be a “coincidence” that “Mike’s” rhetoric so consistently follows the progressive script

            2. Odd vendetta? Biden is clearly corrupt. Why shouldn’t that be investigated and made public before the election? Don’t Americans deserve to know?

          2. That’s quite a bar to set for determining whether any Ukrainians have confirmed the accusations. Is Congress supposed to subpoena Ukrainian citizens?

            1. Remind be who the burden of proof is on again? Or do you think this is France?

              1. There aren’t any burden of proof rules during the inquiry phase. We are three steps before the Senate trial, if it even gets that far.

                1. Mike Laursen
                  November.8.2019 at 10:06 pm
                  “There aren’t any burden of proof rules during the inquiry phase. We are three steps before the Senate trial, if it even gets that far.”

                  Just invented a new term for ‘witch hunt’?
                  Seek help; you need it.

                  1. Look, just because they started saying they were going to impeach Trump the day after he won the election, and they have been looking for some reason, any reason to attach to that desire all day, every day for the last 3 years…. that’s no reason to call this a “witch hunt”.

        2. Not hardly as discredited as the idea that there has been any corroboration of a quid pro quo. Taylor testified the Ukrainians weren’t aware of the aid being withheld. The Sondland texts explicitly said no quid pro quo.

          But keep repeating the lies that this has been confirmed. There’s plenty of confirmation bias for you to fall back on.

    2. “Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”

      —-Gordon Sondland

      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

      1. Ken it doesn’t matter to these idiots. The MO is this. Get a bunch of people who have not direct knowledge of what happened to testify that “in their opinion this happened” and then have hacks in the media like Binion report that “so and so said there was a prid quo pro in devastating testimony for the President”. They have done this multiple times now. The one broad said in so many words her opinion of Trump’s motives and actions were based on what she read in the New York Times.

        What the Democrats and their media enablers like Binion here are doing is more than just partisan spin or even propaganda. It is a straight up disinformation campaign.

        1. Your whimpering will change direction when the Trump administration officials are compelled to testify.

        2. Weaseling room shrinks tighter daily for our Trumpian bootlickers. There’s a brand new development, hot off the presses : John Bolton has promised lawmakers (read jurors) “many relevant meetings and conversations”. Of course this could be good news for Donald, right bootlickers?

          “President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton knows about “many relevant meetings and conversations” surrounding Trump’s communications with Ukraine, Bolton’s lawyer told lawmakers Friday.

          Bolton has information that House impeachment investigators do not know about yet, his lawyer Charles Cooper said in a letter to the chief House lawyer, which was first reported by The New York Times. Lawmakers have called on Bolton to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, but his lawyer first wants a court to rule on whether he should be made to do so, given that the White House has chosen not to cooperate with the inquiry. According to Cooper’s letter, Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which [lawmakers] have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.”

          1. Yeah, Bolton is going to do something. Whatever you dumb ass. Just more bullshit. Yeah, some day someone is finally going to get Trump. The walls are closing in.

          2. Hmmmm …… Let me guess : When Bolton testifies to all he saw and heard, suddenly seeing and hearing will also not be acceptable evidence against the Cult Lord.

            Meanwhile, Giuliani henchman Lev Parnas is currently in mid-negotiation to flip. Take a sec & think of all the things that man has seen! With Igor Fruman, Lev was Rudy’s representative passing shakedown demands to Ukrainian officials. He was the bagman who paid Peter Sessions to write a smear letter targeting Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He acted go-between for Giuliani, the disgraced prosecutor Shokin, and exiled oligarch Dmytro Firtash. I bet he’s good for several days of testimony…

            And then the damn could break, United States v. Nixon-wise, but it would probably get a little tedious watch the parade of White House officials taking the Fifth against self-incrimination….

            But the Trumpian bootlickers will stay loyal right until (near) the end, I’m sure.

            1. When Bolton testifies to all he saw and heard, suddenly seeing and hearing will also not be acceptable evidence against the Cult Lord.

              This is the same Bolton who first came into the public limelight covering up Iran-Contra, right?

            2. If Bolton wanted to testify, and had anything of substance to add to the impeachment push, he would have testified already. Instead, he’s waiting on a legal ruling and the Democrats are refusing to subpoena him unless the courts rule that such a subpoena requires compliance.

              This means that Bolton isn’t going to testify, if ever, until SCOTUS hears the issue. So, we’re talking at least a year or two from now by which time there will be a new impeachment circus for the Democrats to drive their clown car into.

              The reality is that Bolton is making the Democrats jump through hoops and, at the end of the day, if he ever has to sit for a deposition, he is going to give them a shit sandwich on a platter.

              1. I think you’re right. The spin is that Bolton is ready to take Trump down. But nothing prevents him from testifying voluntarily if that’s the case and the Democrats know that. All we know right now is that Bolton says he has information the committee hasn’t heard yet, which is obviously true. We don’t know if that information is damning or exculpatory. I’ve had some personal experience with his attorney Chuck Cooper and he’s a brilliant guy. He’s not playing checkers. He’s playing chess.

              2. Geraje Guzba
                November.8.2019 at 6:08 pm
                “If Bolton wanted to testify, and had anything of substance to add to the impeachment push, he would have testified already…”

                grb is but one more TDS victim with voices in his/her head, hoping against hope that THIS TIME they got him!
                Only to find their fantasies dashed, again.
                Prolly a Browns fan; you have to be that stupid to suffer that much.

                1. Browns fan?!! Now you’ve gone a bridge too far!

                2. Hey now. The Browns are just one step away from victory. They just need to get their passing game together…and the offensive line…and defense … stop having so many turnovers and penalties.
                  Shit, whatever.

            3. You still haven’t figured out that refusal to cooperate isn’t a sign of hiding guilt, but a strategy to get Democrats to set their own hair on fire?

          3. //The committees withdrew their subpoena against Kupperman earlier this week, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told reporters they were prepared to move ahead without testimony from Bolton and Kupperman.

