Impeachment

Kurt Volker Revises Testimony and Says Corruption Allegations Against Biden Are 'Not Credible'

"I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question," the former special envoy to Ukraine testified.

|

Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, testified in the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday afternoon, repeatedly remarking that allegations of corruption leveled at former Vice President Joe Biden are "not credible."

The ambassador, who was called to testify by Republicans, also sought to revise his testimony from his closed-door deposition. "I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question," he told congressional investigators today.

Volker was originally seen as a witness who would be sympathetic to the Republicans' case; other witnesses implicated him in efforts to strong-arm Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into publicly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Group and former Vice President Joe Biden, whose son Hunter sat on the board of the Ukrainian energy company.

But the former special envoy clarified on Tuesday that he was unaware of the investigative link between Biden and Burisma. A probe into the latter made sense, he said, while an investigation into the former did not.

"At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden," Volker testified. "I did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President Biden with the Ukrainians, or had conflated the investigation of possible Ukrainian corruption, with investigation of the former Vice President. In retrospect, for the Ukrainians, it clearly would have been confusing."

During Volker's closed-door testimony, he refuted the notion that the investigations were mentioned on a July 10 phone call with Ukraine. But on Tuesday, he reversed course, explaining that during the conversation, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, made a "generic comment about investigations" that he thought was "inappropriate." Volker's revision comports with the deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who said that former National Security Adviser John Bolton reprimanded Sondland for the remarks.

Trump and his associates have accused Joe Biden of moving to depose a prosecutor in Ukraine to protect his son from a potential investigation related to his association with Burisma. Multiple international agencies sought the prosecutor's removal on charges of corruption, and the former vice president maintains he was acting on President Obama's foreign policy directive. George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, previously testified that there was no truth "whatsoever" to Trump's accusations.

Over the summer, the president froze $400 million in military aid to Ukraine without explanation. That aid was not disbursed until September 11.

"I opposed the hold on U.S. security assistance as soon as I learned about it on July 18, and thought we could turn it around before the Ukrainians ever knew or became alarmed about it," Volker testified on Tuesday. "I did not know the reason for the hold, but I viewed it as a U.S. policy problem that we needed to fix internally, and I was confident we would do so."

NEXT: 50 Student Activists—Including 'Current and Former Editors'—Protested Against The Harvard Crimson for Being Too Objective

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. “”Over the summer, the Trump administration froze $400 million in military aid to Ukraine without explanation. That aid was not disbursed until September 11.””

    September 11?? Trump wanted to call it Freedom Money.

    1. And when was the aid legally required to be disbursed? Fiscal year ends Sep 30, no?

      I’d really like to see something solid on how long Trump actually held up disbursement?

      Aside from all that, if a Vice-President’s son gets $50K/month for being the VP’s son, is that not worth investigating? Why did Obama not investigate it? Could it have had something to do with the father? Fine, let’s investigate Obama’s corruption then.

      1. The same amount of time as the aid for Lebanon and other countries per the witness from OMB.

      2. Aside from all that, if a Vice-President’s son gets $50K/month for being the VP’s son, is that not worth investigating?

        Well, from a principled libertarian point of view, we should be careful about this request. I agree that the employment arrangement with Hunter Biden looks shady, but from a purely property rights point of view, shouldn’t a company have a right to pay any employee whatever it wishes?

        Now if the salary was in reality a payment for some possibly corrupt act, then the act itself might form the basis for some type of investigation. But if there was no alleged corrupt act from Hunter Biden, only that “his large salary seems suspicious”, then that seems like a problematic reason alone to start investigating.

        After all, there are plenty of people around who think that the large compensation packages of billionaires “seems suspicious” only because they’re rich, and no one here would reasonably support opening up some type of criminal investigation into a billionaire on the sole basis because he’s rich.

        1. What if Biden senior had been collecting the $50k per month?

          1. Well the 2016 Joe Biden was already employed by the US government, and so it’s perfectly legitimate IMO for one’s current employer to place conditions on an employee’s outside employment prospects, up to and including “don’t do it”.

            But Hunter Biden wasn’t employed by the US government.

        2. 1. Board members aren’t employees. They’re there to provide assurances that the company will operate in a way that is beneficial to equity holders.

          2. Sure, the company can pay whoever it wants, whatever it wants. But when its the son of a senior government official of a foreign nation that has the authority to unilaterally – because while the President doesn’t, apparently the Vice-President thinks he does – control a massive amount of foreign aid being disbursed to said county, we certainly should be knowing about this.

