Pentagon Official Testifies That Withholding Ukraine Aid May Have Been Unlawful

Laura Cooper told congressional investigators that legally freezing aid requires Trump to notify Congress.


House Democrats on Monday released the impeachment inquiry transcript of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, who testified that President Donald Trump subverted legal protocol this summer when he froze a congressionally authorized $400 million military aid package to Ukraine without informing Congress.

Cooper, who appeared before investigators on October 23, is responsible for shoring up the U.S. relationship with Ukraine amidst Russian aggression. Her role includes helping disburse aid funding to the country.

The Pentagon official testified that her department received guidance to hold the aid in mid-July, 2019. It "was a source of concern," she said, according to the transcript.

At a July 26 meeting, the day following Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Cooper said that "it was stated very clearly" that the interruption of aid was related to Trump's desire for a corruption investigation, and that "deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion."

There were "only two legally available options" to freeze the aid, she testified: the Department of Defense needed to complete "a reprogramming action," or Trump had to submit a rescission notice to Congress. In either case, congressional notification is necessary, which "did not occur."

The impeachment probe is looking into allegations that Trump misused his position to pressure Zelenskiy into publicly undertaking politically-motivated investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his family, as well as whether Ukraine intervened in the 2016 U.S. election in order to assist former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

On August 20, Cooper met with former special envoy Kurt Volker, who she says detailed "an effort that he was engaged in to see if there was a statement that the government of Ukraine would make that would somehow disavow any interference in U.S. elections and would commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference." According to Cooper's account, Volker wanted Ukrainian officials to publicly announce the desired anti-corruption investigation in exchange for military aid to the country.

"The context for the discussion that I had with Ambassador Volker," Cooper continued, "related specifically to the path that he was pursuing to lift the hold would be to get them to make this statement."

Cooper also testified that, by mid-August, it was clear that "there were Ukrainians who knew about this." That statement contradicts claims made by Trump that Ukraine's government was not aware of the hold-up until later in the month, when they learned it from publicly available news reports.

"Neither he (Taylor) or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can't have a quid pro quo with no quo," Trump tweeted on October 23, quoting Rep. John Ratcliffe's (R–Texas) appearance on Fox and Friends.

Cooper's deposition originally made headlines after a group of Republicans stormed the space in protest of the closed-door hearings, delaying her testimony by five hours.

NEXT: In Hong Kong, Police Shot a Man While Protesters Set Another on Fire

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shockingly, no actual law was cited.

    Billy, so you know what “may” means? Do you think opinions are evidence?

    What is more interesting that the only ex NSC official Fiona Hill couldnt remember the name to was Eric Ciaramella. She verbally stated she was upset with that lone of questioning too.

    1. In the testimony, the Impoundment Control Act was cited, which requires Congressional notification of temporarily or permanently withheld funds.

      1. Yes. It is an execution of funds. It is not a criminal citation. The impoundment act was passed by Congress but has never been officially challenged. Likewise the funds were appropriated.

        The impoundment act does not require the president to release funds immediately.

        You will also see that Cooper admits to not being a legal expert below.

      2. Trumpism has indoctrinated millions of Americans who doubt or outright reject reality, the very existence of empirical fact. Instead, they accept as truth the shriekings of one man whose reputation for corruption and mendacity stretches back to the 1970s — a man who, among other horrendous deeds, just admitted in court that he stole $2.8 million from military veterans, of all people. Defying all things commonsensical, this is their guy, their Chosen One, and they’re willing to burn everything down in defense of this clown. 

        1. The author who claimed he store “2.8 million” issued a correction. It never happened. Perhaps you should issue a correction and find a new instance of mendacity.

        2. I’m not sure. In 2016, millions of Americans held their nose and pulled the lever for Trump because Hillary was even worse.

          To be a hardcore Trumpist one has to put in time reading alt-right news, paying attention to his tweets, thinking up apologies for his plainly atrocious behavior. Maybe I just don’t want to believe there are millions of them.