            “We are not going to delay our work,” Schiff said. “That would merely allow these witnesses and the White House to succeed with their goal, which is to delay, deny, obstruct.”//

            This means that Bolton and Kupperman have fuck all to contribute to the debate and the Democrats know it.

            1. This means that Bolton and Kupperman have fuck all to contribute to the debate and the Democrats know it.

              This means the Donkeys fear Bolton and Kupperman could provide strong evidence that undermines their witch hunt,….er, narrative.

          4. grb
            November.8.2019 at 4:59 pm
            “Weaseling room shrinks tighter daily for our Trumpian bootlickers…”

            Are the walls closing in, TDS victim? Is this the tipping point? Is it maybe THE BEGINNING OF THE END??????
            Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

      2. Criminal points gun at bank teller and demands money.
        Criminal: “I am not currently robbing this bank.”

        Ken: “See? Innocent!”

        1. cytotoxic points gun at his head
          Everyone: JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PLEASE PULL THE TRIGGER!

        2. De Oppresso Liber : Ken: “See? Innocent!”

          If Ken’s willfully blind see-no-evil post-modern obscurantism wasn’t a “standard” created to protect Trump alone, I doubt we’d put a single criminal behind bars. Ken would empty all the prisons. Hell, I bet it would even work if Trump started shooting random strangers on Fifth Avenue:

          Ken : I admit I saw Trump point the gun and pull the trigger. And, yes, the person did then collapse with a bullet wound. But did I actually see the bullet go from the gun to victim? No. So it’s only an opinion that’s what happened ……

          Questioner : Did you hear Trump shriek “Die, you nobody….”

          Ken : Well, yes, but he likes to upset the liberals….

          1. It would be nice if you ever had any evidence to back up your claims, but reality is optional on the left side of the aisle.

            1. Reality is not optional to these malicious psychotics, it is necessarily shunned and fought against at all costs

          2. It’s cute that you guys cop to this strawman analogy. But where is the actual gun? In fact what is happening is something more like:

            Random Guy: I think that guy is robbing the place
            Guy: No I’m not.
            Other Guy: Did you hear? That guy is robbing the place!
            Guy: No I’m not!

            Liber/grb: See? GUILTY.

            Again, there is no person on the record who has said that Trump said that they were holding the money for extortions. The best they have is Taylor who said he talked to Morrison who allegedly said that Sondland allegedly told him money was contingent on investigations. Its like 2nd hand hearsay. That isn’t a smoking gun. It is a rumor. And actual physical evidence from the time (Text Messages) specifically say the opposite.

            1. And note: it was contingent on investigations of corruption, not on getting dirt on Biden.

          3. Don’t worry. When’s Democrat gets in power Ken will be putting the screws to him/her fer sure. HILLARY DIDN’T BACK UP HER IPHONE WHICH MEANS SHE’S THE MOST DANGEROUS SECURITY THREAT SINCE BENEDICT ARNOLD!!!

            1. She totally didn’t mean to tell he subordinates to cut off the classified marks on the docs so they could fax them to her. Obvious lack of intent.

              1. 30,000 emails accidentally withheld after a subpoena; hard drives bleached; and don’t forget 100 “I don’t remember”s to Congress.

        3. Biden shoots a bank teller.
          Biden, “Trump’s a murderer!”

          Liber/Grb, “Clearly Trump did it!”

        4. De Oppresso Liber
          November.8.2019 at 5:25 pm
          “Criminal points gun at bank teller and demands money.”

          Fucking lefty ignoramuses, bereft of facts, imagine some fantasy hypotheticals mean anything.
          There is nothing there, other than a view into the sad working of your ‘mind’.
          Here’s what you and the pathetic lot of you have:
          ‘Somebody who talked with somebody said…’
          Hearsay.
          ‘Well, a guy who was there thinks…’
          Opinion.
          ‘Anyone who doesn’t think this…’
          Poisoning the well.
          Face it, you and the rest of the TDS victims; you are hoping that being guilty of being Trump is enough to make you not the losers you are.
          Well, it’s not true. You are LOSERS, and I’m laughing at you.

    3. Billy left out the date of the revised meeting… sept 1st. After the article was released in late August about the money. Sondland still stated in his advisement that he was not told to hold up funds until an announcement was made. That was just his thought based on the released news article.

  4. He revised those statements on November 4, the day before his closed-door testimony was to be released, writing that he recalled telling a top Zelenskiy adviser that the aid would not come through unless the Ukrainian president announced the investigations.

    No. He said he thought it wouldn’t come through. He had no authority to withhold the aid and had spoken to no one who said that it was going to be. His guess was that this was the case but he had no knowledge that it was.

    And this guy has no direct knowledge of anything either. He says that is his opinion but no one ever told him that the aid was being withheld over the corruption investigation. He thinks the Ukrainians were being blackmailed but no one in the Ukrainian government ever told him or seemed to think they were. It is nice he thinks that but since he has no direct evidence it is true, who gives a shit?

    Is it too much to ask that Binion do anything but lie his ass off?

    1. None of the “witnesses” have knowledge of anything apart from their pecking order in a rumor mill.

      Did the Ukrainians know about the aid being withheld? No.

      Did the Ukrainians get the aid? Yes.

      Was there an investigation? No.

      Why in the world do we care about anyone’s opinions on things they did not observe, or participate in?

      Also note how the “quid pro quo” theory shifted. First, it was a “quid pro quo” theory of withholding military aid in exchange for “dirt.” Then it became “refusing to meet with Zelensky unless he announced an investigation.” Now it has morphed into “Trump was subverting the State Department apparatus with bad policies and Rudy’s meddling, and we also don’t like that he fired our good friend Ms. Yovanovitch.

      Next week, we’re going to be left with nothing more than “We don’t fucking like Trump, and he’s a dick, so impeach him.”

      1. The only quid pro quo we’ve proven is Biden’s.

        Burisma lobbyists wrote to the State Dept a few weeks before Biden strong-armed Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who had, not long before their complaints, did a raid on the oligarch’s house who was, you know, paying the son of the VP for a job he had no competence in.

