Impeachment

U.S. Diplomat Bill Taylor: It Was 'Crazy' To Freeze Aid to Ukraine 'for Help With a Political Campaign'

GOP House members, meanwhile, continue to push back against witnesses who say Trump broke the rules.

|

American diplomat William B. Taylor, the chargé d'affaires in Ukraine, told congressional investigators during his impeachment inquiry testimony on Wednesday that both a White House meeting and the release of a military aid package to the country were contingent on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy publicly pursuing anti-corruption probes sought by President Donald Trump.

Taylor testified that Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, relayed that "everything" was dependent on Zelenskiy's announcement that he would both investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family, and look into a theory that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 election to benefit former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Taylor also detailed a conversation he had on Friday, November 8, with David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine. Taylor says that Holmes told him he had been privy to a July 26 conversation between Trump and Sondland. On that call, a day after the much-discussed exchange between Zelenskiy and Trump, the president asked the E.U. ambassador where he was with "the investigations." The Ukrainians were "ready to move forward," Sondland allegedly replied.

The ambassador then told Holmes "that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which [Rudy] Giuliani was pressing for," referring to the president's personal lawyer. Holmes is set to testify this Friday.

In Taylor's opening statement, he stressed what he saw as the vital importance of the $400 million in security aid to Ukraine, which was appropriated by Congress to help the Eastern European country fend off Russian military aggression. "It's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Taylor said.

Daniel Goldman, counsel for House Democrats, asked Taylor, who was appointed to be the ambassador of Ukraine under former President George W. Bush, if he had ever experienced another time when aid was blocked over "personal or political interests of the president of the United States."

"No, Mr. Goldman, I have not," Taylor said.

Also testifying was George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, who told investigators that the notion that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Clinton is not substantiated. "It's amply clear" that it was Russia that intervened, he said.

On the subject of Hunter Biden's involvement on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, Kent said he reported his reservations to the office of the Vice President that there might be "the perception of a conflict of interest." When asked about then-Vice President Joe Biden's successful attempt to depose a prosecutor in Ukraine, Kent told Goldman that there is no evidence to support the idea that he did so to assist his son. Trump has accused Biden of intervening to help the younger Biden avoid any potential probe of Burisma, despite the fact that several international agencies lobbied for the prosecutor's removal on corruption accusations.

"To your knowledge is there any factual basis to support [Trump's] allegations?" Goldman asked.

"None whatsoever," Kent replied.

"When Vice President acted in Ukraine, did he act in accordance with official U.S. policy?" Goldman asked.

"He did," Kent said.

House Republicans dismissed the impeachment inquiry, with ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) equating it with a "carefully orchestrated media smear campaign."

In his line of questioning, Steve Castor, counsel for House GOP, sought to characterize allegations of Ukrainian corruption—both during the 2016 election and in Burisma—as valid and worthy of exploration apart from any explicit reward Trump stood to gain. During one exchange, he repeatedly pressed Taylor to admit that he "certainly could appreciate President Trump's concerns" about Ukrainian election interference.

"I don't know the exact nature of President Trump's concerns," Taylor said, adding that he "was surprised by them."

Castor also portrayed Hunter Biden as unqualified for the role he held at Burisma, asking Taylor if he felt he had the proper experience to work at the energy company.

"I believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons in order to promote their business plans," Taylor replied.

When Republican representatives took their respective turns probing the witnesses, they coalesced around two primary points: that Taylor and Kent could have both separately misheard and misunderstood all of their exchanges with those in Trump's circle, and that, since the aid was eventually released without Ukraine investigating Biden, there was a quid—but no quo.

Rep. Mike Turner (R–Ohio) cast the conversations as hearsay, although the statements relayed during testimony on Wednesday would not qualify as such. "If I'm sitting here and I overhear your conversation right in front of me, I have heard it," explained CBS legal analyst Rikki Klieman, "so when I repeat your words this is something I've perceived with my own ears, the same way as if I saw something. So we're getting the legal terms into this mismatched."

Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio)—the combative congressman added to the House Intelligence Committee just last week—emphasized the latter defense, highlighting that no investigations took place before Ukraine's aid was reinstated.

"Those two things didn't happen, so you had to be wrong," he said.

"The other thing that happened when that assistance was on hold," Taylor replied, "was that we shook the confidence in our reliability."

Advertisement

NEXT: San Francisco Activists Are Trying to Stop Business Owner From Converting His Arcade Repair Shop Into a Normal Arcade

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. Why, look who buys into the clown show…

    1. A clown show, sure, but it’s interesting to watch Kent in action.

    2. Just to clarify, Billy,

      “Taylor also detailed a conversation he had on Friday, Nov. 8, with David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine. Taylor says that Holmes told him he had been privy to a July 26 conversation between Trump and Sondland. On that call, a day after the much-discussed exchange between Zelenskiy and Trump, the president asked the E.U. ambassador where he was with “the investigations.” The Ukrainians were “ready to move forward,” Sondland allegedly replied.”

      Taylor is claiming his aide accurately overheard what the OTHER party in a phone conversation he was NOT involved in was saying. So, he heard from his aide who overheard what was said on a phone call involving two other people and, you know, not him.

      You take this seriously?

      1. Taylor ALSO admitted to pressuring the Ukrainian President to not give an interview to CNN stating that an investigation is beginning.

        Why, EXACTLY, would he do that?

        What we have are Deep State denizens pissy that they don’t actually run US foreign policy.

      2. It must be one big frame job. The whole government is in on it. Even Trump appointees and million dollars donors now.

        1. I give a fuck what some apparatchik thinks about the same thing I can read myself because…?

          Right. Fuck off jeff.

        2. God you’re dumb baby jeffrey. This isnt a frame job, it’s a clown show. So far all the evidence is opinion. Taylor couldnt explain why the trade wasnt brought up on 3 different meetings if pid pro quo was the goal. Taylor stated he had no direct conversations with Trump. He got absolutely destroyed when he inferred clear direction. He paused for 5 awkward seconds when asked about hunter biden.

          Taylor was a clown show.

        3. De Oppresso Liber
          November.13.2019 at 3:38 pm
          “It must be one big frame job….”

          No, it’s one ‘I heard somebody say…’ after the other, and dimwits like you are gullible enough to buy in.

          1. Man oh man, how did all these career diplomats, military officers, and Trump appointees all come to the same (mistaken) conclusion: Trump wanted a public statement about investigations into Bidens before they would get aid?

            1. Where did you steal your name from?

            2. You should be asking why all the public career service members have gone against the policy set by the elected president. Their number one argument through each transcript was that Trump’s policies went against interagency agreement.

              Stop being a slave to the deep state.

              1. Why do they so strenuously struggle to convince (gaslight) the public to believe Russia is the world’s big bad guy?
                I mean, we have boatloads of examples of China hacking and employing spies… but they aren’t the focus?
                Trump is a threat to some very entrenched interests who aren’t working for the American people.

                http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/john-brennans-cia-trump-task-force/

                Someone tell my why the above article is wrong

        4. Where did you steal your name from? I know your not a green beret….

          1. That’s baby jeffrey. He creates socks and pretends to have a history in military and such.

            1. Not a shock that PEDO Jeffy would do that.

            2. I personally abhor people who steal other’s hard work. I would like this sock puppet to tell me what SF team he served on. Of course I think he is lying, but if for some reason he is not, I would like to know who the idiot is.

              1. He won’t answer.
                He already got busted not knowing the definition of “blue falcon” then tried to excuse his error and got tore up on it

      3. Sounds to me like maybe the aide should be investigated for spying on a federal employee’s official business. You don’t overhear conversations like that unless you’re trying to.

      4. he heard from his aide who overheard what was said on a phone call involving two other people”

        thats three times removed and maybe even more if the people on teh phone call were not there either.

        Heard it form a friend who heard it fr0m a friend………

        1. “Thank you for testifying today, Mr. Speedwagon, I recognize it took great courage…”

          1. I’m glad he testified too; because, after listening to his opening statement, it was absolutely clear that what we have here is no more than a policy difference. Taylor made as much as he could from all the Ukrainians he says were dying on his watch. Allow me to ask him: Is the national security of the United States really helped by giving the Ukrainians tank-killer missiles which no doubt also will kill all the Russians inside them? Obama would not give the Ukrainians anything more lethal than ambulances. Now we are going to impeach Trump for withholding, on a temporary basis, anti-tank missiles?

            Taylor described no impeachable offense. No treason, no bribery, no felonies, not even a misdemeanor. The Chief Justice would have a legal obligation to dismiss any charges the House might bring upon this record. So, why are we having these proceedings at all?

        2. What are you going to say when the aide testifies?

          1. I’m hearing that will be behind close doors. So my response would be why allow hearsay in open session, but the source must be behind close doors?

            If the republicans pulled that crap, dems would be all over it. And rightly so.

        3. And he told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on…

  2. #TrumpUkraine has surpassed #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history. And I don’t make that statement lightly. After all, #TrumpRussia concluded with Robert Mueller submitting definitive proof that Russians are controlling our government.

    And. #TrumpUkraine. Is. Even. Worse.

    #Impeach
    #Resist

    1. This.
      Is.
      Not.
      Normal!

  3. Oh you know, just Republicans being traitors like their dear leader.

    1. We have the transcript Screech.

      1. Also have live testimony today showing zero evidence of anything.

        We also have Kent and taylor both admitting trump has done more for Ukraine than obama did. Taor claimed he didnt know about the obama hot mic moment nor the 2016 election meddling my Ukraine as told by both politico and the nyt.

        1. I call bullshit on anyone in Washington not knowing about that hot mike.

    2. “Oh you know, just Republicans being traitors like their dear leader.”

      Oh, you know, just dimwit lefties pushing hearsay and innuendo.
      Are the walls closing it, you fucking idiot?

    3. Kiddie Raper, it’s a proven fact that treason is the sole province of the progtard.

  4. U.S. Diplomat Bill Taylor: It Was ‘Crazy’ To Freeze Aid to Ukraine ‘for Help With a Political Campaign’

    And they have yet to find a single witness who can testify that this is why the aid package was held up from first hand knowledge.

    Taylor testified that Gordon Sondland, the Ambassador to the European Union, relayed that “everything” was dependent on Zelenskiy’s announcement that he would both investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family

    And Sondland testified that while he did in fact say that, he had no first or even second hand knowledge that this was in fact the case. He made that statement on pure speculation.

    1. Just wait until we hear from Rudy and his henchmen. After all, that is what the president kept telling everyone to do, almost as if he was using his old mob boss trick of abusing lawyer client privilege. Didn’t work out well for his last attorney, but worked for Trump.

      1. We have the transcript Jeff.

        1. Which is incriminating as well. And incomplete.

          1. Except we have the transcript and we can see you’re wrong.

          2. Even Vindman says it is complete. He wanted to add a few words but the other people who were doing the transcript told him no.

            Trump, mind you, had no part in it.

            1. So it is not complete. The “few words” left out directly contradict the president’s narrative.

              1. The OTHER THREE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE TRANSCRIPT say what Vindman wanted to add was immaterial. Good money says he would’ve changed it if they didn’t have it secured, which he bitched about.

                Again, Trump had nothing to do with it.

                1. He wanted to add “Burisima”. It is very material. I wouldn’t expect the people who decided to omit that little fact to own up to it being material, why would you?

                  1. Were you confused because it didn’t specify Burisma?
                    If so, you’re in the minority.
                    And I’m not taking doughy Vindman’s word over anyone else

                    1. The president’s defenders are using the lack of Burisima as a lack of evidence, so yes, it matters. I think you know that though.

                    2. The use of Burisma changes nothing about the call dummy.

                    3. De Oppresso Liber
                      November.13.2019 at 6:22 pm
                      “The president’s defenders are using the lack of Burisima as a lack of evidence, so yes, it matters. I think you know that though.”

                      Fucking idiots like you are using it as if it meant something.
                      It doesn’t; you lost, you continue to lose. Fuck off.

                    4. I guess only lefties like the …National Review… think that Vindman’s would-be edits were material: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/vindman-testimony-alleges-white-house-left-key-details-out-of-trump-zelensky-call-transcript/

                      Sevo is trying to shit on the chessboard and proclaim victory. Sorry, Sevo. That’s not how it works.

                    5. National review is filled with anti trumpers dumbfuck. The only one there not openly against trump is McCarthy.

                      And there is only one company Hunter was on the board of in Ukraine, using the name doesnt change the essence of the call you dumb fuck.

                2. According to one anonymous alt-right journalist.

                  1. According to Vindman himself dumbfuck.

              2. The few words was Vindman asking to include the name of the company, burisma, dumbfuck. It doesnt change anything about the call. God you’re fucking dumb.