          Being a Trumpist is the mirror image of being a hardcore progressive. It was all laid out in “The True Believer” years ago: extreme believers have more in common with each other than they have with normal people, who largely ignore politics and go on with their private lives.

          1. Wow, “mike”
            You need a therapist.
            Unintelligent and resentful is no way to go through life

        3. DJT was running against Mother Teresa in 2016? The “corruption and mendacity” of Madame Not-the-President Clinton makes him look like a piker. Remember she was held in low regard by , chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate inquiry. She wanted to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the proceedings – hmm. “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”… And once Durham finished his investigation, it may be that she and the Obama Administration have out-Nixoned Nixon himself. But by all means, let’s impeach DJT for some sloppy foreign policy.

          1. The thing that still boggles my mind about Trump vs. Hillary is that in a country of 300 million, the “best” candidates we could come up with were these two — from the same damned social circle. Washington, D.C. is really, really inbred.

            Which makes one wonder how Trump convinced voters he was an outsider, swamp drainer.

            A pox on both major parties.

            1. No argument here. Politics, the Media and Education is where Atlas has shrugged in the US.

              1. Even though the two major parties are as dysfunctional as they have ever been right now, I still don’t think the Libertarian Party has much appeal to the voters or will pick up many votes.

                If someone were to start a new party that branded itself as being about being “the adult in the room”; responsible moderate governance; not really shrinking or expanding the current functions of government, but just running it competently; I think they’d do well.

                Ah, heck. If they got themselves elected, they’d be seduced by power, too.

                1. You think you represent “the adult in the room”?
                  Please, keep posting.
                  It confirms your complete lack of credibility.

            2. At least in Clinton’s case, you have to be patently naive to not recognize there was manipulation involved on the democratic primary side. When, in any other election in which there was no incumbent has there been an example (for any mainstream party) where only a single candidate threw their hat into the ring? Was she really the only democrat interested in being President? It was only when people started to realize how shady that looked and started to worry that it might create to much of an opening for the Greens that they allowed the craziest, most unelectable challenger they could find – and he still nearly beat her.

              Plain and simple, the Clinton’s owned or had dirt on everyone and it was ‘her’ year. No messiah was going to steal it from her this time.

              As for Trump – yeah, got no idea how that made it through the primaries.

              1. Trump was surprised as anybody that he won the nomination, and the Presidency.

    2. Not shockingly, another bootlicker has yet another excuse.

      1. Yea…
        The only bootlickers here are those going all in on the side of the Establishment State

      2. True. Lefty bootlickers make up any excuse to stop Trump.

        America is aware.

    3. By the way, the New York Times has let slip that Colonel Alexander Vindman advised foreign governments on how to subvert and obstruct the foreign policy of the US government.

      Meet Alexander Vindman, the Colonel Who Testified on Trump’s Phone Call – The New York Times

      His heritage gave Colonel Vindman, who is fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian, unique insight into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign; on numerous occasions, Ukrainian officials sought him out for advice about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani.

      1. Giuliani = the foreign policy of the US government?

        1. Guiliani = thehand picked frontman for dealing with this issue, hand picked by the man whom the Constitution invests all executive power in, including the executive power to conduct diplomacy.

          1. It’s curious that you just wrote about Trump, “the man whom the Constitution invests all executive power in, including the executive power to conduct diplomacy” while Agammamon wrote below: “No, according to you, the *OMB* did not follow it. Also, ‘the administration’ is not Trump and the OMB is not ‘the administration’.”

            One paints a picture of a highly-effective leader and the other paints a picture of a guy who can’t be held accountable for everything his administration does.

            1. “The buck stops here.” Trump is absolutely ultimately responsible for the actions taken by his administration. It does not follow that he is personally responsible for all the actions taken by actors within his administration.

          2. That’s frightening, considering how incompetent Guiliani is at lawyering.

            1. Guiliani was incompetent at mayoring too. Didnt stop New Yorkers from electing him.

              1. And Trump is a New Yorker. Well, officially was, as of about a week ago.

              2. As much as I dislike Ghouliani, he turned the city from a crime infested shithole to a Disney infested shithole. He really did clean up the city.