    2. He had no idea. He was speculating.

      He thought that might be the explanation, and when asked about it, he went to the president, and the president told him he had it all backwards–and Sondland’s subsequent texts demonstrate that.

      He may have inadvertently contributed to the rumor mill, but Trump setting him straight and telling him he had it all wrong isn’t persuasive evidence that there was a quid pro quo. Quite the opposite.

      And if the Democrats think this is more than sufficient evidence to merit a vote on impeachment in the House, then Nancy should go ahead and call a vote on a bill of impeachment. If this is adequate evidence, why wait?

      In other words, what does Binion know about this evidence that Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know? Does it take more evidence to persuade House Democrats that Trump should be impeached than Binion and if so, why is that?

      1. Binion doesn’t know anything except that these are the misinformation talking points that he is supposed to put out.

        1. Is he to the left of Nancy Pelosi?

          Is he more anti-Trump than Nancy Pelosi?

          1. The Koch brothers always hated Trump because he is a gauche real estate developer/hotelier from Queens.

  5. Every impeachment is pure political circus, and Trump was right about one thing — it is a way to undo the last election.

    Whether he did anything illegal or not, I do not know. I don’t really care. Obama did more knowingly unconstitutional stuff, and bragged about it. His phone and pen overrode the Constitution. Whether that makes Republicans more responsible or more gullible, I do not know, and don’t really care.

    Foreign aid is all about bribing foreign despots. It doesn’t go to people. It doesn’t go to rich countries. So the accusation here is that Trump made the bribery more explicit. Who really gives a flying fuck? Did he do anything that no other President has ever done? I kinda fucking doubt it.

    President Pence would be entertaining. 2020 would suddenly be even more a circus. Electing one of those spendy Dems would barely affect me, since all their spending plans are impractical and can’t be implemented, even if they could get the bills through Congress. Pence might win better than Trump, since no one really knows enough about him to be offended like Trump and the Seven Dwarves.

    1. Pence would never win. If Trump were removed from office, it would be the end of the Republican Party. It would do to the GOP what the Kansas Nebraska Act did to the old Whigs. The GOP would be dead and a new party would rise in its place.

      That is not going to happen. I still doubt the Democrats will so much as actually vote on articles of Impeachment much less send them to the Senate or the Senate removing Trump. That said, if it ever did get that far, the GOP would be committing suicide if they voted to remove Trump.

      1. Know what blows my mind, John?

        The media just got egg all over their face with the Russia thing.

        And they’re doing the SAME FUCKING THING HERE.

        Are they really this dense?

        (remembers that CBS fired an employee because ABC asked them to without any evidence of wrongdoing)

        …yeah, they probably are.

        1. Their brain dead readers haven’t learned. So why should they? These people were made to look like fools over Mueller. And they are ready to be fools again.

        2. Why stop with #Russia? Reason did a bang up job on Kavanaugh as well.

        3. I am stunned that the firing of that producer isn’t bigger news.

          The “leak” showed that one of the big three networks was covering for a pedophile and sex trafficker in order to appease rich and powerful people. That should have been a huge story!

          And then we learn that one of the big three can reach out to another and get someone fired for leaking that story? That should have been huge – if not at the big three, definitely everywhere else in the national news world. After all, every one of those people works in very similar jobs for very similar organizations. They should be going ballistic over the whole thing.

          But then you hear that she isn’t even the source! And you read ABC’s ridiculous “didn’t meet our editorial standards” excuse for spiking the story….. and you listen to the producer actually not caring about the issue at all, just wanting her job back and to be a loyal company woman….

          Wow. Talk about a toxic culture. Remember all of those 70’s movies about tough reporters fighting to get the truth out? Yeah, neither do any of today’s news people, apparently.

      2. The Dems still have a losing field. No one who would have voted for Trump will vote for any of them instead. But some who would have voted against Trump will switch to Pence simply for not being a socialist or Trump.

        1. Millions of people who voted for Trump will stay home and refuse to vote or would vote 3rd party. Pence wouldn’t get 40%.

          1. And Pence would be exposed as a nonentity in ant debate. He ain’t too bright, and not assertive.

            1. He makes a pretty good mannequin though

          2. Yeah, one of Trump’s biggest base-motivators is the outrageous actions his opponents have taken. I don’t know if it will still be around on election day, but people are plenty pissed about a lot of things that have been done in the name of “Never Trump” or “the Resistance”.

            There’s the subversion of the FBI and CIA to spy on a presidential campaign.

            There’s the smears against Brett Kavanaugh…. They thought that all women would rise up, being reminded of the Billy Bush live mike, but if you are a dude and you are not livid about the way they slandered Kavanaugh, you are seriously mentally deficient. And if you are a woman and you have a son, you should feel the same way.

            There’s that MAGA hat kid who is also still getting smeared.

            These kinds of things resonate with people because they are simple, human stories. And they reveal a deep depravity and disregard for your fellow human.

            The Russia thing reveals just how far they will corrupt the organs of state for their political objectives, but many of these other incidents show just how deeply corrupt they are as human beings, and how far they will go with “the politics of personal destruction” to grab some more power for themselves.

            Anyone who wasn’t wearing partisan blinders during the last few years should have a gut reaction to everything they are doing and instinctively oppose them based on simple human norms.

            Basically, everything they were relying on to derail Trump should end up derailing them. If they had just played it straight from the start, Trump never would have existed. And if they had just played it straight after he got elected, his administration would have imploded all on its own.

            But they had to go to these lengths to “get him”, and it will be their undoing. People have a basic sense of fairness, and they will recoil from unfairness and support the victim – even if the victim is actually a douchebag that would never have earned their interest otherwise.

    2. “Electing one of those spendy Dems would barely affect me, since all their spending plans are impractical and can’t be implemented, even if they could get the bills through Congress.

      The people of Venezuela are on line 2.