              3. Please admit your not a Green Beret so no one confuses you with a man of honor.

              4. Please admit your not a Special Forces Soldier so no one confuses you with a man of honor.

            2. Vindman clearly testified in the closed hearings that he thought the transcript was incomplete. One can question Vindman’s credibility, but one cannot flip what he said 180 degrees.

              1. Stop lying mikey. Even baby Jeffrey stated above it was about a single word. The company biden worked for does not change if you Burisma is in the transcript or not. There was one company.

                1. Even if it is a single word missing that does not logically equate to complete.

                  1. Look up the definition of transcript mikey, it doesnt require a word for word translation. This is especially true when the transcript is of people talking through interpreters dummy.

                    1. Nobody said Vindman testified it wasn’t a verbatim transcript. Everyone who has been following the news knows it is not verbatim. However, Vindman testified that there were important omissions from the non-verbatim transcript.

                      According to you he asked for one word, but if so that doesn’t change anything logically.

                  2. “”Even if it is a single word missing that does not logically equate to complete.””

                    Consider if the FBI asked you what you had for breakfast and you said eggs, toast, and coffee. But then the FBI says you were dishonest because you gave an “incomplete” account because you did not say you had milk in your coffee.

                    Is this the kind of prosecution we want in America?

                    1. Mike laursen, grb, de oppresso, chemjeff, pod, etc do

              2. We’re you there for the testimony or are you making shit up again? Wait, you could be relying on known liar Schiff to present a faithful and complete record since he’s been so open and above board so far.

                1. Of course I wasnt there. The transcript of Vindman s testimony was released.

                2. Schiff was only given the power to redact sensitive information. You can see every place where he redacted content in the transcripts of the closed impeachment inquiry because there are black rectangles where the words were. If you look at the actual transcripts, there are few redactions.

          3. Vinland testified the transcript was accurate dumbfuck jeffrey. He asked for one change, to include the fact Trump used the name Burisma. He was denied by others on the call. Otherwise he testified the transcript was accurate.

      2. Do we get to hear from joe and hunter then? You’ve established you desire testimony and evidence of a crime. Do you support this belief equally? What do you say baby Jeffrey.

      3. De Oppresso Liber
        November.13.2019 at 3:57 pm
        “…almost as if he was using his old mob boss trick of abusing lawyer client privilege.”

        Are you hoping your fantasies will turn into a screen play, or are you just showing up here acting as the village idiot?

        1. I guess you have never heard of the Logan Act? Or perhaps you are not familiar with the tale of Michael Cohen. Breitbart would not tell you that one.

          1. We know you believe in criminalizing politics you statist fuck. Go search out how many times the Logan act has been successfully prosecuted.

            1. “Criminalizing politics” that’s a new one. Yeah, you’re not allowed to do whatever you want just because you won an election. And you are especially not allowed to do whatever you want when you didn’t even win an election, you just got hired by some guy who did.

              The Logan Act is real, and Trump and Giuliani really violated it. Sorry that makes you so, so mad.

              1. They really didn’t you pedophile piece of shit. Go back to your NAMBLA chat room Jeffy.

  5. “It Was ‘Crazy’ To Freeze Aid to Ukraine ‘for Help With a Political Campaign'”

    Yet there was no testimony that it was for a political campaign apart from assumptions and the Biden’s possible involvement in corruption.

    1. Presumably, since this is the first day of public hearings, there will be more testimony. No?

      1. “Presumably, since this is the first day of public hearings, there will be more testimony. No?”

        You bet!
        Why, they’ll find someone whose wife’s hairdresse’rs uncle heard from a guy in a bar….
        And idiots like you will jump on it. And the rest of us will laugh.

      2. Taylor was their star witness silly. That’s their claim.

        1. Link to your source for that?

          1. God mikey, stop being a fucking idiot. Every paper discussed how the first hour of testimony was key this morning. Which paper do you want me to link to? NYT, post, examiner?

            1. Any you like.

            2. Your original wording from “… their star witness. That’s their claim.” Presumably, “their” refers to the House Democrats.

              You then changed the wording to “first hour of testimony was key”, dropping anything about “star witness”. You also changed the They you were talking about from the Democrats to the newspapers.

              So, you did not answer my question about where you heard that They said Taylor was Their star witness.

              1. Reread the last few paragraphs in the article referencing jim jordans questioning…

                You’re so obviously that willfully obtuse, contrarian piece of shyte Jeff its not even funny. It’s pathetic you make multiple accounts but are too damn stupid to change your schtik or cadence an iota.

                And you still look like an ignorant prick.

  6. “Taylor says that Holmes told him he had been privy to a July 26 conversation between Trump and Sondland. On that call, a day after the much-discussed exchange between Zelenskiy and Trump, the president asked the E.U. ambassador where he was with “the investigations.” The Ukrainians were “ready to move forward,” Sondland allegedly replied.”

    Read the bold part twice, realize this is hearsay, and then just let it sink in for a moment.

    1. “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.”

      —-Text from Sondland to Bill Taylor, September 9, 2019

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

      When Sondland tells Taylor directly that Trump specifically said there was no quid pro quo, Taylor doesn’t believe it.

      When Holmes tells Taylor something Holmes supposedly heard Sondland say, we’re supposed to believe that instead?

      No sale!

      1. but this way he covers his ass legally and can still talk shit.

      2. Actually, holmes apparently told taylor what was told to sondland by trump – on the other end of the phone call

        4th hand speculation

    2. Reliable hearsay is properly considered at this stage, and is quite damning.

      1. By dumbfucks it is considered, sure.

      2. “Hearsay is better than direct evidence!”

        Literally what the Ds said during a congressional hearing

    3. As explained in the post above, directly listening in on a phone call is not hearsay. It would be nice to know what “been privy to” means exactly, as someone in the comments section above assumed it meant eavesdropping on the call or listening without permission.

      1. Direct doesnt mean what you think it means here.

        1. Enlighten me.

          1. Taylor did not listen in on a phone call. He was told be someone else that they listened on a phone call. That is hearsay.

            1. My understanding is it is hearsay if Holmes is not available for cross-examination.

              1. No it isn’t. You’re just saying that to be a contrarian, obtuse, tool bag.

                You know damn well your entire statement is b.s.

              2. “”My understanding is it is hearsay if Holmes is not available for cross-examination.””

                That condition is not what makes something hearsay.
                Can’t we at least be honest about what hearsay is?

          2. Direct means he would clearly hear both sides of the conversation. That is not what was said.

            1. Let’s back up. Which “he” are you talking about? Taylor or Holmes?

  7. And Reason, by lending credence to this farce, itself becomes a farce.

    1. That ship has sailed.

      1. “too local” was the shark and they jumped it

    2. Reason is using their Blaisy Ford criteria for credibility and by that standard this guy is practically Jesus Christ level credible.

    3. Reason has really covered itself with glory over these past few weeks.

      From “We can TOTALLY trust the CIA/FBI/NSA to always tell the truth about Trump” to “Hey, hearsay evidence is just fine if it hurts the Orange Man” to “Those smart unelected career employees at the State Department should be in charge of foreign policy, not the president” this supposedly libertarian publication has been a gold mine of hot takes.

      It reminds me of just a year ago, when Reason got caught up in the Kavanaugh smear campaign and were perfectly cool with baseless charges of sexual assault being used to deny him a seat on the SC.

    4. So, you’re going to stop reading the Reason blog and commenting here?

      1. Why, you want an echo chamber mikey so you can think you’re intelligent?

        1. The guy busy sucking every Trumper’s dick in an effort to make himself seem relevant chooses to insult the intelligence of someone else.

          The world would be better off without all of your bullshit and lies. I pity your family having to pretend that you matter.

          1. Awww. How cute. Another dumbfuck fan. Who are you white knighting here? Mikey? Jeffrey? Or is it Billy?

          2. No Jason, I think you have an exclusive in sucking cock, save for Tony. Unless you’re Tony, in which case you do have an exclusive on sucking cock here you commie faggot.

          3. The army of socks grows every day, spewing any kind of dross and moving the goalposts every time that someone calls them out on their complete bullshit. Seriously, read through the ridiculous mental gymnastics and goal-shifting and retreat to empty semantics he performs over what he considers hearsay, avoids his argument about the transcript being totally wrecked, and then starts digging further in his already deep hole with his sock.

            1. It’s easy to pretend that I’m someone’s sock account, rather than yet another person who finds your Trump-cult bullshit unappealing and deserving of condemnation and ridicule.

              Each of you should go suck-start a .45.

              1. That doesn’t even make sense.
                Be better

    5. What is wrong with a farce?

      Some days i farce more than others.

  8. Hunter Biden is proven corrupt to the tune of $50,000 a month; his father is about as close to proven guilty to fostering that corruption as you can get. Why is investigating that also considered corruption?

    Out of all the crazy stunts Trump has pulled, this is the best smoking gun they got?

    1. There is no proof that Hunter Biden is corrupt only innuendo. If you have proof lay it out. But the fact that he got paid to be on a board is not proof. We could go into any number of company boards and find people with little or no more qualification that Hunter Biden. He is a trophy board member, no doubt. But that not an indication of corruption.

      1. I’d find him guilty, based on the evidence. And no, I’m not your fucking tutor.

        1. At the exact same time Burisma Holding rented a “Biden” for their corporate board letterhead, they also purchased an ex-Polish president, Aleksander Kwaśniewski. If I had to guess, I bet Kwaśniewski knew no more about energy commodity trading than Hunter. He was just another “name” added for surface prestige.

          And that wasn’t all : The company also tapped Alan Apter, an well-known investment banker who has worked in the United States and Europe as its board chairman, brought in a entirely new executive team and hired established international firms to audit its reserves and financial results.

          Was that all cosmetic? Probably, but that’s the point. Hiring little Hunter was part of a package, something akin to Extreme Corporate Makeover – The Realty TV Show.

          1. Right, guilty like I said.

            1. Guilty of what?

              1. What he is being accused of dumbass

                1. That didn’t answer the question. Hunter was a trophy-name purchased for the Burisma Holding board. That’s not the way I’d want to earn a living, though God has mercifully shielded me from the temptation, but still :

                  Little Hunter leeched off popa’s name. Sordid, to be sure, but the broken law is….. (you fill in the blank)…….

                  1. Joe Biden making policy decisions that Burisma wants in exchange for Burisma paying his son large amounts of money

                    1. Yes, but did Joe Biden actively solicit a quid pro quo, or did Burisma of its own accord recruit Hunter Biden as a trophy member for its board? We don’t know.

                      Yes, an investigation might uncover an answer. If Trump had pursued an investigation in a more thoughtful way, it might have actually happened. As things stand, no investigation of the Bidens has been accomplished.

                      Also, if there were an investigation of the Bidens, it’s worth asking what government goal would it lead to? Biden is no longer Vice President, so he cannot be impeached and removed from office.

                      It clearly leads to a political goal — discrediting Biden as a 2020 Presidential candidate, but then that’s the point of the case being made against Trump in the impeachment inquiries: that Trump pushed for the investigation for political gain.

                    2. “Biden is no longer Vice President, so he cannot be impeached…” Yes, actually, he can still be impeached, and the Senate, if they found him guilty, could bar him from ever holding elected Federal office again… including the presidency.

                    3. That’s a good point.

                    4. It is worse if Joe solicited a bribe (asking Burisma to pay Hunter), but not soliciting a bribe doesn’t prevent Joe from taking a bribe…

                    5. Damnit. Mike, I got to apologize. That’s the second comment I flagged without meaning to. I’m sorry. Reason, please fix your commenting!

                    6. Actually, on second thought, DenverJ, it’s not clear that Biden can be impeached when he is not currently holding any office. I get what you are saying, but if you read the Constitution they just don’t cover that case, and I don’t think there’s any precedent.

                    7. It’s an interesting legal argument that Joe effectively took a bribe even if he didn’t solicit one. It’s complicated by Joe’s not having received anything himself, but only a benefit to a family member. I don’t know enough about bribery law to opine on whether your argument has merit.

                    8. Well, there’s only been 3 impeachments in our history, so, yeah we’re a little short on precedent.

                  2. Burisma was buying off politically connected Europeans and americans since 2014 dummy.

                2. Well he probably is guilty of being a dumbass but nothing else really. This stuff is normal in big business.

      2. “We could go into any number of company boards and find people with little or no more qualification that Hunter Biden. ”

        …who also had their father “in charge” of US policy involving the country that the firm was based in?

        You left that part out.

        1. This is the giant elephant in the room that the Media (including Reason) must ignore in order to maintain the narrative that Grandpa Joe and his druggie layabout son are as pure as the driven snow.