                If you want incompetent mayoring, check out our current guy.

                1. “Disney infested shithole” — that was funny!

    4. “In either case, congressional notification is needed…” They didn’t cite the exact law, but it is disingenuous to say that the article didn’t address it at all.

      1. Not really. They just restated the headline.

        1. Most probably it was the other way around. Write the blog post then the title.

    5. Jesse, you “may” be retarded.

      1. It’s fascinating to see what triggers you.

    6. +1000000

  2. I thought “rescission” meant cancelling the aid altogether, not simply delaying it.

    1. Most aid is delayed. It goes through various checks. It was stated in August that the money was going through normal reviews..

      Democrats seem to want to make it a crime to not cut a check on appropriated funds the day after an appropriation bill is passed. Problem is that is never how it works. You can find instances from Obama’s administration that had delayed funds as well. It is common.

      1. You can find instances from Obama’s administration that had delayed funds as well. It is common.

        I seem to recall this one time when Obama’s VP threatened to withhold funds from a foreign country unless they fired a certain government official. The details of that event are kinda hazy but I think if you googled it you might find something about it. I wouldn’t suggest googling “quid pro quo”, though, because you ain’t gonna find it that way.

        1. Or even withholding appropriated military funds to Israel…

          Weird how nobody gave 2 shits then.

          1. because he followed the law?

          2. Orange man bad Trumps every historical reference that contradicts the narrative of

        2. And what of the funds sent to Iran (not to mention the POW 5 for 1 exchange where the US got back a traitor)?
          I may be wrong, but didn’t congress pass a bill that those funds were to go to victims of Iranian terrorism?
          Might’ve been a court ruling, or court ruling followed by legislation…

          1. Ironic, not one of these NSC creatures were uncomfortable about laundering the Iranian funds into currency. Sorry, not sorry Congress was pretty much the attitude.

      2. The money had gone through the reviews and was forwarded to the OMB for disbursement. OMB held it, they do not have the legal power to do that without consulting Congress.

        They want the law followed. The administration did not follow it.

        1. Can you tell us which section of which law?

        2. No, according to you, the *OMB* did not follow it. Also, ‘the administration’ is not Trump and the OMB is not ‘the administration’.

          1. Who is the chief executive of the Trump administration?

            1. The administration consists of only a chief executive, and nothing else! HeRp deep Little Jeffy.

              1. It is a fairly weak argument on Jeff’s part.

                1. Saying Trump can’t be responsible for everything his administration does is a convenient way of excusing anything he does. It’s not like some bureaucrat at the OMB woke up one day and decided to delay the aid to Ukraine.

                  Someone gave them orders to delay the aid. If not Trump personally, someone on the White House staff.

                  1. Well it worked pretty well for Obama, and his supporters didn’t seem to mind . Hell Obama even tried to protect holder, so why can’t Trump blame someone else.

                    1. Whataboutism would work better if you were debating with an Obama supporter.

                    2. And lying would work better if you could do anything other than parrot progressive talking points

                    3. It’s stupid I have to reply to myself. Good job reason. Listen Laursen I don’t know if your some kind of troll, sock puppet or relatively newer cause seem to shitpost alot. but what heinous thing did Trump do. What terrible thing means he needs to have impeachment brought against him. Show the evidence. Because at worst Trump looks like Hillary Clinton and her llittle email scandal if any of this secretive bullshit “well my sister’s boyfriends nieces ex lovers hairdresser” told me Trump is bad man. And we all know how Hillary Clinton is in jail for her crime. So why are you so hard up for impeachment when the other side is just as bad if not worse.

                  2. “Saying Trump can’t be responsible for everything his administration does is a convenient way of excusing anything he does. It’s not like some bureaucrat at the OMB woke up one day and decided to delay the aid to Ukraine.”