      1. Since socialism can’t be implemented, it is nothing to worry about. That is a special bit of retard there.

        1. Know how you can tell the evidence is mounting?

          The usual suspects get in a circle jerk and trade spittle-spraying rants on “socialism”

          1. It has to be a mound before it can be a mount. At this point it’s not even a mote.

            1. Indeed, its actually a hole – which the Ds, deep state, and their ten-centers will continue to keep digging

            2. Are you saying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare are not even a mote of socialism? If so, you are the frog with the heat slowly being applied.

          2. grb
            November.8.2019 at 6:26 pm
            “Know how you can tell the evidence is mounting?…”

            Yeah.
            You’d never have a clue.

      2. Venezuela probably has one of those Constitutions which can be easily amended by the legislature alone. We are not Venezuela.

        To pass any of those spendy bills would require at least pretending to find a funding source and still raising the debt ceiling. No way they can do that.

        1. Venezuela probably has one of those Constitutions which can be easily amended by the legislature alone. We are not Venezuela.

          No. our constitution can be easily amended by the courts. Just because you think the constitution says something doesn’t mean a Democratic appointed judge will.

          You are just trolling here.

          1. Obama’s attempt to attack Libya without congressional authorization puts the lie to that. The courts stopped him cold when he attempted to ignore the constitution and the war powers act.

        2. Even if what you were saying was true, when you suggested that socialist policies are too impractical to implemented, you weren’t talking about the politics. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have mentioned how they won’t be implemented even if they’re voted in.

          That’s exactly what happened with ObamaCare–and because more socialist programs are even worse isn’t much of an argument either. The fact is that every socialist policy that has ever been implemented was implemented despite being impractical.

          If the Drug War taught us anything, it’s that no policy will ever be so expensive, so destructive, and so impractical that the government won’t implement it and persist in executing for generations.

          1. If the Drug War taught us anything, it’s that no policy will ever be so expensive, so destructive, and so impractical that it won’t be supported by both parties.

        3. Venezuela has a dictatorship that arose from an actual coup.

          1. Actually, they have a duly elected socialist government. That government has done a lot to make sure that all subsequent elections go their way, but they were originally elected and remain elected.

            There was also an attempted coup last year….. against that government. It failed.

            And back in 2002. It also failed.

            And way back in the 90’s, Chavez attempted to take over via coup. He failed. Then he got elected and took over the democratic way.

            1. The socialist government was popular with a majority of voting Venezuelans before the economy started tanking at a much greater rate under Maduro.

              It was a legitimately popular government, but it isn’t anymore. Maduro isn’t maintaining power by way of his popularity anymore.

    3. “it is a way to undo the last election”

      Right in spirit, but the election was four years ago. The Democrats are, of course, using the hearings to try to influence voters in the 2020 election.

      However, that the impeachment inquiries are political doesn’t preclude the possibility of them digging up real dirt.

      1. Mike Laursen
        November.8.2019 at 7:16 pm
        “…However, that the impeachment inquiries are political doesn’t preclude the possibility of them digging up real dirt.”

        So you approve of fishing expeditions for political purposes?
        Tell us again about your fantasy that the Trump/Ukraine discussions were something ‘unethical’.
        Or just admit that you are a not real bright hypocrite busted once more.

        1. Well, only if they have subpoena power and are run by Democrats.

          Politicians pulling bank records of other politicians and coercing people to lie to implicate political rivals is fine and dandy if you have the right letter after your name.

          Somehow I think it would be national news if a Republican had won a state Attorney General’s office on a promise that he would use that office to “get Obama, Obama’s family and anyone close to Obama”. But due to partisanship, we don’t seem to be worried about the NY AG corrupting the office for political purposes.

          Imagine for just a moment that Trump does something big that impacts a major multinational corporation. And then 5 minutes after he leaves office, that multinational drops $60 million in his lap. Do you think folks would be OK with that?

          Well, Obama pushed “net neutrality” really hard. The biggest proponent of “net neutrality” as written was Netflix. Because they wanted carriers to have to carry their content without charge – even as Netflix content became more than half of all internet traffic.

          And lo and behold, Netflix dropped a $60 million dollar deal in Obama’s lap to make political content for their platform.

          And we are so corrupted that nobody even sees this as some potential quid pro quo.

          Remember the outrage when Gingrich got a book advance? This, for a guy who actually had sold quite a few books and was definitely in a position to sell loads of copies of his next book? Yeah, times have definitely changed.

          The last 2 democrat presidents have entered public service as basically upper middle class working families with no wealth to speak of. And they have left government service with hundreds of millions of dollars.

          Someone has to notice that this might be a problem at some point, don’t they?

    4. “President Pence would be entertaining. 2020 would suddenly be even more a circus.”

      It is November of 2019. The House isn’t even close to voting on any articles of impeachment. The idea that there is going to be any vote on impeachment in the Senate before the next general election is absurd.

      Yet people persist in this delusion.

  6. Giuliani Engaged in ‘Campaign of Lies’

    And then Giuliani looks at the camera and says, “I am lying.”

    1. And the ensuing paradox stops time altogether.

  7. “But the testimony of William B. Taylor, the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Ukraine, sheds some light on that”

    His evidence was an article by the NY Times. Did he speak to anybody involved? Of course not.

  8. Let’s keep in mind that lobbyists for Burisma were writing to the State Dept complaining about the corruption investigation in Ukraine about a month before Biden did a quid pro quo to get the prosecutor fired.

    This is shown via emails and the prosecutors sworn statement.

    1. Who are you going to believe? Some sub-70 IQ moron who goes by “Billy” as a grown ass man, or your lying evidence?

  9. Kent added that he wasn’t certain what the deal hinged on. But the testimony of William B. Taylor, the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Ukraine, sheds some light on that: In a transcript released Wednesday, he told investigators that it was his “clear understanding” that Ukraine would not receive security aid “until the President committed to pursue the investigation.”