          1. But when its the son of a senior government official of a foreign nation that has the authority to unilaterally – because while the President doesn’t, apparently the Vice-President thinks he does – control a massive amount of foreign aid being disbursed to said county, we certainly should be knowing about this.

            Well, yes and no.

            I am sympathetic to the idea that those who hold positions of power should be held to higher standards than the average person. So I am totally okay with those who hold positions of formal power to be required to disclose elements of their personal lives as a condition of wielding such power, including most financial arrangements and the like. If it were up to me, for example, I would require all candidates for all levels of office to disclose their tax returns.

            The thorny issues, I think, are twofold:
            1. What about those who hold informal positions of power, or undemocratically obtained positions of power? (Cabinet secretaries, etc.) It seems to me that most of the arguments that apply to requiring democratic candidates to be more open with voters, apply to those who hold power who aren’t being voted upon either, but if one goes too far, one will end up inevitably violating the privacy rights of someone who shouldn’t really be caught up in all of the ‘openness’. Should every middle manager at every government agency be required to disclose their tax returns too?

            2. The relatives of those who do hold power DON’T choose to be associated with the choices of their relatives who do hold power, so it seems unfair to hold those who had no choice in the matter to a standard that they didn’t willingly sign up for.

            I don’t know exactly where I stand on this point – it is something worth exploring though.

            1. If you were the Vice President of your HOA and your punk kid was hired by the landscaping contractor for $50 /hr , you would no doubt have real questions to answer at the next board meeting.

              1. If we are talking Washington, D.C., the question would be, “How can I get my kid in on this, too?”

              2. That’s not really the appropriate analogy though. A better one would be: Suppose the son of your HOA’s VP was hired by an HOA across town at an exorbitant salary to perform tasks that he didn’t seem qualified to do. Even if you think the entire deal stinks and that your HOA’s VP is a corrupt POS, what exactly is *your* compelling interest in looking into the employment arrangement between the VP’s son and the *other* HOA? After all it’s not even your money that they are spending.

                1. Not analogous, at all, since your HOA VP has no control over the funding of the across-town HOA.
                  You’re right that Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, but Joe should have recused himself from decisions that affected the nation in which his son worked – the conflict of interest became more than a possibility, when Daddy used his ability to wield financial influence to get the prosecutor of that country fired, when there at least had been, and possibly was a continuing, investigation into his son’s company.

        3. Burisma pays Biden’s son.
          Biden uses US aid as a bribe to Ukraine to stop the investigation against Burisma and personally attack the prosecutor.

          That’s some awesome return on investment.

          This is the height of Crony Capitalism, and true to form, Reason gaslights us with “nothing to see here”.

          What a toilet.

          1. Removing a corrupt prosecutor who was not investigating Burisma exposed the company to a higher risk of investigation. And the threatened withholding of aid was entirely consistent with American foreign policy goals.

            1. https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

              A “corrupt” prosecutor raids the house of the company in question’s founder.

              Biden forces the recognition of the “corrupt” prosecutor.

              Investigation is soon dropped.

              Seems totally legit right.

          2. Reason has not said, “Nothing to see here.” The Jacket, for one, has made very critical comments about the Biden/Burisma business on the Reason podcast.

        4. but from a purely property rights point of view, shouldn’t a company have a right to pay any employee whatever it wishes?

          It should! But Joe Biden should not be permitted to remain VP if his son engages in these kinds of business transactions.

          That is, you have a right to engage in private transactions all you want, but you don’t have a right to a government job. You know, from a principled libertarian point of view.

      3. Volker sounds like a total fool.
        Burisma? Yeah, it’s corrupt and should be investigated.
        Hunter Biden is on the BoD? He’s making a million+ per year?
        Well, what’s wrong with that?
        You say his dad held up a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine to force the removal of an investigator who was looking into Burisma?
        Well… that can’t POSSIBLY be Saint Biden doing anything wrong!

        Might make sense depending on how many OTHER times Sleepy Joe forced other corrupt officials from their posts. In fact, if Joe did it just three times a year for the 8 years he was in office, I’d give him a complete pass.
        If he did it twice a year… okay. Still, give him a pass. That would be 16 corrupt officials gone.
        8 times?
        4 times?
        Twice? Did Creepy Joe Biden ever demand any other corrupt official be fired — ever??? Even one other than the one investigating his son? Even once?
        Or did he only do it the one time he wanted to interfere with an investigation into his son’s sale of influence?