                    So Obama hassled conservative groups in 2012? Not the IRS…Obama personally?

        3. Democrats demanding rules be followed while in the same breath seething that the people right to keep and bear Arms is not destroyed via pen and phone.

    2. Yes, that’s what Cooper was saying: a rescission notice didn’t make sense to her. The other option was “reprogramming”.

      1. Considering she’s not qualified and admits as much, all you can say she did was waste her breath.

  3. What’s Billy going to write about once the impeachment process ends?

    1. Open borders. He makes Shikha seem rational.

    2. Dude, its going to be 2030, Trump will have been out of office for 6 years, and the Democrats will still be trying to impeach him.

      ‘But it counts retroactively!!11!’

      1. Speaking of which, say that an investigation were to find that Joe Biden used his influence as Vice President to land his son a job. What would that news lead to — Biden’s impeachment for an office he no longer holds?

        1. No. It’s just corruption, not criminality. So, Biden gets off, except his chances of getting the nomination are drastically reduced- which may have been part of the plan. Two birds with one stone, ie impeachment of Orange Man Bad, and getting a weak contender out of the race, or instead, airing Dirty Joe’s dirty laundry early so that it’s old news by the election.

          1. Wait, whose plan are you talking about?

            1. Ima guess emails eventually surface showing collusion between the Warren campaign, the DNC, big donors, and, of course, HRC 😉

              1. Ah, I see what you were getting at.

                The thing I really wonder about is why I haven’t heard anyone saying that it is Chelsea’s turn.

            2. Bloombergs?

  4. Cooper said that on Aug. 20, Volker met with her — and the idea of mentioning the Bidens apparently didn’t come up.

    “So in that meeting he did mention something to me that, you know, was the first about somehow an effort that he was engaged in to see if there was a statement that the government of Ukraine would make that would somehow disavow any interference in U.S. elections and would commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference,” Cooper said. “And that was about as specific as it got.”

    Weird. No mention of Biden. Just about the 2016 elections.

  5. “I’m not an expert on the law, but in that meeting immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion because there was broad understanding in the meeting that the funding — the State Department funding related to an earmark for Ukraine and that the DOD funding was specific to Ukraine security assistance,” Cooper testified.

    Thank god we have billy telling us what a non legal expert thinks of the law.

    1. I can’t wait until they have Robert DeNiro and Rob Reiner come in to testify about what they think the law is.

  6. “It could have been my inference, yes, a very strong inference that there was some knowledge on the part of the Ukrainians,” Cooper testified.

    So opinion. Great. Glad we had this conversation. Now on to actual evidence.

  7. I’d really Really REALLY like to see some effort put into describing the EXACT schedule set out by law for disbursing the foreign aid, and EXACTLY how Trump delayed this schedule.

    I don’t know these things. Does the foreign aid law say, for instance, “during fiscal year 2019”, or “by January1st, 2019”, or “one twelfth on the first of each month of fiscal year 2019”?

    These things matter. That no one reports them makes me mighty suspicious. Far as I can tell, the only allegation is that he “delayed” it by a few days, or over a weekend, or threatened to, but nothing has any details and there is no way to tell.

    1. You want actual facts in your “journalism”? How cute.

    2. That no one reports them makes me mighty suspicious.

      There’s a *lot* of non-reporting going on.

      *** waits for “blockbuster” public testimony ***


      The OMB delayed the aid for months without notifying Congress. That is not within their legal powers and is a violation of the law.

      1. First you have to smart enough to realize that the impoundment deadline was sept 30th. Ukraine got their money prior to that date.

        Second youd have to be smart enough to realize the Impoundment law has never actually been settled.

        Then youd have to be smart enough to know impoundment has never been truly enforced by congress as many delays in aid can be shown in prior administrations

        1. That was not the deadline for following the law. That was the deadline for the funds expiring and being unavailable.

          Once DoD and State approved the funding, the OMB was responsible for executing it promptly or notifying Congress. They didn’t, and are not sharing evidence to show whether this unlawful act originated with the President or not.