    Kay:

    ZELDIN: An Ambassador can be recalled by the
    President at any time with or without cause, correct?
    AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: I’m sure that’s — yes.
    ZELDIN: A lot of claims in your opening statement
    are without firsthand knowledge, and I just — I wanted to
    ask about one of them. So, in your opening statement, you
    reference Burisma five times. You reference Biden twice.
    One of those references of Biden was just a reference to the
    July 25th call. The other reference was on page L2 of
    paragraph 3. And so, on September 7th, Ambassador Sondland
    has a call with the President, according to a conversation
    that you had with Tim Morrison, right?
    AMBASSADOR TAYL0R: September 7th. Are we looking at
    the same paragraph?
    MR. ZELDIN: Third paragraph down on page L2.
    AMBASSADOR TAYL0R: Right, in which he described a phone
    conversation with Sondland and President Trump, yes, sir.
    MR. ZELDIN: This is the only reference in your opening
    statement to Biden other than your one reference to the
    July 25th call. And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not
    secondhand. It’s not thirdhand. But i f I understand this
    correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that
    Ambassador Sondland told him that the President told
    Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an
    investigation into Biden?

    I’m good with it.

    1. But i f I understand this
      correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that
      Ambassador Sondland told him that the President told
      Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an
      investigation into Biden?

      That sentence can’t be posted often enough. These stuff is beyond parody.

      1. It’s been confirmed scores of times.

        Talk about digging for the pony…

    2. What, you don’t find that testimony persuasive?

    3. You know what they call hearsay within hearsay within hearsay in the legal profession?

      Dick.

      It is not admissible and it has the evidentiary weight of a UFO sighting. The Senate should wipe their ass with this nonsense in thirty seconds flat.

  10. Why does this matter?

    Did we not already excuse Presidents for commiting perjury to defeat a sexual harassment lawsuit?

    1. And for suborning the perjury of others. I’m sure Monica qualified for the job offers she got around that time because of her talents…

      …though, honestly, I do feel for her. The Clintons screwed that woman over so royally.

      1. though, honestly, I do feel for her. The Clintons screwed that woman over so royally

        Yeah – and she clearly went in as a super-earnest, fresh young intern who really thought these were good people on the right side of history. What a freakin’ rude awakening.

    2. And remember Clapper’s impeachment?

      Wait, he wasn’t even impeached for lying about mass surveillance.

      But the Deep State of which he is/was a part now wants us to get indignant about some alleged foreign shenanigans.

      Were these alleged shenanigans worse than spying on the people then gaslighting us under oath?

      Considering what people have been acquitted of, and what they were never impeached for in the first place, I’d say that if the Deep State and/or Dems want an impeachment, they need to meet a high burden of proof…or else admit they’re applying different standards to elected Republicans who piss off the Deep State.

      1. Were these alleged shenanigans worse than spying on the people then gaslighting us under oath?

        And then admitting under oath that he had lied under oath, and laughing about it?

      2. or else admit they’re applying different standards to elected Republicans who piss off the Deep State.

        Uh…

  11. Good point made by mark Levine (who I really am not a fan of):
    Whistleblower protections are necessary because whistleblowers may face retribution from the establishment.
    Who ever heard of a whistleblower with the weight of the entire establishment media, IC, and power apparatus on their side?
    It’s absurd

    1. Does your definition of “establishment media” include Fox News, does “power apparatus” include the Trump Administration Executive Branch?

      It’s a hard sell to portray the President of the United States as a powerless victim.

      1. Now do the media.

        Separate question:

        Since the whistleblower committed a crime by not disclosing his contacts with Schiff and/or Schiff’s staff in his submission, and since Schiff has demonstrated a clear bias against Trump by fabricating a demonstrably false transcript of the Tump-Zelensky call in an official House committee meeting, why haven’t you called for him to recuse himself from these proceedings?

        1. I just heard about the Schiff contact today, I think, and I think that was from JesseAz. Don’t know a lot of details about it, at least not yet. I do try to check out stories JesseAz and others post links to (if I have time, I was somewhat busy most of the day).

          But it might be a reasonable thing to argue that the whistleblower should do.

          1. I just heard about the Schiff contact today, I think,

            Well clearly you’ve been playing very close, neutral attention. It was an obscure story hardly mentioned.

            I’m not asking about the whistleblower. I’m asking why you aren’t calling for Schiff to recuse himself. That’s your goto answer for Trump on Ukraine. Why doesn’t it apply to a far clearer conflict of interest here?

            1. You make a good point. Perhaps, Schiff should recuse himself.

              I’d like to actually read about the associations between the whistleblower and Schiff. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

              1. And since Schiff is implicated as at least a witness to a potential crime, shouldn’t he be called to testify?

                1. Read about it. The whistleblower approached someone on Schiff’s staff for advice. Schiff heard some information about the complaint before it was filed. Will have to take your word that the whistleblower was required to disclose his contact with the aide, since I didn’t see that in the articles I read.

                  Honestly, I tried to give fair consideration to your seeming assertion that it is a big deal, but doesn’t seem like a big deal. Certainly not equivalent to Trump directly involving himself in trying to get the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on his political rival.

                  1. Mike Laursen
                    November.8.2019 at 10:03 pm
                    “…Honestly, I tried to give fair consideration to your seeming assertion that it is a big deal, but doesn’t seem like a big deal….”

                    You.
                    Are.
                    Full.
                    Of.
                    Shit.
                    You have been inventing hypotheticals, offering hearsay, suggesting that opinion is ‘fact’, all in support of your TDS.
                    Fuck off.

  12. Corruption probes against Biden are bad.

    Corruption probes against Trump are good.

    Am I right comrade?

  13. If there is one thing that all these Democrat operatives have done, it is guarantee that our government comes to a complete stand still when the White House changes parties. From now on, any time a President comes in, they are going to FUCKING CLEAN HOUSE. They will fire every single leader and put in place their own shills.

    When you see opinion pieces in the NYT talking about how people in the White House are actively resisting their boss and sabotaging his presidency; when you see these same people going to Democrats and orchestrating a massive campaign to impeach – these people do not understand what the fuck they have done to the peaceful transfer of power in the US.