          Had Joe not been the VP in 2015 Hunter Biden getting a job at Burisma would have raised a few eyebrows but otherwise would have been within the range of normal swampy DC behavior; simply an example of the multinational elite class looking out for each other.

          But to argue that giving a generous six-figure salary to a sitting VP’s son would have zero implications for US policy? That requires a exceptional degree of willful blindness.

          1. Reason hasn’t participated in that narrative. For example, in the Reason podcast a couple of weeks ago, there was scathing criticism of Joe and Hunter Biden over the Burisma board position.

          2. Bearded Spock : “But to argue that giving a generous six-figure salary to a sitting VP’s son would have zero implications for US policy? That requires a exceptional degree of willful blindness”

            Alright : So what implication did it have for U.S. policy, because the one people use – the Shokin firing – is a lie beyond spin. There is no way to build a case Biden’s actions on Shokin had anything to do with his son, because that’s contradicted by every single fact.

            So you’ll want to say it “looks bad”, which is fine. But then I get curious: Trump’s businesses – his sons – his daughter – his son-in-law – are all busy conducting business around the world. Scotland now, Indonesia a few months back, India, China.

            Did you know Jared faced financial disaster back during the presidential transition following the election? He was saddled with a building in New York (666 Fifth Avenue) that was buried in debt and siting half-empty. Go hunt up a business journal: People speculated this one horrific investment could sink Kushner’s entire firm. So he sought financing from a former Prime Minister of Qatar, Hamad bin Jassim, and Anbang Insurance Group of China, a firm tied closely to the Beijing regime. Kushner held long negotiations with these people even while formally part of the incoming administration. Did that look bad? You betcha. China granting trademark patents to Ivanka? Yep again.

            Or this 2015 quote from Trump :

            “I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump said on Breitbart News Daily. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.”

            Did that have “implications for US policy” when Trump betrayed the Kurds? Please : You tell me. All I know no action by Biden on Ukraine can be honestly and factually challenged.

            Instead, you need sleazy garbage like Giuliani, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. You need extortion by withholding military aid to a country under invasion. You need what John Bolton described as a “drug deal”. You need a shadow foreign policy for Trump’s benefit, not the United States. That was the only way to build a case against Biden.

            1. There is no way to build a case Biden’s actions on Shokin had anything to do with his son

              You keep trying to change the topic of conversation back to Shokin and away from Hunter having such an obviously empty-suit position while his father was the sitting VP and was in charge of relations with Ukraine.

              Why do you keep changing the topic like that when it’s even been pointed out to you that you’re doing that and undermining your credibility by doing so?

              You’ve also been called out on the whataboutism with Kushner, yet you continue to push that one as well.

              Why, it’s almost like you’re a dishonest partisan hack.

              1. Because that’s Trump’s extortion demand. Go read the transcript. DJT wasted no time on little Hunter, bringing his name up only to introduce the Shokin firing. Everything that followed was about the firing and the firing alone.

                It’s. In. The. Damn. Transcript.

                And understandable, huh? If you’re demanding a potemkin-village-style “investigation” as the price for military aid, you’ll want something that targets Joe. You’ll signal to Zelensky exactly who the target is. Of course the whole thing is to be pre-engineered by your personal attorney, but it’s best to lay the terms out clearly.

                Trump’s demand for a “favor” and “reciprocal” behavior was for two faux investigations : CrowdStrike and Shokin. You only have to read, because :

                It’s. In. The. Damn. Transcript.

                Yeah, I get it. You have this problem. Trump’s extortion demands were both total frauds. Kinda like you, huh? They say dogs always resemble their master. I guess that’s why you lie and weasel like your Cult Lord.

              2. The accusation is that Biden’s seeking the firing of Shokin was criminal, or something. That’s why grb is talking about Shokin. It makes even less sense to investigate Hunter without the Shokin firing. You don’t even know your team’s talking points, but you are still completely convinced of their innocence/righteousness, lol.

                1. To be fair, I don’t think Square = Circle has been arguing for a team. He seems to be an independent thinker, not pro- or anti-Trump.

                  1. My bad.

                    1. You and mikey, likely same person, have bee arguing for a team. Hilariously you deny this fact.

                      Then you accuse who see this shitshow for what it is, a corruption of the IG, ad being for a team.

                    2. I am arguing against a team, not for a team. As a libertarian I am going to tend to be contrarian to the party in power. I was very critical of Obama, too. I know that you see the world in black and white, or more accurately blue and red, but that doesn’t always fit.

                      You are the partisan here, all projections from you aside.

                    3. You’re not a libertarian De Oppresso.

                2. “The accusation is that Biden’s seeking the firing of Shokin was criminal, or something. That’s why grb is talking about Shokin.”

                  It is at the least a violation of government ethics rules. Government ethics rules REQUIRE that government employees not engage in any matter where there is even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

                  Biden’s son’s employer was being investigated by Shokin. This is an indisputable fact on record. It is on the record that a month before his firing, Shokin’s office had seized multiple assets in this specific case. It is a fact on the record that in this same time period, Hunter and others at Burisma were reaching out to the State Department’s Deputy Sec State (an old friend of Biden’s).

                  So at the LEAST, Biden was guilty of violating ethics rules of the government. He was bound by such rules to recuse himself from any policy matters involving Shokin, due to the connection to his father.

                  At worst, he was guilty of corruption- something that certainly should be investigated.

                  1. I agree about the appearance of impropriety. I really wish the same standard was applied to the Trumps.

                    1. Because he hasnt been investigated since day 1 of his inauguration? God you say stupid things. Trump is on year 3 of investigations, yet you keep stating any investigation of Biden is off limits.

                    2. Hey Jesse, you can just save the effort and leave the insults off. They make you look stupid and emotional.

                      Trump’s kids are doing business in China, Trump has properties in Turkey, a Trump project in Indonesia got a giant loan from the Chinese right before he decided to ease sanctions on xte….the appearance of impropriety is definitely there.

                      https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-demand-ethics-investigation-trump-over-chinese-loan-and-ban-lift-946276

                    3. Poor Trump. The most powerful man in the world, and always the victim. Boo hoo.

                    4. Are yall consumed by resentment because you’re progressives, or are yall progressives because you’re consumed by resentment?
                      Tis a vicious cycle

                    5. “”I agree about the appearance of impropriety. I really wish the same standard was applied to the Trumps.””

                      As someone who has held a security clearance in the military, I really wish Hillary was held to the same standard that applied to me.

              3. PS : All I know no action by Biden on Ukraine can be honestly and factually challenged.

                You do realize that’s true, correct?

                1. Lol. Dumbass doesnt know what true means.

                  1. grb is demonstrably much, much smarter than you. Me too, but I don’t get butthurt about it.

        2. Nobody is denying it has the appearance of impropriety, but Moderation4ever explained above that there is a plausible scenario where Hunter Biden lands a cushy board job without his father having been involved in arranging it.

          1. Ok Mike, I’ll bite. Can you lay out this plausible scenario? My question is whether it will be believable…. 🙂

            1. It’s been said a few times: Burisma, of their own initiative, reached out to Hunter Biden to get the name “Biden” on their board, either to try to get an “in” with the Vice President or to give their investors the impression they had an “in”.

              Unethical as hell, but not illegal. No involvement from Joe Biden in making it happen.

              I’m not saying it happened that way. It’s just a plausible possibility. I would have no way of knowing.

              1. Again, you’re hung up on the difference between soliciting a bribe and accepting a bribe, as if not soliciting makes accepting ok

                1. Maybe you have a valid argument there. There’s the complication of who, exactly, was the recipient of the bribe.

          2. The state department was informed of the situation at a minimum a month before Shokin was fired. Burismas lobbyists were name dropping hunters name.

            You cant be this ignorant. it just isnt possible.

      3. So let the investigation trump was interested in happen, then we can find out

          1. Jeffrey and his many alts wont read that.

            1. Jeffrey and his many alts

              This is your way of minimizing those who oppose your shameless shilling for Team Red. I don’t have alts, I have never had alts, the others who are objecting to Team Red are doing so independently of my wishes. So stop it with your nonsense.

              1. No need for anyone to minimize chemjeff, de oppresso, mike laursen, grab
                Your posts do so quite effectively

      4. Right, there is no proof that Hunter Biden is corrupt, he’s either too stupid or too zonked out. His father on the other hand…..

        1. Or a lucky bastard, which is Moderation4ever’s point.

          1. It is not luck, it is his name. The fact is that have the right family connection can mean a lot in this world. There is nothing criminal in that, it is the way the world works. Some people have a lot of talent and some a lot of connections. If you have neither you have earn every dollar you make.

            1. So hunter was given a pid pro quo… a cushy job for his name… hmmm…

              1. Possibly.

                1. Hunter admitted as much

      5. “”There is no proof that Hunter Biden is corrupt only innuendo. “”

        Now you get why I have yet to be convinced that Trump pressured, or wanted Quid Pro Quo. There is no proof of it. Just people’s opinion of what Trump meant.

      6. Moderation4ever
        November.13.2019 at 4:19 pm
        “There is no proof that Hunter Biden is corrupt only innuendo.”

        Biden bragging on a vid is “innuendo”?
        You’re not really as bright as I thought and that’s no compliment.

      7. We could go into any number of company boards and find people with little or no more qualification that Hunter Biden.

        But they aren’t the children of the sitting VP. I think it sounds like Joe Biden was accepting bribes.

        1. Sound like is not proof. Do you have proof.

          1. Nope. But I thought we were past the point of needing evidence… you know, just make assumptions and start the impeachment. #ImpeachBiden! #NotMyVicePresident!

          2. Would you like an investigation?

    2. It’s way more than that. Lil’ Biden received over $3.4 million from Burisma over two years.

      The whole thing reeks of corruption.

  9. So Taylor does not know what Trump’s concerns were regarding investigating the Bidens, but he thinks it crazy to shut down aid for a political campaign. Except what establishes that investigating Biden was for campaign purposes except a rather long leap of logic?

    1. You call that a long leap of logic? Well, let’s put on our detective hats. Has Trump asked for anyone else to be investigated? Does investigating the Bidens have any stated policy goal? Hmmmmm, what coulllllllld it be?

      I guess it could be a long leap, for dim people.

      1. And now you’re stuck fabricating your own conspiracy theories.

      2. “Does investigating the Bidens have any stated policy goal? Hmmmmm, what coulllllllld it be?”

        Yes.
        Investigating corruption, as required by treaty, between the two countries and in the country the US is sending taxpayer money to

      3. It might actually establish a pattern of behavior if there was evidence of Teump seeking investigations into, say Warren and Sanders. However, you cannot assume it is for political purposes and run with it without some proof.

        1. Then I’m sure someone can tell us why the aid was withheld and why did all these career diplomats and Trump appointees seem to be confused about quid pro quo and why they were focusing on the Bidens.

          1. Yes, the child of the person running US foreign policy in Ukraine getting a lucrative gig at a Ukrainian company when he doesn’t know the language nor does he know a thing about the business…it’s just Hunter’s good luck. and how DARE anybody look into it…

            1. Explain why and how this supports US policy goals in Ukraine. Should we look into Trump Jr.’s book deal while we are at it?

              1. Name US policy goals in Ukraine

                  1. “U.S. policy is centered on supporting Ukraine in the face of continued Russian aggression as it advances reforms to strengthen democratic institutions, fight corruption, and promote conditions for economic growth and competition.”

                    1. Yup. Doesn’t really make sense to subjugate the support in the “face of continued Russian aggression” to a politically motivated investigation, does it?

                    2. There is no support without “reforms strengthening democratic institutions, fighting corruption, and promoting conditions for economic growth and competition”
                      I’m not at all surprised that you ignore the rest to focus on your brainwashed antipathy to Russia though.
                      Pigeon gonna pigeon

              2. More goal post shifting from Pedo Jeffy. He just hates Trump because he might prosecute Jeffy’s Progressive masters. That, and he won’t let illegal alien child predators in that Pedo Jeffy so adores.

          2. “we have all this evidence, but look at these stupid conspiracy theories we string together just in case” shorter jeff

        2. The argument is that if he didn’t try to pursue opposition research on more than one political candidate running against him, then pursuing opposition research on a single candidate running against him doesn’t count?

          1. No, it’s saying it’s probably not opposition research.

            1. Since I’m really dumb, please explain Mickey Rat’s logic to me.

              1. Does Hunter Biden getting a board position on a company being investigated for corruption, and having his VP father withhold aid until the prosecutor investigating said company is fired worth investigating in any fashion?

      4. De Oppresso Liber
        November.13.2019 at 4:00 pm
        “You call that a long leap of logic? Well, let’s put on our detective hats. Has Trump asked for anyone else to be investigated? Does investigating the Bidens have any stated policy goal? Hmmmmm, what coulllllllld it be?”
        That’s a ‘speculation’ hat. You’re welcome to your opinions.