          You’re link was about uncommitted funds. Not the issue here. Try again, smartie.

        2. From your link:
          “Under the ICA, the President must immediately notify both houses of Congress when taking either a rescission or a deferral action so that Congress can respond. The existence and timing of this notice is key.”

          He did not notify Congress of either rescission or deferral, therefore he didn’t follow the law. Did you read your link?

          1. 45 days.

            You’re wrong on the law.

            1. 45 days is the time that Congress has to responded.

              And OMB held it from June to September without notification.

              It was more than 45 days.

      2. And you realize your own link says it is unclear that impoundment laws were violated right? State no, defense a maybe. Did you even read your own link?

      3. And from your link…

        In this instance, if OMB was merely conducting a budget audit to ensure Ukrainian aid was appropriately apportioned, these actions would have been within its mandate. Furthermore, OMB would have had a plausible argument that the ICA, 2 U.S.C. 683(a), allows the office to delay the Defense Department’s aid in order to determine how it should be apportioned.

        You really should read your links before destroying your arguments.

        1. The evidence is clear that they were not saying that it was being delayed due to apportionment.

          It was to provide political favors.

          1. “The evidence is clear that they were not saying ”

            That’s just you saying that you think that is how it reads. So, worth basically nothing.

      4. That IS an interesting link. I am allergic to bureaucratese, and have trouble pretending to care enough to read that, but one thing that caught my eye is that the President may postpone an appropriation for up to 45 days of “continuous session”, which presumably has some specific legal meaning which escapes me; my diagnostics mode immediately kicked in and wondered what happens if that 45 day period starts 30 days from the end of a fiscal year?

        Then I see that the GAO maintains that any withholding which mucks with the timing sufficient to do this (or so I read it) would be an effective line-item veto, and another set of alarm bells went off. I bet there’s zillions of things Presidents can legally do which can have the appearance, or the practical effect, of a line-item veto. Tell the AG to reschedule marijuana as Schedule III — muck with the national parks — zillions of things, I say. What makes this one so much different, when Congress explicitly wrote the law which gives the President 45 days to delay appropriations? The fact that it can be timed to run out the clock at end of Congressional session is a natural outcome, same as in any number of sportsball rules.

        The case gets weaker and weaker. But I thank you for the link.


      The OMB delayed the aid for months without notifying Congress. That is not within their legal powers and is a violation of the law

      1. Lastly youd have to be smart enough to avoid double posting.

        1. JesseAz : Lastly youd (sic) have to be smart enough to avoid double posting.

          God, you’re such a petty asshole. In my own experience of double posting, there was a rare hitch in the website response after I clicked “submit”, and the natural tendency was to hit the button a second time. After you do this a few times, you learn. Someone like you – who struggles to post a well-reasoned argument – should try out a higher standard on what constitutes “smart”

          As to substance, Happy Chandler is correct, while you follow your typical weaseling strategy. You give an example of the Obama Administration slow-walking an appropriations, then whine Obama wasn’t criticized as much.

          But that’s just your “divide & sneer” approach to excusing Trump’s sleaze. DJT is NOT being impeached because he held-up military aid to Ukraine. He faces trial because he did so as part of an extortion shakedown to trade United States favor for personal gain.

          The favor covered multiple areas of U.S. policy, including military aid to a country under invasion, the possibility of a meeting between two country’s leaders, and even who attended the Ukrainian president’s inauguration.

          The extortion shakedown involved an entirely separate foreign policy for Trump’s private benefit alone, involving such gutter trash as Giuliani, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Trump preempted the government where it served his own private ends, but when there was a conflict between U.S. policy goals and Trump personal gain, the latter always came first.

          That personal gain was a demand for fake “show investigations” which Ukraine would be forced to provide (as a country desperate for U.S. support), which would pre-engineered by Trump’s private attorney, and would serve Trump’s reelection campaign.