    Remember that it was a scandal how the Clinton staff had merely destroyed equipment when leaving the white house? Well now they are leaving moles behind.

    One of the major things Augustus did that preserved the Roman Empire was institute a pervasive bureaucracy. He created professional posts to manage the affairs of government even as leaders changed. This allowed entire arms of the decentralized empire to have continuity as department heads were successively given positions for favor, assassinated and replaced. This was so successful that after Augustus’s death, the empire survived some absolutely terrible Caesars.

    As much as I hate the government in general, it does need its professional class- the people who do their fucking job, regardless of whose portrait is in the lobby of their building. And the #resistance has ensured that the number of professionals remaining after any change of power will henceforth be reduced in half.

    1. The little thing called the Civil Service Act of 1883 and the Reform Act of 1978 would like to have a word. We need to return to a spoils system because right now it’s a one-way ratchet.

      Remember that it was a scandal how the Clinton staff had merely destroyed equipment when leaving the white house? Well now they are leaving moles behind.

      Trump as the Kwisatz Haderach? Well melange was orange…

      This was so successful that after Augustus’s death, the empire survived some absolutely terrible Caesars.

      It also gave rise to the Praetorian Guard. And that is much more seductive than noble, neutral technocrats — I expect there are about 8 of those in the entire country at any point in time versus tens of thousands of the former.

      1. “Trump as the Kwisatz Haderach? Well melange was orange…”

        Man- I totally thought about that scene in the movie and book where Arrakis is transferring to the Atreides from the Harkonnens. But I couldn’t figure out how to get it in there.

        1. Fear is the mind killer.

    2. As much as I hate the government in general, it does need its professional class- the people who do their fucking job, regardless of whose portrait is in the lobby of their building.

      AKA, “The Deep State?”

      If there’s a single Problem, it’s that we’ve gotten into the habit of thinking that the Federal Government needs to weigh in on every issue with a national policy.

      To use a sort of metonym, what’s really going is a sort of cold civil war between California and Texas.

      The result of the push to mash the country together into a single unit and make One Law for All is that the stakes are so high for Texans to not have California’s ways imposed on them and vice-versa, that the two parties have entered an escalating existential struggle where increasingly immoral behavior is justified by the perceived threat of the other side.

      This is symptomatic of the Federal Government having gone way out of its lane, so to speak, and if the lumbering truck is going to run over somebody, by golly you’re going to make sure it’s the other guy.

      The Roman example is a good one, as our government was largely modeled after theirs (the Founding Fathers have pretty much all been reading the freshly-printed Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire while fleshing all of this stuff out).

      We are already at the point where the permanent government persists, and are into the phase where it starts choosing its own leaders. The solution is not to restructure it to raise the stakes of victory even further – it’s to scale back the authority of the Federal Government and reassert State, and even more Local rights.

    3. This allowed entire arms of the decentralized empire to have continuity as department heads were successively given positions for favor, assassinated and replaced. This was so successful that after Augustus’s death, the empire survived some absolutely terrible Caesars.

      Hell, it was so successful, that remnants of it survived, on a reduced scale, even after the western empire came apart.

  14. What a crook! Look at all the GOPers here lapping up every fucking excuse. Pathetic… slurp some more, GOP dicks. Hey, you know what would be good? ID Dear Leader’s whistleblower to see how many death threats he gets from the QAnon followers here at Reason. I’m into math so i’m Curious what the number would be.

    1. So exactly how many times did you visit Epstein’s island?

      1. None. That’s why i’m So appalled at all these Evangelicals that get behind of kiddie-diddler like Dear Leader. I mean, shucks, i’m A libertarian and all but raping a 13 year old girl like Trump did is waaay out-of-bounds for me. I’ll stick to sticking ruffies in the drinks of 19 year olds at the bar, which— i’m Sure even you’ll recognize— is more defensible than anything Trump did.

        1. Is that a “none” none or a Bill Clinton 26 times none?

          1. As a whatabout, bringing up Clinton doesn’t really change the subject considering Trump, Epstein, and Clinton were all in the same social circles.

            1. Mike Laursen
              November.8.2019 at 10:11 pm
              “As a whatabout, bringing up Clinton doesn’t really change the subject considering Trump, Epstein, and Clinton were all in the same social circles.”

              Nice try at a smear:
              “Bill Clinton took 26 flights on Epstein’s jet, frequently ditched Secret Service”
              https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2019/07/bill-clinton-took-26-flights-on-epsteins-jet-frequently-ditched-secret-service

              1. “In 1997, now-President Trump flew on a plane belonging to jet-setting financier Jeffrey Epstein, joining the recently accused child sex trafficker on a trip from Palm Beach, Florida, to Newark, New Jersey, court documents unsealed Friday revealed. ”
                https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-epstein-flight-logs-show-trump-flew-on-his-plane-in-1997
                Try again when your TDS has subsided, asshole.

                1. Once. A short trip.

                  Trump also banned Epstein from his club for chatting up young girls.

        2. Hahaha – so making up collusion, making up quid-pro-quo is not enough. You have to make up child rape accusations against the one wealthy, famous man who is known to have kicked Epstein out of his establishment for chatting up young girls.

  15. I’m saying this now:
    If Trump wins again and anyone asks how this was possible there is a dude named Eric. He is the one responsible. We finally have a person to blame a Trump win on. We can all get back to acting live civilized human beings.

  16. Let me add this:

    De Oppresso Liber
    November.8.2019 at 5:25 pm
    “Criminal points gun at bank teller and demands money.”

    Here’s what you and the pathetic lot of you have:
    ‘Somebody who talked with somebody said…’
    Hearsay.
    ‘Well, a guy who was there thinks…’
    Opinion.
    ‘Anyone who doesn’t think this…’
    Poisoning the well.
    And if any of it was true, there is nothing there which is not within the duties of POTUS besides.
    Even IF you are correct in your fantasies, it doesn’t matter. You still lose, just like you did in November 2016.
    Boo, hoo, losers.