        “I guess it could be a long leap, for dim people.”
        You sure gave it a try.

    2. Mickey Rat dares to bring up “Trump’s concerns”

      (1) When did Trump ever show any concern over corruption? (except as a business opportunity)

      (2) Where else in the world did “concern” over corruption make an appearance in Trump’s thoughts or actions?

      (3) Is it a coincidence that Trump’s only “concern” over corruption in Ukraine happens to involve a tenuous relation to Biden or the Democrats?

      (4) The day after the transcript was released the DOJ said they had no investigations into those “concerns” Trump was strongarming Zelensky to produce a public show about.

      (5) Trump’s “concerns” he was pudshing on President Zelensky just happen to be total bullshit. There are no hidden servers in Ukraine. Biden did not pressure for Shokin’s ouster over Hunter. Given Trump only wanted a big show, who cares right?

      (6) Strange Trump’s “concerns” were being managed by his sleazy personal lawyer and two low-grade crooks. Unless of course this shadow “foreign policy” was exclusively for Trump’s benefit, not the United States. Then that makes perfect sense…..

        1. Trump trades United States government favor for personal gain, and your only response is a discredited hack like Solomon ?!?

          I’m not sure whether that’s better or worse than pretending Donald John Trump ever worried over corruption (unless it was earning him money), but it’s fantasy-land still. Here’s a hint: Try and find anyone outside the fever swamp who takes Solomon’s agitprop seriously. Hell, even his own readers didn’t. I opened up your first link just to look over the comments. It was a communal game among The Hill faithful to laugh at Solomon and pick apart his stories. His bag of tricks were so stale they knew every one, and traded shout-outs when each one appeared.

          Open up your link and take a look. What does it say when Solomon’s own readers shreds his story to bits?

          1. So
            Much
            Projection

          2. Fucking classic.

          3. GRB, you are a proven liar and shill. So nigga, please, none of your bullshit calling out ANYONE on credibility. That’s just laughable coming from you.

          4. “Trump trades United States government favor for personal gain, and your only response is a discredited hack like Solomon ?!?”

            Now the press who followed a laughable Russia hoax — THEY are the ones you can believe. Not a guy procviding documentation of his claims…

    3. “Taylor does not know what Trump’s concerns were regarding investigating the Bidens” conflates two different statements Taylor made.

      The second quote was, “”I don’t know the exact nature of President Trump’s concerns.” No mention of the Bidens in that statement. All Taylor was saying here is that he is not a spokesman for Trump’s concerns.

  10. At this point, B-Boy is clearly just writing these to torture the commentariat. Seems like he’s vying for the strangely coveted ‘most hated Reason writer’ title. Like actually, on purpose.

    1. gets clicks. It would get less clicks if logic and reason were involved, thus the WALL CLOSING IN!!!

    2. That’s what Robby did and look at him now. Published author, TV talking head and hanging out with mattress girl.

    3. I think he’s auditioning for a pot at HuffPo.

      1. A pot to piss in?

    4. Have to say when he posted that one impeachment update on Sunday evening, I thought he must be doing it just to troll the Trump fans in the commentariat.

    5. Robby already holds the emeritus title.

  11. Maybe Trump shouldn’t have been manipulating Congressionally appropriated money for purposes of pursuing his personal agenda of investigating wild conspiracy theories.

    1. We have the transcript Mike.

    2. ” wild conspiracy theories.”

      LOL.

      Now you are just phoning it in, ‘mike.’

      1. Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, as well as Joe having a Ukrainian official removed for his son are both long and strongly debunked.

        1. Of course you’d claim that.

          1. Leftists just call something “debunked” and think that everyone will follow along and accept their completely unsubstantiated premise.
            It’s kind of a funny tic

            1. Not only is it a tic, it’s an admission that they are gullible.

            2. Yes, debunked. From AP News https://apnews.com/aa1f66a1770d4995a6bada960a7d119e.

              In his now-infamous July phone call with Ukraine’s president, President Donald Trump referred briefly to a long-discredited conspiracy theory that tries to cast doubt on Russia’s role in the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

              Some Trump backers who circulate unsubstantiated rumors have latched onto some version of the theory to support claims he’s being persecuted by “the deep state,” also known as the federal bureaucracy, as the House of Representatives begins an impeachment inquiry. The issue arose anew Thursday, when White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he had “absolutely” heard Trump mention “the corruption that related to the DNC server.”

              In broad outline, the theory contends — without evidence, of course — that the DNC hack was a setup based on fabricated computer records and designed to cast blame on Russia. One key figure in this supposed conspiracy: CrowdStrike, a security firm hired by the DNC that detected, stopped and analyzed the hack five months before the 2016 election.

              Here’s how Trump’s phone call brought this conspiracy back into currency.

              THE CALL

              During his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump made a brief and cryptic reference to CrowdStrike. According to a reconstructed transcript of the call released by the White House, which is not a verbatim account, he said:

              “I would like to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike . I guess you have one of your wealthy people . The server, they say Ukraine has it.” Trump added that he’d like to have Attorney General William Barr call “you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”

              THE FACTS

              CrowdStrike determined in June 2016 that Russian agents had broken into the committee’s network and stolen emails that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks. Its findings were confirmed by FBI investigators, with whom it later shared the forensic evidence.

              Based on those findings, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 members of Russia’s military intelligence agency and later concluded that their operation sought to favor Trump’s candidacy.

              Mueller testified before the U.S. Congress the day before Trump’s phone call with Zelenskiy.

              In the call, Trump mentioned Mueller’s “incompetent performance” and said “they say it started with Ukraine.”

              THE FICTIONS

              Ukraine and Russia have been bitter foes since Russia’s 2014 military intervention and annexation of Crimea. Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about a purported Ukrainian link to the DNC hack began circulating almost immediately after it was discovered.

              Some propagated by Russian media and online included mention of a supposed “hidden DNC server,” which acolytes of the Republican political operative Roger Stone picked up and circulated.

              Stone is set to stand trial in November for allegedly lying to Congress, obstructing justice and witness tampering after getting swept up in the Mueller probe. He has claimed that CrowdStrike is concealing evidence that could presumably clear Russia of culpability.

              A judge recently denied Stone’s efforts to challenge the investigation into the hack. Stone sought to suppress search warrants that he alleged were based on faulty assumptions from CrowdStrike, but U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said there was no evidence anyone in the FBI had “played fast and loose with the truth” in applying for the warrants.

              In fact, CrowdStrike has also worked for the GOP. It helped the National Republican Congressional Committee investigate email thefts by unidentified hackers during the 2018 campaign, the company told the AP in December.

              THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION

              One version of the conspiracy theory holds that CrowdStrike is owned by a wealthy Ukrainian. In fact, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a Russian-born U.S. citizen who immigrated as a child and graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

              Trump himself has made this erroneous reference before.

              In an April 2017 interview with The Associated Press, Trump said: “Why wouldn’t (former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John) Podesta and Hillary Clinton allow the FBI to see the server? They brought in another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based.”

              “CrowdStrike?” the interviewer asked.

              “That’s what I heard,” Trump replied. “I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian, that’s what I heard. But they brought in another company to investigate the server. Why didn’t they allow the FBI in to investigate the server? I mean, there is so many things that nobody writes about. It’s incredible.”

              WHY IT MATTERS

              The reference raises questions about Trump’s ability — or, perhaps, willingness— to sort between fact and fiction, analysts say.

              “If we take Trump’s words at face value, then it appears that the president of the United States is intellectually unable to distinguish between utterly outlandish conspiracy theories and solid intelligence assessments based on facts,” said Thomas Rid, a Johns Hopkins security studies professor.

              Joan Donovan of Harvard University said conspiracy theories generally have two principal attributes: They simplify matters and lack attribution. And some political actors see a benefit to encouraging them.

              “Who can know the truth in these conditions? No one,” said Donovan, who directs the Kennedy School’s technology and social change research project.

              CrowdStrike said in a statement that it “provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI.” It added: “We stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community.”

              THE LATEST RELEVANCE

              References to the server were included in the prepared remarks of U.S. envoy Gordon Sondland, who told Congress Thursday that he had heard the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, specifically say Trump wanted investigations into the 2016 election, including the server.

              Later in the afternoon, Mulvaney acknowledged that the decision to hold up military aid to Ukraine was linked to his demand that Kyiv investigate the DNC and the 2016 campaign.

              “The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation,” Mulvaney said.

              “Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption that related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that,” he added. “That’s why we held up the money.”

              1. “I believe the lies I’m fed” isn’t a synonym for “debunked” Jeff.

                Debunking failed.

              2. “CrowdStrike determined in June 2016 that Russian agents had broken into the committee’s network and stolen emails that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks. Its findings were confirmed by FBI investigators, with whom it later shared the forensic evidence.”

                Did the FBI see the servers?

                No?

                Hmm…

                1. And, even if we were to accept CrowdStruke’s conclusion at face value, everyone is STILL ignoring Wikileaks Vault_7

                2. Spoken like the truly technically ignorant. Man, you guys are all about extremely high standards for evidence, unless it’s a wackadoodle conspiracy theory.

                  Besides crowdstrike, our intel agencies, the FBI all come to the same conclusion, and the Dutch intelligence even hacked Guccifer’s cameras and watched them commit the hack. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/

                  1. “Besides crowdstrike, our intel agencies, the FBI all come to the same conclusion, and the Dutch intelligence even hacked Guccifer’s cameras and watched them commit the hack.”

                    Oddly, only ONE of those listed actually had the servers. It wasn’t any intel agency. And given that the FBI was, at that point, busily trying to spy on Trump and planting moles in his campaign, their opinion could not conceivably mean less.

                    They all saw what Croudstrike presented. Watching somebody type something (all the cameras would show) isn’t, you know, proof.

                    The DNC could’ve just handed the servers over. But they refused. Any ideas why?

                    1. Explanation for the Dutch intel coming to the same conclusion independently?

                    1. I know. And yet, the Dutch came to the same conclusion using their own independent source.

                    2. “…And yet, the Dutch came to the same conclusion using their own independent source.”

                      Oh, well!
                      Pick them cherries; it’s all you got.

                    3. “”I know.””

                      If you know, then how can you say the FBI came to the same conclusion if the FBI did not to an investigation to arrive at a conclusion?

                      The FBI just took Crowdstrikes word for it. That is by no means coming to the same conclusion.

                  2. The article provides precisely 0 evidence for the claims made in it.
                    And the Dutch made no claims regarding the DNC leak

                    “AIVD’s penetration into the Cozy Bear network lasted for more than a year. The information gathered during the surveillance, Modderkolk’s sources suggested, was key to the US intelligence agencies’ attribution of the DNC breach to Russia.”

                    That’s the closest you get

                    1. Yes, and the is the closest we will get. Methods and sources are the most closely guarded secrets of any intel org. They did hack Cozy Bear, and they did previously catch them attempting to hack US state dept.

                      The DNC hack being caught by Dutch intel was reported first in 2 different Dutch news orgs, and the Dutch government has only declined to comment. They have not denied it.

                      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dutch-intelligence-us-fbi-russian-hacking-cozy-bear-democratic-national-committee/

                    2. “Yes, and the is the closest we will get.”

                      So there is no evidence but you’re willing to guess anyway?

                    3. Much more evidence for Russians did it, than for any other theory including “Crowdstrike faked the whole thing for … reasons”

                  3. Ars Technica has some truly excellent science and physics writing, but politically they went full leftard a long time ago.

        2. Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, as well as Joe having a Ukrainian official removed for his son are both long and strongly debunked.

          Is there a Hitler video for that?

          1. That could be a good one. Some of those videos are really good, some are just ok.

      2. What do you consider the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory to be?

        1. More plausible than the “Trump is a tool for Russia AND is giving money to Ukraine” conspiracy.

          1. Still a batshit insane conspiracy theory.

            1. So what if it is? I guess the Democrats have nothing to worry about if Trump has Ukraine look into it.

              You can’t on the one hand claim it is a bat shit conspiracy theory and then on the other hand claim that looking into it is some huge crime. If it isn’t true, there is nothing there to find.

              You can claim that and you will because you are stupid. But no one is going to pay any attention to you when you do.

            2. True. But nobody is being impeached for Crowdstrike.

          2. Just to be pedantic about crazy conspiracy theories, isn’t it, “Trump is a tool for Russia AND tried to withhold money from Ukraine”?

        2. “chemjeff radical individualist
          November.13.2019 at 4:58 pm
          What do you consider the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory to be?”