          That Trump illegally held the aid is just one small part of the picture, as is the White House meeting where Sondland demanded a written commitment from President Zelensky for a public “investigation”, or the transcript itself, with its demand for a “favor” thru investigations of worthless lies like CloudStrike conspiracy gibberish, or the phony Shokin story.

          You like to sneer at each tiny piece, Jesse, but the big picture just gets more clear & ugly with each day’s new evidence. More impeachment-worthy too…..

          1. More impeachment-worthy too…..

            Um….Ok. Call the vote! By all means, please do so.

    5. The deadline was September 30th. That date was barely made.

      The Ukrainians claim that the timing of holding up the funds, after the White House had told Ukrainians it would be delivered in June, caught them by surprise and weakened their negotiations with Russia over prisoner exchanges.

      1. To be more exact, if the funds had been held up three more days the deadline would have been missed.

        1. So they just missed breaking the law?

          Well isn’t that too bad.

          Better luck next time.

          1. But only by 3 days! Literally Hitler!

          2. The point is that until the matter was escalated by being brought to public attention, the Trump administration was on a trajectory to blow the deadline, leaving the Ukraine without the aid. See the part in the Los Angeles Times article below about how there was a bipartisan scramble to make it by the September 30th deadline.

            1. No, the point is the deadline was met, and that you’re engaging in rank speculation.

            2. On a trajectory to do what Obama did multiple times.

              Crime of the Fucking Century.

            3. Just think, if I entered my neighbor’s house, I’m breaking and entering. Going to my own house is BARELY avoiding breaking and entering.

        2. “To be more exact, if the funds had been held up three more days the deadline would have been missed.”

          My…impeach over hypothetical crimes that did not happen. Nice.

    6. It has been reported, but I had to look for it a bit. There were good articles in Defense News and the Los Angeles Times. Don’t have the links handy.

      Good question, by the way!

      1. It’s such a good question that you tell us you found the answer, but you’re just gonna keep it to yourself cuz you’re to lazy to find the link.

      2. My links are “awaiting moderation”, so I’ll post the titles of the articles:

        Los Angeles Times: “Ukraine aid delay sparked bipartisan scrambel to keep millions from expiring”, published 10/14/2019

        Defense News: “Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed”, published 9/25/2019.

        1. Did you read them? What did you learn from reading them in relation to the question?

          Don’t be obtuse if you don’t want others to think you’re Little Jeffy.

        2. Read them. Just more uninformed speculation.

  8. OMG

    I had been saying #TrumpUkraine was tied with #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history. With this explosive development, #TrumpUkraine may have claimed the undisputed first place on that dubious list.

    This. Is. Not. Normal.



    1. Sorry, I’m not convinced this is the real Mr. Buttplug. I’ll need to see at least a few dozen posts about how Obama personally created the strongest 8-year run in US economic history.

      1. Best year of GDP growth for Obama was 2.9%. Best year for the Con Man is 2.9%. Neither can make the case for the “best economy in US history”.

        However Obama did inherit a smoldering wreck in 2009 while Trumpty inherited an already healthy economy in 2017,

        1. Hey bitch, I own you. How fucking stupid do you feel relying on my trick because you were too fucking dumb to protect your name while sockpuppeting

          You sad capital i sporting impostor

        2. Well then GDP growth must not be the ideal measure of economic health. Besides, the real Mr. Buttplug often posted devastating links detailing the abysmal state of the Drumpf economy. Like reports of Sam’s Club closing stores.


          1. What does Miss Obama miss?

  10. Seriously, did Binion lose a dare in the Reason cafeteria?

  11. When the GOP created the “Unitary Executive” for Dumbya they had bypassing Congress in mind for future Republican presidents.

    1. Ehhhhh, still not totally convinced. The real Mr. Buttplug would have worked in a reference to Rush Limbaugh then said PEACE BE UNTO HIM after.

      I think this is still the impostor.


      1. No, I say “Fat Rush -PRAISE BE UNTO HIM”.

        Got to earn cred with the Peanuts here.