    1. Yep. And that is only the start of the problems with the insane, TDS-fuelled rants against Trump in these articles, in the pretend-impeachment, on the alphabet networks of left-wing “news” organisations.

  17. And this:

    “But i f I understand this
    correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that
    Ambassador Sondland told him that the President told
    Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an
    investigation into Biden?”‘

    I have a strong suspicion that none of the TDS victims here ever heard of CSICOP, nor read any of the literature; hint, bullshit was called for bullshit.
    What the lot of you have was labeled as “FOAF”; friend-of-a-friend.
    Suffice to say, unless you come up with better and also show *why* it is problematic, you are all…
    Full.
    Of.
    Shit.

  18. Biden was Obama’s stooge when theUS organized the coup ousting the democratically elected pro Russian president. Biden and his son are still meddling there.

    There is nothing wrong with Trump withholding military aid to expose corruption.

    In this case Trumps selfish desires simply align with altruism.

    1. It’s like bad guys killing each other in rival gangs.

      I say give them all guns.

    2. And so, it is standard practice in ethical government, when your selfish interests align with some act of governance you are involved in, to recuse yourself from personal involvement.

      The opposite of having your personal lawyer get involved in Ukrainian diplomacy and requesting investigations personally that could be requested by an independent investigator.

      If you are serious about the investigation, you would not risk its success by opening it up to charges of political gain (as is happening now).

      1. Congratulations, “mike”, you’ve received a new talking point.
        The fact remains that your opinion is less than worthless.
        Swallow a bullet

      2. When your personal interest happen to align with an altruistic objective, the charges of political gain are irrelevant and ignore altruism, solely for political gain.

        1. If due process exists, the burden of proof is on those who accuse that exposing Biden’s corruption with the puppet Ukrainian government was not altruistic.

          1. By skipping straight to asking another country to investigate the Bidens, do you believe that is due process for the Bidens? When were they presented with the charges against them, given a chance to involve their lawyers, and given a chance to face their accusers? Seems it would go both ways.

            1. When you’re a crook, you have to expect that the justice system is investigating and coming for you.

              Due process simply means that you will face no punishment until the charges against you are proven in court.

              1. Giving crooks additional warning is not due process.

              2. ”Due process simply means that you will face no punishment until the charges against you are proven in court.”

                By that definition of due process, Trump’s due process rights haven’t been violated yet. They might be violated in an upcoming phase of the impeachment process but not during the initial inquiry.

                1. Correct. I never suggested that Trumps due process rights had been violated. Yet.

            2. Trump asked for an investigation. As I read it he was genuinely asking for Ukrainian investigators to seek the truth, not any particular outcome. If the truth is (as it appears) that Biden abused his power then that should be known.

              1. Hard to say what he wanted, or if he would have been satisfied if the investigation hadn’t yielded the results he wished for.

                By some accounts, all he really cared was the *announcement* of an investigation, presumably to embarrass Joe Biden politically.

      3. “And so, it is standard practice in ethical government, when your selfish interests align with some act of governance you are involved in, to recuse yourself from personal involvement.”

        So you are saying that Biden should not have had any say in the matter of the US demanding the prosecutor be fired, and that Trump was quite right to demand an investigation.

        1. Joe Biden was involved in foreign diplomacy with the Ukraine so it reeks of corruption that his son ended up with a position on the board of Burisma.

  19. http://www.zerohedge.com/political/nunes-demands-schiff-testify-after-lying-about-whistleblower-contact

    A short list of who Republicans should subpoena (regardless of whether the Ds agree to it or not – it’s not like this is a legitimate proceeding anyway):

    Joe and Hunter Biden
    Devon Archer and John Kerry’s stepson
    Adam Schiff
    All of Adam Schiff’s staffers
    Eric Ciaramella
    James Clapper
    John Brennan
    Victoria Nuland
    Susan Rice
    Alexandra Chalupa
    Barack Obama

    1. Serious question (I don’t know the answer): Can the Senate start their own investigations into Burisma/the Bidens?

      I mean by that an investigation that is not part of any impeachment proceedings, but as part of some duty of the Senate. For example: as Vice President, Joe Biden was technically a member of the Senate. Perhaps the ethics committee could investigate him under some justification. I suppose that would be too much of a stretch since he’s not the veep anymore.

  20. http://saraacarter.com/whistleblower-and-dnc-contractor-visited-obama-wh-it-must-be-investigated/

    The headline doesn’t do this article justice, as there are so many more connections made in it.
    “Tip of the iceberg”

  21. What’s funny is leftists think I CARE that the Trump Administration DIDN’T send my tax-money to Ukraine. Who really gives a flying-fetch about why or that he want’s Biden investigated for investigating him.

    The less politically globalist the USA is – the better. Maybe we can use that “saved” money and get that wall built.

    1. They did send the money. Nobody saved anything.

      It was a weapons deal.

  22. There is an aspect to this that I wonder about. Rudy Guiliani is a private citizen, an attorney of the POTUS. Let’s assume he acted as a personal emissary of POTUS Trump. Meaning, Mr. Guiliani conveys messages directly from POTUS Trump to foreign leaders (in this case, Ukraine).

    The question(s) are:

    Is the use of a personal emissary actually wrong?

    Do we want a POTUS to have the ability to convey messages to foreign countries outside of public channels?

    1. BIgger question:

      Do we want a government where POTUS feels that he cannot trust the State Department, FBI and CIA to faithfully convey his messages and policies to a foreign country?

      Because the Ukraine thing has definitely proven that there are people high in State that are not working for POTUS, and are actively attempting to sabotage him.

      And if the Ukrainian prosecutor who guy fired is to be believed (he may not be actually believable), the CIA was directly involved in creating the “everyone in the world wants this guy gone” narrative.

      And then you’ve got this whole “Clinton-Ukraine” thing that everyone is just ignoring.

      It really is shocking when a Giant Douche like Trump is actually the least corrupt guy in town.

      Absent all of this, I never would have suspected that career bureaucrats would be so deeply corrupted. They would have just kept on doing their little thing in the dark. Prior to this, I thought that the “corruption” of Washington was the revolving door, where people traded on their connections to get jobs pimping for big companies and other special interests. I had no idea it was as deep and naked as this.