          As far as I’m concerned, the conclusion of a DNC contractor owned by a Russophobic Ukranian isn’t reliable evidence of anything – nor is the agreement, based only on CrowdStrike’s report since nobody else was allowed to examine the server, of US intel agencies (who are anything but honest and have their own agenda regarding Russia).
          Even were we to accept CrowStrike’s data as truth, it still wouldn’t be definitive evidence of Russian culpability. The CIA has specifically developed tools to mimic (ie, frame) hacks to implicate foreign actors like Cozy Bear. Convenient that this very group was declared the culprit.

          http://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

          1. Hell, there’s evidence that the DNC emails had nothing to do with a hack, but were instead uploaded to a USB and leaked by someone inside the organization.
            As it so happens, there was a disgruntled staffer (Voter Expansion Data Director) named Seth Rich who was subsequently murdered (a still unsolved case of “botch robbery” in which the alleged thieves – interesting that it’s always assumed as plural and nobody asks why – did not take his wallet/cash/cards, his watch, or his iPhone but shot him in the back multiple times; this occurred around 4am and the responding officers either didn’t have their bodycams on or the recordings were “lost”) mere weeks later.
            [This is one of those stories that’s been “debunked”… with no information given other than the debunked assertion]

            1. Seth Rich was a Bernie-bro and found that the DNC was conspiring to give the nomination to the Hag and short-circuit Bernie.
              Plenty of motive to leak the e-mails.
              If there was this sophisticated effort to hack anything, why wouldn’t it have been the 30,000 HiLIARy e-mails, that she had Bleach-bit erased, only secured by Secret Service agents outside the house?

          2. So you offer no solid evidence, only speculation and conspiracy. That is par for the course I suppose.
            And you call ME a psychotic. Heal thyself, lunatic.
            Why am I not surprised that you buy into the Seth Rich conspiracy nonsense as well.
            And yes, as with all conspiracy theories, there is some small chance that everything in the conspiracy theory is actually true. But in the absence of SOLID EVIDENCE that AFFIRMATIVELY SUPPORTS the claim, then I’m going to go with Occam’s Razor here and say that the DNC server is not actually in Ukraine.

            Is the CIA capable of dirty tricks? Oh yes. Yes very much so.
            Did the CIA commit dirty tricks in this particular episode? Maybe, maybe not.

            1. I offered you factors that raise giant red flags and cause for skepticism.
              No, I do not accept CrowdStrike’s and the IC’s word as gospel.
              Those who do are rightly called useful idiots.
              I didn’t day anything about the server being in Ukraine (there’s your psychosis kicking in) – the likeliest state of the server is that it was destroyed shortly after the Wikileaks revelations.
              Indeed, the only position that I presented was skepticism of the narrative put forth by professional liars.
              Were you not such a psychological, emotional, and intellectual invalid you might’ve avoided proving my assessment of you yet again.
              Enjoy your future as hihn

              1. I didn’t day anything about the server being in Ukraine (there’s your psychosis kicking in)

                No, that is literally what the conspiracy theory IS. That the DNC server with all of its incriminating evidence was spirited away to the Ukraine by CrowdStrike, away from the reach of American authorities. That is what Trump asked Zelensky to find.

                “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.

                Perhaps if you weren’t so invested in trying to insult me and actually read what people are saying, you might have a more productive time here.

                1. “chemjeff radical individualist
                  November.13.2019 at 4:58 pm
                  What do you consider the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory to be?”

                  Nardz
                  “As far as I’m concerned…”

                  If you’re trying to push a different Crowdstrike theory and wish to discuss that, state it outright instead of asking someone else what their opinion is.

            2. “”So you offer no solid evidence, only speculation and conspiracy.””

              Which would be like the impeachment hearings so far.

    3. how is it a conspiracy when Biden admited to withholding monies until Ukraine stoped investigating a company his son works for unless you think Biden was lying just to Troll Trump?

      1. You see, for a long time Jeffmike was able to keep a very thin veneer over his prog proclivities.

        This situation has forced him to tear the mask completely off. We have a leading Presidential candidate in Biden admitting behavior that if nothing else, merits a cursory investigation, and Jeffmike is calling it a “wild conspiracy.”

        Congrats Jeffmike. Tulpa is more reasonable on this than you are.

        1. Cool story bro.

        2. “Tulpa is more reasonable on this than you are.”

          All hail Tulpa! Tulpa itself is the foremost advocate of hailing Tulpa! All bow down now, Hail Tulpa!

          1. Squirrely, don’t you have a bucket of your own shit to eat?

    4. You mean like Joe Biden and Bark Obama? I mean they were there doing this shit for explicitly partisan purposes in 2016, but then pros like you don’t actually care about corruption or abuse of power as long as Democrats do it.

    5. ‘Wild conspiracy theories’…….. like how Biden admitted what he did on video.

      Goddamn Pedo Jeffy, you are one stupid kid.

  12. Someone needs to thank Shiff for giving the country a lesson in why hearsay is not admissible in courts outside of narrowly tailored and well thought out exceptions. The reason is that admitting hearsay allows people to concoct proof of an accusation out of thin air. And that is what is happening here.

    So, Taylor says that Trump ordered the aid delayed because he was wanted the Ukrainians to investigate Biden. How does Taylor know that? Because Holmes told him so. How does Holmes know that? He doesn’t. He wasn’t’ on the call and has no direct evidence of what Trump was thinking. He concluded Trump was thinking that based on, wait for it, hearsay he read in the New York Times.

    Here we have an accusation in support of which there is no direct evidence. No one can testify to any firsthand knowledge that it is true. But, they all told each other it was true and then say that it is based on being told that it was.

    And we then get hacks like Binion breathlessly repeating this testimony as if it were true or holds any persuasive value.

    1. Dunno. Seems like, if one were trying to establish evidence of a chain of communications, one might start on the first day of the public hearings on one end of the chain then call witnesses to testify further to establish the entire chain. In other words, it’s a little early to be calling this game, isn’t it?

      1. Witnesses to what?
        WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT!
        You fools are really going to go with the idea that Donald Trump, when he became aware that money had been allocated for Ukraine to defend itself against the Russians said to himself: Oh boy! Here’s my chance to get some dirt on Joe Biden. The guy whose foot is constantly in his mouth when he’s not molesting women on camera?
        You’re really going to go with that?

        1. “Witnesses to what?”
          I don’t know yet. Let’s follow the public hearings and see what witnesses they call, what they say, and how well that makes a case.

          1. That’s right! If we investigate enough there might actually be some wrongdoing if we never stop.

            1. Then public inquiry has dragged on for one whole day so far.

        2. *I’M* not going with that. I’m just a neutral American citizen watching what’s happening.

          But you did just (crudely) sum up the alleged abuse of office.

          1. You are as neutral as Eric C. And his accomplice Schiff.

  13. Everyone who thinks this revelation is sufficient grounds to remove Trump from office should come out and say so. There are 27 House Democrats running for reelection in districts that voted for Trump in 2016, and they better have something better than today’s testimony to hang their vote for impeachment on before they face the voters next November. Everyone who thinks there is more than sufficient testimony to justify impeaching the president–based on this testimony–should explain why Schiff and Pelosi haven’t already called for a vote. If Schiff and Pelosi though there was sufficient justification for an impeachment vote, they’d have called one already.

    1. There is no revelation Ken. As I explain below, the accusation is created out of nothing and only exists because the Democrats are allowing people to testify based on hearsay. The bottom line here is that we know two things

      1. That Trump asked the Ukrainian President to look into the gas company thing that Biden had forced them to fire the prosecutor over and to look into Crowdstrike and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. That we know from the transcript of the call.

      2. We know that military aid to Ukraine was delayed by DOD.

      That is all we know. We have no evidence as to why the aid was delayed or that Trump even knew that it was. And we have no evidence that Trump ever linked the aid to Ukraine doing anything.

      We do, however, know that no one in the Ukrainian government has said they were being extorted and no one has been able to testify to anyone in that government ever claiming they were.

      After that, all we have is a bunch of people claiming that the aid was withheld to strong arm Ukraine without any first hand knowledge that was true and relying on each other’s claims that it was to justify their testimony that is what happened.

      They literally invented this thing out of thin air. The concocted the story and then told each other they thought it was true and then used hearing it as their reason for believing it was true.

      1. The most reasonable explanation for why we’re having this impeachment at all is because Pelosi was afraid that if Trump won reelection in 2020–and Pelosi hadn’t impeached him–then she’d get blamed for the Democrat losing and her own party would replace her as Speaker.

        1. The longer this goes, the worse they are going to look. Remember, this is day one. This is the day when they were going to have the biggest hold on the public’s attention. And this guy is what they came up with. This is the best they have. There is nothing any better or they would have led with that instead of this guy. So, it is just going to get more absurd as time goes. And the more people like Binion lie and pretend otherwise, the worse they are going to look.

          This is a train wreck.

          1. We can only hope that after all this that not only do the Democrats fail, but they are also prosecuted en masse. This whole thing is just another coup attempt, just like the Mueller investigation.

            The likely whistleblower even tweeted that out in 2017. All of this is just more proof of their treason.

      2. I’ve also heard that the Ukrainians are saying they want to reopen the investigation into the whole Burisma affair as well because they believe the investigator was falsely painted as corrupt and they want to know what exactly happened

        1. Can you link to where you heard that?

          1. Look it up yourself and stop asking for links.
            You act like a freaking invalid

            1. If you can’t find anything, come back and say so – then ask for a link

            2. No. You’re not the boss of me, Nardz. Someone makes a factual claim here, I can ask them where they heard it.

              1. LOL

                You’re a joke

              2. He might as well be Mike. Goddamn people like you really need to slapped around, so you learn your place.

            3. The onus is on the person making the claim to offer substantiation to back the claim.

              1. Pedo Jeffy, don’t attempt to lecture anyone, ever. You’re just a piece of shit everyone laughs at here.

                So really, fuck off.

      3. They’re also testifying that Zelensky is a liar

        1. He is lying because he is afraid of what Trump might do to him if he told the truth. That is their explanation for that. I shit you not.

          1. If you word it that way, it sounds ridiculous. If one were to speculate that Zelensky is afraid of offending the Republican Party and losing future aid for the Ukraine, it’s more credible.

          2. “He is lying because he is afraid of what Trump might do to him if he told the truth. That is their explanation for that. I shit you not.”

            It’s not a good conspiracy unless the evidence is hidden so well you can’t find it!
            Toss Trump in the lake! If he drowns, he’s innocent.

      4. 2. We know that military aid to Ukraine was delayed by DOD.

        “By late August, according to congressional aides, the White House budget office acknowledged it was responsible for the delays, saying a policy review was underway.

        “The President has been consulting with his national security leadership team to determine the best use of Ukraine security assistance funds to achieve US national security interests,” Office of Management and Budget staff wrote in an email to House Appropriations Committee staff aides. Agencies, OMB said, “must wait to obligate them until the policy review process is complete and the President had made a final determination.””

        https://apnews.com/94fdeaddc6b34c02b97278674b87541e

        1. Well that establishes that the White House delayed it. That, however, still doesn’t establish the reason nor does it explain why it is that the Ukrainians never thought it had anything to do with Biden.

          The facts still amount to jack and shit.

          1. nor does it explain why it is that the Ukrainians never thought it had anything to do with Biden.

            “In a significant revision to his testimony nearly three weeks ago before House impeachment investigators, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, now says he told a Ukrainian official that security assistance to the country would be likely to resume only if the authorities in Kyiv opened investigations requested by President Trump that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.”

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-revised-testimony-sondland-ties-trump-to-quid-pro-quo/2019/11/05/3059b3b8-ffec-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

            1. Sonderland can testify that he told the Ukrainians any damn thing he wants. Was he told that by his boss? Or was he just overstepping his authority, like that Lt Col who had the balls to lecture the President of Ukraine to not meddle in US affairs? That little shit needs to be court martialed, and Sonderland needs to be fired.

          2. Also, where did you hear that it was DOD that delayed the aid?

            1. Sorry didn’t mean to flag, it’s this stupid website combined with stupid phone and stupid user

      5. George Kent testified that he and others at the State Department repeatedly pushed for the closed investigations into Burisma to be reopened. He also testified that he clearly raised with the Obama administration that Hunter Biden’s position on the board presented a conflict of interest and should be looked into only to have his concerns ignored.

        What am I missing here? Democrats seem to want to impeach Trump for attempting to pursue an investigation that more or less everybody with eyes and a brain had been pushing for years.

        This is beyond absurd.

        1. Democrats seem to want to impeach Trump for attempting to pursue an investigation that more or less everybody with eyes and a brain had been pushing for years.