        1. Cry because you’re the ersatz plug after I stole your name bitch.

    2. Hey bitch, I own you. How fucking stupid do you feel relying on my trick because you were too fucking dumb to protect your name while sockpuppeting

      You sad capital i sporting impostor.

      1. Go find your own Dizzy Headed GOP Queen almost-VP bitch. Sarah is mine.

        1. Cry all you want faggot, you lost. I’m wearing your fucking scalp because you were too fucking stupid to protect it while you were socking.

          1. Lick Hannity balls more while you service Rush with your hand Peanut.

            1. Everyone saw it. They saw you lose. It’s worse when everyone saw you post the kiddie porn links.

              1. More lies Trumpty Dumpty a few people isn’t everyone.

                All you Trump trash do is lie.

              2. Go get a life Tulpa. Trolling a shitty little board like this full-time is proof you’re a sociopath.

                1. Orange man bad! Suck Rush’s dick! Post kiddie porn!

  12. Ruh roh, shaggy.

    Lev Parnas flips, and it is not looking good for the sees no evil crowd.

    1. Except, we have the transcript.

      Stack as many fucking guys opinions on top of each other and tell people they can’t read, it’ll totally work.

  13. He’s GUILTY yet all the pathetic sycophants here will make up every excuse under the sun to defend him. How about having the smallest modicum of self respect and stop tying yourself to a corrupt con man who made a fool of you?

  14. “[Laura] Cooper, who appeared before investigators on October 23, is responsible for shoring up the U.S. relationship with Ukraine amidst Russian aggression. Her role includes helping disburse aid funding to the country.”

    There is no Russian aggression. The State Dept arranged the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president (while Putin was hosting the Socchi Olympics) using paid demonstrators and snipers who shot at protesters on both sides in order to cause chaos. Russia accepted Crimea back into Russia as most Crimeans had wanted since the Soviet breakup.

    The vile regime in Washington has directly or indirectly caused the maimings and deaths of millions all over the MENA during the past 30yrs – for nothing. 100s still dying every month in Iraq. That’s aggression.

    Of course, one would expect Pentagon parasites like Laura Cooper to accuse Russia of aggression. The Pentagon needs a credible enemy to justify wasting of trillions of taxpayers’ money. But Russia, whose population and GDP are puny in comparison to NATO’s, is not a credible enemy, unless NATO attacks them first. Then it’s nuke time as Russia certainly won’t let US Libyanize them without resorting to the ‘unthinkable’.

    1. What a fun story.

      1. There are some truths in his view of the events.

        1. Quite a bit.
          Look up the emails between McCain and Nuland.
          Has anyone but me been paying attention to what NATO’s been doing the last 20 years?

      2. At least you gave up on pretending not to be a troll.

  15. It started before Trump was elected.

    They were comparing Trump 2016 rallies to the rallies at Nuremberg. Remember that journalist who was going to ruin Breitbart with her absence because they didn’t stick up for her after the Trump campaign . . . never laid a finger on her?

    At one point during election 2016, ENB cited a gang-bang pr0n star who was joining Gloria Allred’s class action suit against Trump–because he once kissed her on the cheek without asking.

    Then they went after him because he supposedly likes to hire prostitutes [sex workers] to pee on him. When that turned out to be bullshit, they used the same dossier to claim Trump was a Russian asset.

    In their minds, I suppose they think that they’re accomplishing something–death by a thousand cuts maybe? All they’re doing is embarrassing themselves further–and it’s showing in the polls.

    A short time before Donald Trump was elected, the Gallup poll that measures Americans’ trust in the media hit a new low of 32%. I maintain, in part due to that data point, that Trump wasn’t elected in 2016 in spite of the coverage. He won in 2016 because the coverage of him was so very bad.

    In the latest poll, Gallup has Americans’ trust in the media falling from 45% to 41%–and that poll was taken before September 26 of 2019–that’s before the Democrats and the mainstream news media started embarrassing themselves in earnest.