      1. Agree with your points, Cyto. Your first question is a very good one. Because it begs the solution: Break the administrative state and bring it to heel.

        It is the absolute arrogance of these bureaucrats I find most frightening. That came though in their testimony. The POTUS decides foreign policy. 100% no debate. He had to go before the American people to get their vote, and was elected. The bureaucrats were not elected, and are not accountable to the people. This is a huge problem. I think the judiciary will eventually deal with the separation of powers issues this situation (an administrative bureaucracy that legislates arbitrarily) has now brought on.

        I think the answers to my questions are: No, and yes.

      2. It may be that there is a “deep state” that is aligned with Team Blue, but it’s hard to separate that from another dynamic that is going on.

        Many of these career bureaucrats have been around for decades, working with both Democratic and Republican administrations. From some of the accounts that are coming out in the impeachment inquiry, it is clear that many of them are having a strong reaction to Trump’s impulsiveness, lack of erudition (well, heck, not reading memos or listening during briefings), lack of discretion (you never know when he’s going to tweet about some sensitive diplomatic matter), not necessarily his being a Republican.

        Forget the deep state, if you come in as the head of an entrenched, career bureaucracy and you don’t like to read memos, that bureaucracy will have a strong immune reaction to your presence.

    2. In foreign diplomacy, there can be scenarios where two countries aren’t friendly and it makes sense to enlist a mutually-respected party to help communication between the two.

      In this situation, the Ukraine and U.S. have a fairly friendly relationship, so normal diplomatic channels, our state department talking with their state department, should have been able to handle all communications. There was no good reason for Giuliani to be involved.

      When it would be very clearly wrong would be if Trump ever tries to invoke attorney-client privilege. If he does that, it would be clear he is trying to use Guiliani as a diplomat and as a personal lawyer.

  23. Am I allowed to point out the deep, deep irony of a claimed libertarian basing his entire argument on the truth of vague testimony of government bureaucrats … in order to protect Joe Biden of all people from scrutiny.

    Let alone that one of them is claiming he perjured himself already, and that almost all of the “evidence” is actually just them stating their own opinion and reading of the situation, without saying how they formed those opinions and without any apparent connection to the President.

    1. Well, we do know how one of those faceless bureaucrats formed their opinion. When asked, they testified that they read it in the New York Times.

    2. It seems to be putting words into Binion’s mouth if you are implying that Binion supports protecting Joe Biden from scrutiny.

  24. This last couple of years has underscored something strange. People ignore the blindingly obvious.

    We’ve had several situations where people go digging for arcane details and ignore the obvious.

    First was the “My wires are tapped” moment. When Trump’s crazy assertion that his phones were being tapped was actually shown to be true, the nation did not react with outrage. That is stunning. What is more stunning – nobody noticed the forest, everyone ran looking for trees. BIg picture moment: The justification for tapping his phones was that they had “intel” that the Russians were trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign. So they tapped his phones. But did not inform anyone in the Trump campaign.

    Ok, there was your big moment. That revealed everything. You don’t need to know anything else….. You don’t start investigating Trump and trying to spy on Trump and trying to prosecute people around Trump to stop Russians from getting to Trump. You inform Trump and work with Trump to catch the Russian agents. The fact that this didn’t happen is the smoking gun. You don’t need anything else.

    Similarly, people are crowing back and forth about Biden not being corrupt and there is no proof and the whole thing is “debunked”.

    You don’t need to hear any of that. Hunter Biden got a job in Ukraine making millions for absolutely no reason. And his dad was point man on Ukrainian policy. That’s the smoking gun. You don’t need to know what those millions bought. You can just look at the board of Burisma and all of those political sycophants and you know…. they are buying something. You should not have needed to hear Biden bragging about strong-arming the Ukrainian government. That’s simply details. The big picture is that Burisma was paying a bunch of wester politicos. But we can’t see that big picture for some reason.

    We have a real problem here. Sure, the media is playing partisan politics and spinning things… but everyone else has a brain too. We all should be able to come to our own conclusions. And yet, even very smart and ostensibly non-partisan folk cannot seem to grasp the obvious.

    1. And if you are a Democrat partisan, in the Biden case, I think the partisan blinders are actually hurting the cause. Pretending that Biden was pure as the driven snow and that any allegation against him is corrupt and dirty politics just means that nobody is going to listen when you claim that Trump went beyond what is appropriate for the office. Once you lie about the nut of the story, people are going to ignore the rest of your tale.

    2. My ‘Big Picture’ conclusion: There are people, bureaucratic holdovers from the last administration, and more than a few officials who must be held to account for their malignant actions.

      We can deal with a venal House via the ballot box in 2020.

      What I am less certain about is whether dealing with the entrenched bureaucracy and the former officials will be meaningfully addressed.

      1. Hunter Biden/Burisma and other possible corruption probably won’t be addressed. The Obama Administration has been gone for four years and the trail is now cold.

    3. You would think the Democrats would not want to keep calling public attention to:
      (a) embarrassing internal DNC politics were revealed when the DNC servers were hacked;
      (b) Hunter Biden landed a cushy board position in the Ukraine that he had absolutely no qualifications for.

      Yet, they have centered both their big probes against Trump around those two matters, keeping both embarrassments for the Democrats fresh in the minds of voters.

    4. I agree completely. That is a real problem that gets to ‘draining the swamp’. Compounded by the reality that most of Trump’s hires/appointees have been swamp figures.

      I really don’t know whether the conclusion is that Trump never actually gave a damn about getting rid of the swamp (ie it was just an applause line for his audience) or whether he is blindingly incompetent as an executive (where the swamp is gonna put together and execute the plans for getting rid of the swamp).

      But I can’t see a third conclusion here. At any rate – his window for making that sort of change now is closed. Which is a shame cuz that’s one of the few parts of his campaigning that I fully agreed with.

Please to post comments