          Even if we are to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here, do you think the methods that Trump chose to pursue these investigations – using unrelated military aid money as leverage, sending his personal lawyer – were appropriate?

          1. Assuming facts not in evidence.

            1. So Trump didn’t send Giuliani to meet with the Ukrainians?

              1. Non responsive

          2. It doesn’t matter what you think is appropriate: you’re not POTUS. Further, “inappropriate” is not “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Also, almost every president has used non-official conduits and emissaries, whether you approve of the practice or not.

            1. It doesn’t matter what you think is appropriate: you’re not POTUS.

              Umm yeah it does. I’m a voter and a citizen as well. Trump is not the king after all. If Trump wants to enact his will in foreign policy then he needs to use the official organs of the State Department to do so, and not use his own personal lawyer as his proxy, which carries with it an entire truckload of baggage in terms of conflict of interest.

              1. I’m also a voter and citizen. I want a unicorn. So fucking what?

              2. Pedo a Jeffy, it’s been stablished you’re some bitch ass punk college kid from Toronto. You are a Canadian, so this is none of your facing business.

                But hey, you’re a known liar. So please, continue to be a liar.

                1. Oh fuck you. Don’t you have some progressives to murder?

        2. If Kent had convinced the Obama administration to investigate, would that investigation have taken the shape of non-State Department attorneys being brought in to run the investigation or of placing great emphasis on a public announcement of the investigation?

          1. “non-State Department attorneys being brought in to run the investigation” is a patently dishonest description, while “placing great emphasis on a public announcement of the investigation” is hearsay and innuendo… or did you already forget that we have the transcript?

            1. We have a timeline of testimony about several events occurring over several weeks. We have a non-verbatim transcript of a phone call, which is just one of those events. The testimony about Trump’s demanding a public announcement wasn’t related to the July 25th phone call event.

              1. No, it was all third hand hearsay.

      6. It’s Schroedinger’s Revelation.

    2. “Everyone who thinks there is more than sufficient testimony to justify impeaching the president–based on this testimony…”

      Umm, it’s the first day of the public hearings. Nobody is claiming today’s testimony is sufficient to impeach anybody.

      1. So, you’re saying the testimony we heard today is insufficient to justify impeaching the president–isn’t that right?

        1. Of course it’s not enough. It’s the first day of the public hearings.

  14. I’m supposed to care what some unelected functionary thinks his aide overheard?

    RUFKM?

    1. One of the many ways you can tell these people have nothing interesting to say is how much time they spend telling their life story and giving their resumes. None of that matters or makes what they have to say any more or less believable. Yes, they need to say who they are and why they were in a position to know what they know. But knowing they have served America for 30 years and hearing a description of their “I Love Me” wall adds nothing to the discussion. The only reason they do it is that they have to say something and what they have to say that is relevant can be said in 2 minutes or less. So, they have to fill the time someway. If they had anything to say, they wouldn’t have that problem.

      1. “16 years! I’m totes an expert.”

      2. If anything it cements that as you say, they are utterly unremarkable in every way.

        1. “Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:

          Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
          My life is a mess,
          Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
          I whinny seductively for the horses,
          They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
          My real name is Mary Stack,
          NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
          On disability, I live all alone,
          Spend desperate nights by the phone,
          I found a man named Richard Decker,
          But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
          Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
          I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!

          So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/11/farmers-kept-refusing-let-him-have-sex-with-their-animals-so-he-sought-revenge-authorities-say/#comments-wrapper
          Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
          Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
          Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
          Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
          Pause…
          Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
          And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!

          So Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!

          So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!

          But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
          Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!

          Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!

          Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!

          What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?

          -Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
          Yours Truly,
          Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan

          1. “…What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?”

            Fuck off and grow up.

            1. I know what he will do. Probably go eat a bucket of his own shit.

  15. One thing that no one in the media has seemed to notice is that there is no evidence showing that Trump so much as knew the aid was delayed much less ordered it. Without that, Trump can’t be guilty of anything. He can’t be guilty of withholding aid for personal benefit, whatever that means, if he never ordered the aid withheld or knew that it was.

    1. I suppose it hasn’t occurred to you that avoiding anyone getting orders directly from the president is exactly why he kept telling everyone, both US and Ukrainian to “talk to Rudy,”?

      None of you guys can tell me why the president’s personal attorney is in charge of a proxy war with a nuclear power? Seems like a total abdication of responsibility by the president, at the very least.

      1. Wow, look how strident and desperate that post is. You know this is dead in the water lolol.

      2. yea next thing you know he will appoint a novelist as National Security Advisor

        1. And that’s where ideas like “red lines” come from

        2. So has he appointed Rudy as anything? No. Well then. Tell me why the president is having his personal attorney run a proxy war with a nuclear power. Seems irresponsible and overtly corrupt. His attorney answers to him and him alone, not the american people, as an appointee would.

          1. Shorter Jeff “I don’t understand why Trump is doing something very common and normal for Presidents, IMPEACH!!!”

            1. I totally remember all those times when Obama sent his personal lawyer to conduct shadow diplomacy, outside of the normal State Department channels, on Obama’s personal behalf.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist
                November.13.2019 at 6:25 pm
                “I totally remember all those times when Obama sent his personal lawyer to conduct shadow diplomacy, outside of the normal State Department channels, on Obama’s personal behalf.”

                Ever hear of FDR and Pop Watson? The practice is of long history.

                1. Pa Watson was an appointee, try again.

              2. Val Jar did a lot of that kind of thing.

                1. Valerie Jarrett was not Obama’s personal attorney. Valerie Jarrett was formally appointed by Obama in an official capacity and had her own staff in the White House. This is different than what Giuliani is doing.

          2. It’s telling that nobody is answering this question.

            The only answer I’ve been given is that Trump couldn’t use anyone employed in his own administration to conduct an investigation is that they are all part of the Democrat-aligned Deep State, out to get him, so he couldn’t be expected to work with them.

            Seems to me if that is the situation, Trump might want to deal with the huge problem that his own administration is trying to destroy him before worrying about investigating corruption in the Ukraine.

          3. “His attorney answers to him and him alone, not the american people, as an appointee would.”
            You dumbass. Any appointee would also answer directly to POTUS because THATS HOW IT FUCKING WORKS!

            1. They answer to potus in the chain of command, but they work for the US government. Are you so stupid you don’t know the difference between a Trump Org employee and an executive branch government employee?

              1. Are you so stupid as to pretend that someone appointed by POTUS doesn’t answer to POTUS? Or to know that POTUS is pretty much unaccountable to anyone as far as how he approaches diplomacy with other nations? He could finger Dennis Rodman as point to negotiate a treaty with North Korea, and the only input Congress has is whether or not the Senate approves the agreement. There is no magic “works for the government” stamp on the forehead.

                1. If Trump sends MJ and Pippen, we could get Kim to sign just about anything.

                  But you bring up a good point – both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were sent on diplomatic missions as private citizens

            2. Sorry, Mike. You’ve been polite with me, and I called you a dumbass. That was very rude of me. Please accept my apologies.

      3. I suppose it hasn’t occurred to you that avoiding anyone getting orders directly from the president is exactly why he kept telling everyone, both US and Ukrainian to “talk to Rudy,”?

        But there is no evidence that is the case. He could have told people to talk to Rudy because Rudy was the guy who was dealing with the Ukraine for him. Could he have done that to create plausible deniability? Sure. But absent evidence that is the case, there is no reason to believe that.

        You are just assuming what you want to be true is, and then interpreting events as were true and using those events as proof of your original assumption. It is a logical tautology and more commonly known as confirmation bias. And it is not persuasive. It is pathetic.

        1. So tell me why a president should have a personal employee, who does not have any of the oversight or records preservation regulations imposed on him, to wage a proxy war with a nuclear power. Please tell me a good excuse for this. Absent that, I am going to assume the worst. That’s what a good critic of government power is supposed to do.

          1. Every President has aids that go out and do their bidding and go around the bureaucracy. There is nothing unusual about that. And even if there were, it doesn’t prove your case. You have no evidence.

            1. Oh? It is normal for president to have their personal attorneys, on their personal payroll conduct foreign relations of the highest sensitivity? You must have many examples of this, I’m sure.

              1. Cuban Missile Crisis

                1. Specifics?

                2. Are you talking about Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General? Do I need to explain why those are not even similar?

                  1. John A. Scali, reporter for ABC News

                    I think Reagan might’ve had someone over there too

                    1. Scali was contacted by Russians and relayed the message to Washington. He acted with the full endorsement of the US Government. A little different than a president setting up a back channel through his personal employee, and against official US policy. Reagan…is not a great example of legality when it comes to foreign affairs.

                    2. Scali was not the president’s personal lawyer. Scali’s fiduciary duty was not to the president.

                    3. But reagan used oFfiCIaL OffICiALs!

              2. There are attorneys and then there are attorneys. Sometimes you need someone you can trust.

                “Michael: Barzini will set me up through somebody close… that, supposedly, I won’t suspect.
                Hagen: Somebody like me.
                Michael: You’re Irish, they won’t trust you.
                Hagen: I’m German-American.
                Michael: To them that’s Irish.”

          2. Your ignorance is not evidence.

            1. Show me an example of a president using his personal attorney for foreign relations, especially in regards to a nuclear armed proxy war.

              1. There may not be one. So what.

                Considering the seditious behavior of Obama holdovers and assorted agency bureau-critters, it is not surprising the POTUS might turn to someone outside the entrenched administrative state to convey his thoughts and messages. I’d rather that this not be the case, but I would completely understand it, given events that started back in 2016, continue to this very day, and have now come to light.

                That sure in shit became clear with the testimony we have heard, and testimony leaked out from the ‘secret’ hearings. The POTUS decides foreign policy, 100% no debate. The arrogance of these people is just mind-blowing, daring to substitute their judgment in place of a man elected to office. That is the real crime here.

                1. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman “In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”
                  “Outside influencers” refers to the POTUS and people trying to implement his policy decisions. So, what this guy is saying is that the collective view of a bunch of mid-level bureaucrats overrides the policy decisions of the POTUS because he is an outsider! Just stop and think about that for a minute, and then tell me that there’s no “deep state”.

                2. “So what.” -Entirety of Trump defense at this point.

                  Ever heard of the Logan Act? If not, then you should look it up. Because private citizens, no matter who they are employed by, are not allowed to negotiate with foreign governments as it pertains to matters of state. If Rudy did what he did at the behest of the president, then they are both guilty of violating the Logan Act.

                  And beyond that, you as a citizen and voter should care very much if the president is side stepping accountability and records keeping rules. Ya know, checks and balances, right? What’s the check on a private attorney?

                  It is unamerican and disgusting to a republic bound by laws. So what? Despicable.

                  1. What a complete misreading of a statute that has never been enforced due to it’s likely unconstitutionally!

                    1. Are you ready to hang Donald and Rudy’s hats on the constitutionality of the Logan Act?

                      This is another gem from Trump supporters, it seems once you get through all the obfuscation, denials, competing explanations, it always boils down to: so what, it’s technically not illegal. Glad we made it this far.

                    2. It’s not only not illegal, it’s a perfectly normal part of diplomacy. Or do you think Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, etc., et. al., should have been impeached for having back channel communications with the USSR?

                    3. Do you not even see the conflict of interest that is created by asking Trump’s own PERSONAL LAWYER to conduct diplomacy on his behalf? As opposed to, say, a State Department employee conducting secret negotiations on a sensitive matter? Trump’s personal lawyer has a fiduciary duty to represent his client’s personal interests, whether or not they coincide with that of the State Department or the government generally. THAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM HERE.

                    4. Not only that. Giuliani publicly said that he was involved in Ukraine to promote his client, Trump’s interests, not as a diplomat.

                    5. Do you not even see the conflict of interest that is created by asking Trump’s own PERSONAL LAWYER to conduct diplomacy on his behalf? As opposed to, say, a State Department employee conducting secret negotiations on a sensitive matter? Trump’s personal lawyer has a fiduciary duty to represent his client’s personal interests, whether or not they coincide with that of the State Department or the government generally. THAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM HERE.

                      Of course I see the conflict(s) of interest. If it takes a caricature like Trump to make you finally see the absolute rot of our ruling eschalons, well there’s another silver lining. To pretend that Trump is somehow uniquely corrupt is stupid, especially given how inept and stupid Trump is suppossed to be. How can a stupid man be uniquely corrupt? Come on. the Biden family was paid millions by Ukrainians and the Clinton’s set records for corruption. Trump is just stupid and petty and unimaginative in his larceny. But he’s got the same pergotives as his more subtle and successfully larcenous predecessors, and has not, in fact, been shown to have committed any acts approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors. “

                  2. You know, I sometimes wonder if you have taken the time to think through what is going to happen here, DOL. I don’t think you have.