    If you’re trying to get Trump reelected by spouting ridiculous bullshit about him, you’re doing a good job. If you really want to hurt President Trump’s chances of being reelected, maybe you should try criticizing some of his policies instead.

    1. The democrats collaborated with the media to push Trump to the front in the primary. We know this because of the hacked email account. Even if you didn’t have that to go on, the way that Trump was getting 50% of the air time in the very crowded debates should have clued you in.

      He was a regular on Today on NBC – a show that has been clearly linked to DNC propaganda on many occasions. (During the Kavanaugh hearings their anchor was at a meeting at Schumer’s penthouse at 2 am the night before the letter with the allegations against him was leaked. Also, the famous pair of interviews with Sandman and the Native “activist” that attempted to smear Sandman and Trump by proxy, etc.)

      Then, when he became the nominee the coverage switched to more than 90% negative. Charles Manson doesn’t get 90% negative coverage. And the attacks were cartoonish, so people got their dander up and really appreciated it when he told the media to go pound sand.

      So I’ll agree with you – their plans to “get Trump” backfired times 1,000.

      I’ll even suggest that had they simply played it straight, not only would he not have been the nominee, but if they had switched to playing it straight after the RNC convention he wouldn’t have beaten Hillary. And if they had played it straight after the election, he might have actually gotten himself impeached.

      But because their allegations have been so over-the-top unfair, a big chunk of the electorate has been pushed over to Trump’s side simply because people know unfair when they see it.

      I have personally probably typed the words “stop making me defend this guy” on this board 100 times. And if a guy who thought Trump was a moron way back when all the leftist hoi-polloi thought he was a genius businessman on The Apprentice can get pushed into taking Trump’s side in an argument, just imagine what is happening to the average Joe Sixpack who really enjoyed him on The Apprentice.

      I 100% agree, if the left had not gone so far beyond anything that could possibly be considered reasonable, Trump would never have been. In their machinations to manipulate the people, they accidentally created Trump supporters out of thin air.

  16. froze a congressionally authorized $400 military aid package to Ukraine

    $400? I don’t think this is about $400. It probably should say $400 million. Maybe the fact that “military” and “million” both begin with the same three letters made it easy to overlook the fact that the word “million” was omitted.

    1. Nah, man, we’re impeaching the President over withholding a single AR from the Ukraine.

      1. The AR should have been married. Being single at his age is unseemly.

        At least it was unseemly in another age.

  17. If Reagan couldn’t be impeached over Iran-Contra, then what the fuck is this? If this is the Congress reasserting it’s prerogatives, then yay! In reality, it is pure partisanship, and bullshit.

    1. Iran-Contra… pbbbbt! Pikers!

      We attacked a Libya and toppled their government without even so much as a note being sent over to congress under the War Powers Act, let alone a declaration of war.

      Using the proceeds of an arms sale to support some rebels? Sheesh…. amateurs….

      1. You left out Ollie “Kilos” North.

        There was a Drug War on. Don’tcha know.

  18. Let me get this straight – we’ve moved from ‘clear quid-pro-quo in exchange for digging up dirt on Biden’ to ‘may have failed to follow the relevant regulation’ as grounds for impeachment? And the Libertarian position is to now support process crimes?

    10 weeks of this being the lead news item and still no smoking gun.
    I’m feeling the same way I did with the Mueller report – at some point it becomes obvious that there isn’t anything there.

  19. I’m confused…. we’re worried about notifying congress now?

    Well, now that I think about it, I suppose that maybe thinking about perhaps not cutting a check for a week actually is more serious than committing acts of war in multiple countries So I can see where this time, notifying congress is serious business.

    1. It wasn’t a week. They delayed the aid for at least four months after initially saying it would be distributed in May. They came within three days of the expiration deadline, and only met it with a rushed bipartisan effort after the phone call news broke and it was discovered the OMB was holding up the funds.

      1. Keep stretching, mike.
        Doesn’t make you look like a resentful neurotic at all…

      2. I see the problem.

        Ukraine MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.