                    Team D is taking their best shot. They have bupkis.

                    Have you thought about what happens if there is a Senate trial run by Team R? One suspects not. VP Biden, and his drug-addled son will be dragged before the Senate, and they will give testimony. They will be humiliated and bitch-slapped. Suits me fine. And all these bureau-critters testifying now, they’ll be dragged before the Senate, and they will get humiliated as well. The arrogance of these cocksuckers is absolutely incredible. Really? You’re a fucking bureaucrat. The boss is the POTUS (either party). No matter, they’ll be bitch-slapped for weeks also.

                    After all the witness humiliation is over, they’ll have themselves a nice vote, and decline to remove POTUS Trump from office. But I can assure you, VP Biden will be done. And I don’t think it stops there.

                    Then….the IG report on FISA abuse will come out, and Durham will be making criminal referrals left and right.

                    This was all preventable. But Team D has brought us here. Now they will have to live with what happens.

            2. “Your ignorance is not evidence.”

              Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

          3. Not only doesn’t have any of the oversight or records preservation regulations imposed on him, but can possibly invoke attorney-client privilege to obscure any inquiry into what Trump and Giuliani were up to.

            1. Which is exactly and obviously the point. Apparently I’m the one who is naive, though.

            2. “”Not only doesn’t have any of the oversight or records preservation regulations imposed on him,””

              Nothing says trying to skirt oversight or records preservation like using your own server and not a government one. Nothing says cover up better than hiding it in the bathroom of your private residence.

              I have always had a problem with selective prosecutions. Why would this be an issue for Trump if it wasn’t an issue for Hillary.

      4. >>None of you guys can tell me why the president’s personal attorney is in charge of a proxy war with a nuclear power?

        Rudy’s just crazy enough to drive that car.

        1. What Proxy war is this idiot even talking about? We are not at war with Ukraine. Russia? I thought Trump was Putin’s stooge. How is it that Trump is conducting a proxy war against his master?

          These idiots are not even trying anymore.

          1. No, john – the scary thing is that they ARE trying.
            Really, really hard.
            That kind of incompetent fanaticism is very dangerous

          2. I thought it might be fun to play along

            1. And was it?

              1. dunno … it made John mad lol

                1. Well that isn’t exactly a difficult trick.

                  1. It helps that you sometimes play along.

                2. Then worth it.

          3. You don’t know what a proxy war is? You could just ask.

            1. We all know what it means. What we don’t know is how anyone could be as stupid as you appear to be and as so desperate they will say anything.

              1. Well, he knows this is already over and he has another Trump victory to eat because of it.

              2. So is US aid to Ukraine not a proxy war with Russia? I’m not sure if you read the federalist, but their authors seem to agree with me that the US is engaged in proxy war with Russia vis-a-vis Ukraine.

                https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/21/meet-ukrainian-victims-united-statess-proxy-war-russia/

                1. But Trump is Putin’s cock holster…isn’t he?

                  Can you keep the story of who “owns” Trump straight?

                  1. Trump is Putin’s cockholster. But Trump isn’t loyal to anyone or thing besides himself. He takes help from the Russians without going to the FBI and would do it again, as he himself has admitted. But he knows he has to keep up some appearances.

                    Which is partially why he seems very unconcerned with Ukraine’s military woes, but very concerned with what a vice president’s son was doing.

                    I don’t know how you guys can continue to hold your noses and stick up for this unamerican, traitorous scumbag after this display: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtsNNXjBPw

                    1. Uh, OK.
                      What was I supposed to see?

                    2. A president of the most powerful nation on earth showing his belly to our oldest adversary.

                    3. The British?

                    4. I laughed.

                    5. De Oppresso Liber
                      November.13.2019 at 7:49 pm
                      “A president of the most powerful nation on earth showing his belly to our oldest adversary.”

                      THAT is truly an idiotic statement.
                      1) Your assumption of bullshit is bullshit.
                      2) “[O]ldest adversary”? Did you post that to make sure we all knew how stupid you are?
                      If so, you’ve done wonders for your rep.

                    6. De Oppresso Liber
                      November.13.2019 at 6:17 pm
                      “Trump is Putin’s cockholster. But Trump isn’t loyal to anyone or thing besides himself….”

                      Oh my god, It really is that fucking stupid. It believes in two contradictory things at once and thinks we are the stupid ones. The next five years will be glorious!

            2. you might lose everybody at “war”

      5. Why is the US establishment so concerned with having a proxy war with a nuclear power?
        Nobody ever explains this

        1. Because we got Ukraine to denuclearize with a promise we’d back them from Russian invasion.

          1. Wait you think THAT explains what you said?

            1. And what is it that explains what Tulpa said? Stupid is as stupid does, I think, unless you have evidence for any better theory…

              1. “…Stupid is as stupid does…”

                And you show up to prove it.
                Grow up and fuck off.

      6. “None of you guys can tell me why the president’s personal attorney is in charge of a proxy war with a nuclear power?”

        Besides the “pros” who are “supposed” to do that have proven themselves to be venal shits who cannot be trusted and will leak to the press every five seconds?

        If somebody leaks every time you tell them something…you stop telling them stuff.

        1. You’re going to defend everything that Trump does, aren’t you?
          Even when he’s wrong, you can always devise some whataboutism.

          1. Vindman admitted openly that he thought Trump was going against US foreign policy…EXCEPT Trump specifically is the one in charge of it. Trump, if anybody, cannot go against forein policy.

            1. Oh, the president alone decides foreign policy? Congress didn’t authorize and require military spending in Ukraine?

            2. Trump, if anybody, cannot go against forein policy.

              L’etat c’est moi!

              1. Trump in a nutshell. He has literally had his lawyers argue that he is immune from prosecution. Think about that, the president attempted to assert that he is above the law — all laws. And these guys try to claim libertarianism while supporting this proto-fascist trust fund huckster?

                https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/dangerous-arguments-presidential-immunity/600727/

                1. “Proto-fascist”

                  Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

                  1. “Roger Griffin describes fascism as ‘a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism’. Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: ‘(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism, and (iii) the myth of decadence'”

                    Let’s see
                    1. Rebirth myth –Make America Great Again. yup.
                    2. populist ultra-nationalism –Calls immigrants vermin, rapists, etc.. Another Check.
                    3. Myth of decadence: Drain the swamp, trade imbalance. Yup, check here too.

                    Oh and totalitarianism is often included too. On that, he had his lawyers argue that the president is immune from prosecution and investigation: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-vance/trump-could-shoot-someone-and-escape-prosecution-his-lawyer-argues-idUSKBN1X218U

                    1. ““Roger Griffin describes fascism as ‘a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism’. Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: ‘(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism, and (iii) the myth of decadence’”
                      Let’s see
                      1. Rebirth myth –Make America Great Again. yup.
                      2. populist ultra-nationalism –Calls immigrants vermin, rapists, etc.. Another Check.
                      3. Myth of decadence: Drain the swamp, trade imbalance. Yup, check here too. ”

                      Oh, isn’t that cute? Just too cute?
                      Select a random comment, find some similarities and declare a match!
                      Did you know both Kennedy and Lincoln have 7 letters? Do you know what that MEANS?!
                      Well, do you?

                    2. Sevo, you are particular unsubstantive today. Maybe you should read a few things before just diving straight into the comments?

                    3. Roger Griffin can define shit however he wants. Mussolini, the man who actually founded fascism, described it as: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”.

                    4. De Oppresso Liber
                      November.13.2019 at 7:50 pm
                      “Sevo, you are particular unsubstantive today. Maybe you should read a few things before just diving straight into the comments?”

                      You are seriously full of shit today. Maybe you should learn what “relevance’ means before you post that sort of bullshit.
                      No, not “maybe”.
                      Fuck off; your TDS is tiresome.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist
            November.13.2019 at 5:56 pm
            “You’re going to defend everything that Trump does, aren’t you?”

            You’re going to keep tossing allegations on the wall even though not a one of them has stuck in 3+ years, aren’t you/

      7. Pedo Jeffy, he sent someone he could trust on a sensitive matter because DC is full of traitors. The kind you support, and who probably favor child rapists as much as you do.

    2. It was OMB that delayed the aid.

      1. Okay. Someone did. OMB would be the ones to do that. But that still doesn’t prove why it was delayed.

        1. Well it wasn’t because of “corruption”, at least according to the DOD.

          “At the end of February, the Pentagon told defense and foreign affairs committees on Capitol Hill that it was coordinating with the State Department to transfer $125 million in aid and equipment to Ukraine. Then, in May, the Pentagon notified the panels it would send the other $125 million, certifying that Ukraine had made progress on corruption, as lawmakers had required when they approved the funds.

          That certification, two months before the president’s call with Zelensky, undermines one explanation Trump and his allies have offered for holding up the money — that it was because of broader concerns about corruption.”

          https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-14/trump-ukraine-aid-congress-impeachment

        2. You have the admission of the acting chief of staff, who counseled critics to ¨Get over it.¨

        3. go home and check the mailbox i totally remember sending checks out.

    3. It’s kinda hard to obtain that evidence when key White House staff refuse to testify.

  16. Do they really think they’re going to rouse the American public to demand Trump’s removal with this thin gruel?

    1. When Trump takes the debate stage and they come at him with this weak shit he is going to absolutely light them up

      1. I’m looking forward to it, Trump is gonna smash whoever steps up to him.

    2. No way. I demand gruel so thick my spoon will stand up in it!

  17. cute you filed it under IMPEACHMENT like it’s a thing.

  18. Well, I heard someone say that the heard someone else say that they heard that Joe Biden disagreed with Obama about something.
    And I damn well read OBL say everything ever said.

    So who goes to jail, and for how long?

  19. “Some guys said something”

  20. I heard from Jeff who heard from John who heard from Mike that Billy needed clicks so they put him on the impeachment beat

    1. I have never spoken to the President and have never heard him state what he was thinking or trying to accomplish on this call, but I talked to Jeff, who hasn’t spoken to him either, and he told me that he had heard that the President was telling the Ukrainians that if they didn’t find dirt on Biden, they were no longer getting any aid.

      That is in so many words the Democratic case here.

  21. “You stupid motherfuckers can’t read, and believe this government mandarin”

    1. I used to believe that Tulpa had 2 or 3, MAYBE even more, neurons in it’s head. Now I think my precious estimates were WAY on the high side!

  22. “I think it’s amply clear that Russian interference” affected the election…

    You had me then you lost me.

  23. I still have yet to see any solid evidence of Trump withholding aid from Ukraine in an attempt to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

    I’ve been asking for this evidence on several boards this morning and have received nothing but variations of:

    1. “Look at all this 2nd and 3rd hand stuff that was and wasn’t said or done and look at the timing of the aid, isn’t that suspicious?” but a lack of actual solid evidence that Trump was offering aid in exchange for an investigation of Hunter Biden.
    2. “Go read these 300+ page documents I haven’t read”

    From the outside looking in, I wonder 4 things:

    1. Sure, this stuff seems kind of suspicious, but I can’t endorse impeachment without solid evidence of wrongdoing.
    2. How many Americans are going to be able to follow this confusing timeline?
    3. Should all children of political officials be immune to scrutiny when doing business in a foreign country?
    4. Why are we giving away massive tax dollars to Ukraine?

    1. There’s nothing to wonder. His supporters will not be convinced by anything, and neither will those who are convinced that he only won the election because people on Facebook voted based upon Russian advertisements. The people who aren’t in either camp probably couldn’t be paid to give a fuck. I certainly don’t.

      1. I only started giving any fucks once this became a public hearing. My fucks are still low but they get higher the further this thing advances. Those fucks are not favorable to the Democrats so far considering this entire thing seems to be based on insinuation and suspicions rather than actual evidence.

    2. You leave out one other question.

      5. How is it that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden when on one in the Ukrainian government says they felt pressured to do anything?

      They are claiming this is a case of extortion but the alleged victim says he wasn’t extorted.

      1. Good point. I’ll add that to my list of things to ask.

        Honestly, I didn’t think it would get to the point of a public hearing, but now that it has, I’m trying to put these pieces together and its insanely confusing.

        Honestly, I really hope they don’t impeach. If Trump didn’t do anything wrong that can be clearly and concisely explained with evidence, it’ll tear the country apart. Large swaths of the country will lose all faith in our republic. That never ends well.

        1. “Large swaths of the country will lose all faith in our republic.”

          Fewer than half of eligible voters bother to show up, so I’m pretty sure that’s already happened.

        2. K2….That is precisely the point I have made to my uber-lib friends (Yes, I have uber-lib friends; I daven with them in synagogue). To be seen as legitimate, there must be clear and unequivocal evidence of a heinous act that is just unassailable, and impeachment-worthy. It is really a two-part test.

          Anything short of that will absolutely tear the Republic apart.

          Team D will vote to impeach POTUS Trump. They can’t stop now. Their hatred and contempt for POTUS Trump (and his supporters) exceeds their patriotism to their country. I never, ever thought I would see that day.

          1. Its really sad and pretty scary. We just have to hope that the top Democrats understand this simple fact.

    3. “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

      1. My God, Trump asked a foreign leader for a favor. The walls are closing in.

        You are pathetic Jeff.

        1. You know where that quote comes from, John.

      2. “”“I would like you to do us a favor though.”””

        That’s a pretty empty statement. What you think is means other than just asking for a favor is where bias comes into play. You are opining about it’s meaning.

        I am not a Trump fan. You will need far more than that to convince me of something wrong. I do not like the Clintons, and if the Republicans were trying to impeach Hillary with such, I would say the same.

        1. That statement appears in the transcript right after Zelensky brings up the subject of Ukraine’s defense and their willingness to buy more American weapons.

          And it’s not just that statement ALONE. It was that statement, ALONG WITH all of the other evidence – the mysterious delay in the aid money at the behest of OMB *after* the DOD approved the disbursement of the money, Trump telling Zelensky to coordinate with Barr and Giuliani on this matter (not the State Dept, notably), Sondland telling Ukraine that the aid and the meeting with Trump was conditioned on a public statement announcing the investigations Trump demanded, Giuliani running around Europe and conducting shadow diplomacy on Trump’s behalf.

          If this is all just about uncovering corruption in Ukraine, why not go through the usual channels? Why a public statement on *these two specific items*, instead of a statement against corruption more broadly? Why send your personal lawyer, and not an actual government employee?

          1. You’re ridiculously desperate.
            Obviously, that is nothing new

          2. Because he’s the president and that’s the decision he made. Trump is in charge, whether you like him or his decisions. His foreign policy views were known, as were his opponent’s, and the American people chose Trump to enact those policies- whether you, some jackass Lt Col, or Jesus Fucking Christ himself thinks they know better.

            1. Because he’s the president and that’s the decision he made.

              He’s not a king.

              1. No. But POTUS has remarkable amounts of power and discretion. Policy differences are not criminal.

          3. I think that this looks pretty suspicious, but it relies on you framing this exactly the way that you did. That’s not enough to convince me of this monumental impeachment you want me to get on board with. I require evidence that is clear and concise, not a bunch of separate things that, when you look at it in this particular way, *might* mean there was an improper use of power.

    4. “4. Why are we giving away massive tax dollars to Ukraine?”
      My understanding is that it was actually loan guarantees that were held up, not direct cash. But I’ve been wrong before. Why, I remember this time in 1987 that… *trails off into some pointless story*

      1. Ah, okay, thanks!

  24. All right, you go back and tell them that the New York State Supreme Court rules there’s no Santa Claus. It’s all over the papers. The kids read it and they don’t hang up their stockings. Now what happens to all the toys that are supposed to be in those stockings? Nobody buys them. The toy manufacturers are going to like that; so they have to lay off a lot of their employees, union employees. Now you got the CIO and the AF of L against ya and they’re going to adore ya for it and they’re going to say it with votes. Oh, and the department stores are going to love ya too and the Christmas card makers and the candy companies. Ho ho, Henry, you’re going to be an awful popular fella. And what about the Salvation Army? Why, they got a Santy Claus on every corner, and they’re taking a fortune. But you go ahead, Henry, you do it your way. You go on back in there and tell them that you rule there is no Santy Claus. Go on. But if you do, remember this: you can count on getting just two votes, your own and that district attorney’s out there.

  25. Had the misfortune of listening to some of this in the car today. I don’t know how many times I heard the phrase “There was no quid pro quo.” I suppose that must be proof that there was. Or something. This circus is fucking stupid.

    1. That is the thing, even if you believe this stuff, I have yet to hear anyone explain why the public is going to care. The whole thing is surreal.

      1. I heard some woman yammering about how it was bribery, except there was no bribe which made it attempted bribery, except that there was no attempt at a bribe, which meant Trump should be prosecuted. Or something. These people are so fucking serious that I’m, like, seriously?

        1. Implied attempted bribery.

          A very serious crime. Verrrry serious.

          1. How high do I have to be to call it a misdemeanor?

    2. Sarc, no offense, but one time telling us how little you care about this is fine.

      1. Ugh, no offence, but when I want your opinion I’ll go take a shit.

        1. Agreed! Whenever I want to take a shit, I think of Tulpa! I have heard it said that whenever you ring a bell, and angel gets his or her wings… And that whenever you take a shit-crap or a crap-shit, Tulpa gets hungry! VERY-very HUNGRY!!!

          1. I lol’d

    3. I totally agree. I’m surprised the Democrats are going this route.

      1. One theory is that they’re trying to set up a giant “tu quoque” argument for when Durham’s report finally comes out.

      2. What do they have to lose? They know he won’t be removed and will likely be re-elected. If it makes a difference in picking up some seats in Congress they win.

        About half the people are in favor of the proceedings. There are going to be some swing voters out there who will just look at this as another example of a president out of control and will vote a Dem for Congress as a check on that.

        1. They will raise money off of it.
          It will be funny if a donor sues them for fraud

        2. Echo….I wonder if Team D has really thought through the process.

          When this charade is over, and Team D votes to impeach POTUS Trump, it will be taken up in the Senate. Just think about that for a moment. A trial, with Team R calling any witness they like, will be held in the Senate.

          VP Biden will be called. Hunter Biden will be called. Eric Ciaramella will be called. All the people testifying now will be re-called. They will all be called to testify, and then systematically destroyed, one by one. More than anything, these Beltway Bitches fear humiliation, and humiliation is what they will get. It will be a spectacle.

          But hey, Team D is pushing this, so now they will need to live with it.

          1. Here is my question”

            IF this goes to the Senate (which I currently doubt) when people like Hunter Biden, or Ciaramella, or Videman get called to testify AND they then claim Fifth Amendment protections does the Senate have the power to grant them immunity for their truthful testimony and thereby compel them to answer whatever gets thrown at them?

            Because, if the answer to that question is yes then I stand by my conviction that this is not going to get passed out of the House.

  26. Maybe Trump shouldn’t have appointed his personal lawyer to conduct shadow diplomacy working on implied behalf of the US government.

    1. Or maybe he should have. You dumb asses can’t prove any wrong doing. So either he was being honest or he is smart enough to cover his tracks. Either way, Trump has nothing to regret.

      1. You of all people should know about the conflict of interest here. Giuliani’s professional obligation is to Trump personally, not to US foreign policy.

        1. “You of all people should know about the conflict of interest here. Giuliani’s professional obligation is to Trump personally, not to US foreign policy.”

          Try something relevant next time; your faux ethical concerns are not going anywhere.

          1. the Logan Act is real and carries prison time.

            1. Sure, sure. Serious stuff, the Logan Act. Why, the maximum penalty is 3 yrs imprisonment and a whopping $5000 fine! Two (2!) people have been prosecuted over it, both before the Civil War, and no one has ever been convicted. Further, the Act says “…without authority of the United States…” not “who is not a government employee”, and if the POTUS gives you the job, I’d say that’s authorized.
              “In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), Justice Sutherland, writing for the Court, observed,
              [T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation, the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, ‘The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.'”
              And lastly “The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms “defeat” and “measures,” but did not rule on the question.
              In 2006, the United States House Committee on Ethics warned departing members of the terms of the Act in an official Memorandum. The Committee commented in the Memorandum that the Act, “… has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality … Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books.””

              1. Oh, then I’m sure we will have some record of the president appointing Rudy an ambassador, and then attorney client privilege would no longer be relevant, and Rudy will have been required to keep records of all his correspondence with foreign diplomats and the president.

                1. Show me where the president has to negotiate either himself, or through a government employee. The president has absolute discretion on how to communicate with foriegn governments.

                  1. He doesn’t HAVE to use government employees to conduct negotiations. But if he decides to use, say, his own personal lawyer instead, he creates conflicts of interests and creates the legitimate impression that he’s trying to do some sneaky shit away from prying eyes. ESPECIALLY when said lawyer can’t keep his own story straight about who he’s actually working for, Trump or the State Dept.

                2. “Oh, then I’m sure we will have some record of the president appointing Rudy an ambassador, and then attorney client privilege would no longer be relevant, and Rudy will have been required to keep records of all his correspondence with foreign diplomats and the president.”

                  I’m sure we’ll have some evidence why this is relevant.
                  No, we won’t.
                  You’re throwing shit at a wall and hoping SOMETHING sticks.
                  You lost, loser.
                  Fuck off and grow up

          2. Oh I don’t give a shit about Giuliani. I am talking about the repercussions of using him as a proxy for US foreign policy when his professional allegiance is to his client and not the state.

            1. The client being POTUS, who in his dealings with foriegn governments, is the State.

              1. Sorry, but the ideology of “L’etat c’est moi” died out in the 18th century. Literally.

                1. I didn’t write the constitution. But read Article II. The President is the Executive branch. One third of the power of our three branches lies with one man. That power is limited in what areas it encompasses, but inside those areas it is near absolute.

              2. That is so not Constitutionally true. He is the chief of the Executive branch, one of three branches of government. He has no power of the purse, he isn’t supposed to have the power to declare war. And, in this case, because he is running for re-election he is subject to FEC regulations as a candidate.

    2. Did you listen to any of the testimony? I’m thinking not. Or if so you heard something I didn’t. I am by no stretch of the imagination a Trump supporter and I honestly can’t figure out what he did.

      1. No I didn’t hear the testimony today, I was working all day. (Well, most of it. 🙂

        1. The fact that you’re employed is an indictment of your employer

          1. I know, right?
            Why, it’s almost as if the person you are arguing against, is different than the stereotype that you have in your head!

            1. I’ve not stereotyped you
              I’ve made direct assessments of you and cited the behavior which prompted those conclusions
              You don’t like it – tough shit

              1. I’ve not stereotyped you

                Oh yes you have.

                You think I’m some cookie-cutter Progressive SJW Activist “fighting dragons” or some such.

                And then when I don’t conform to your vision of who you think I am, you accuse me even further of suffering from some sort of psychosis.

                Your “assessments” aren’t worth shit. You are just another random Internet poster trying to stuff words and ideas into my mouth.

                Grow up.

                1. Readers can decide for themselves.
                  Yes, you’re psychotic.
                  You argue against what you imagine people say, not what their actual words are. You substitute your fantasy for reality.
                  I’m glad you liked the dragon metaphor but, contrary to your self-centered persecution fantasies, it was not intended solely for you

        2. I had to spend an hour and a half in the car and listened to testimony the entire time. I heard an impeachment hearing in desperate search of a crime, and failing miserably. It was ridiculous to be honest.

  27. You know who else had a crazy Ukraine policy?

    1. LiMu Emu and Doug?

      1. Ukraine is game to you?!

        1. Don’t play the game card with us! (Wait….)

    2. Atilla the Hun ?

    3. Paul McCartney?

  28. OK, boring.
    Well, not quite; our resident TDS victims can be amusing in their idiocy, but not that amusing.
    So we have one more ‘I heard someone say something and therefore…’
    Boring.

    1. More boring than the BENGHAZZZIII!!!! hearings? Ok, maybe not… watching your Obama Derangement Syndrome was kind of fun, Trumpian.

      1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        November.13.2019 at 8:27 pm
        “More boring than the BENGHAZZZIII!!!! hearings? Ok, maybe not…”
        Dunno; didn’t watch the hag lie her way out of responsibility. Her bullshit claims regarding her illegal comm system were amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.

        “watching your Obama Derangement Syndrome was kind of fun, Trumpian.”
        You’re the one mentioning Obo, shitstain. Trying to deflect from your raging TDS?
        Fuck off and die after you pay your mortgage.

      2. About the same level of boring. I mean, neither Trump nor Hillary not Trump were going to be convicted. (The only difference is that Obama and Hillary were actually guilty of egregious misconduct.)

  29. Wife, “You’re corrupt and I’m going to prove it.”
    Husband, “Okay, good luck.”
    Wife, “Well, I can’t prove it but I told all my friends you are anyways.”
    Husband, “Well, I’ll go make sure your friends know I’m not.”
    Wife, “SEE!!! I told you, you are CORRUPT!!! You’re going to tell my friends that I have no proof and just made it up!!”

  30. Absent from the entire discussion is the question of whether American taxpayers should be forced to send our money to Ukraine in the first place.

    Including the billion dollars that Quid-Pro-Joe used to shield his son’s benefactors.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.