        1. Morrison testified that he impeded a State effort to work with Burisma because of fear of corruption. Him and kent both said they raised the impropriety of hunters employment. The ex ambassador stated she was coached by the White House to direct questions about Hunter to State.

          These are not evidence of credible corruption – Volker.

        2. That’s what’s so crazy. Even hardcore Democrats were against Bidens actions until Trump got involved.

          Even if Trump did violate the law (which I think is questionable. It’s a check and balance), breaking the letter of the law to fulfill the spirit is an entire genre of fiction, the Superhero genre. I don’t think the Democrats could have picked a worse hill to die on for impeachment. These facts are so simple and straightforward that I would have thought it a very bad work of fiction if it wasn’t happening before my eyes.

          1. Trump withheld military aid that had been appropriated by Congress and importuned a foreign government to do him a personal political favor. How is the abuse of power difficult to comprehend?

            1. If Trump had asked for Biden to be investigated without withholding aid or a public announcement, would that have been ok?

              1. Testimony is that Trump promised a personal meeting with president of Ukraine and only if a public announcement of an investigation into Biden was made by Ukraine. Trump was asking for a negative political advert in exchange for influence.

            2. “Trump withheld military aid”

              But he didn’t.
              You could maybe argue at worst he delayed it, but that’s a very different thing.

              It’s time to stop lying.

              1. Get an education, you bigoted, inconsequential clinger. Start with standard English.

                1. Says the guy with terrible grammar.

                  If we were in public…whod get carted away in the paddy wagon? Those of us talking like normal people…or the old guy yelling and snorting like a barnyard animal?

            3. Except that “personal political favor” was investigating rather blatant corruption. That changes everything. This wasn’t “give me dirt on Biden”. It was “You know that stuff my predecessor threatened you not to do, you can do it”. The idea that this was merely campaigning is nonsensical on the bare face of the facts. If I was asked to explain “family conflict of interest” to a small child, I would describe Biden’s situation to the letter. There is article after news story talking about this. However, as soon as Trump gets his nose in it, Biden’s actions are squeaky clean. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying it.

              Finally, I’m sorry, but the “withheld military aid” is a check and balance. The president is in charge of enforcing the law. If he feels that something needs to be stopped, it’s within his power to do so, and that can only be solved by court or ballot box. Not impeachment.

        3. Just as a fine point, Joe Biden threatened to hold up loan guarantees. It was a bluff, in the sense that he didn’t actually hold them up. Also, I have been unable to find any source that says whether Ukraine ever tried to use the loan guarantees. Biden publicly boasted that this pressured the Ukrainians fire the prosecutor, but I’m not sure that has ever been corroborated.

          Yes, all of the above would be fleshed out in an investigation of the Bidens. However, Trump pursued the investigation in an impulsive and furtive manner which resulted in his being vulnerable to charges of personal political gain, Guiliani and his colleagues being vulnerable to jail time, and no investigation of the Bidens having been accomplished.

          1. Trump told zelensky to talk to Giuliani AND BILL BARR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Who else should handle the investigation if not the justice department?

            You’ve repeated this stupid lie, which really is just an emotional opinion not a fact, about trump starting the investigation in an impulsive way because its all your dumbass has to stand on at this point. Trump literally directed the investigation to the exact channel he should have.

        4. It was a 50K board position. Hunter Biden got it because the company thought they might get favors from his father’s influence. No evidence Burisma got favors. Joe’s excuse for not insuring his son exposed him to conflicts of interest is that he was distracted by his other son’s terminal illness. Maybe, maybe not a good excuse.

      4. Hunter Biden received closer to $3.5 million over two years.

      5. Yeah, even if Trump was trying to do something shady, I’m not seeing anything that is not well within the president’s power being done here. Seems odd that this is what they think they can get him on.

        1. One wonders why Ukraine is so important to them…

      6. I’m surprised no one has wondered how the Trump children, (and family), acquired high-paying positions in government.
        You people are ridiculous. “We must investigate the common, and ancient, practice of using connections to get good positions. It’s very suspicious!”

    2. Why has nobody mentioned yet that the corruption investigations in the Ukraine began while the previous administration was in office, that during that investigation the general prosecutor started looking at that gas company and its board of directors — including Hunter Biden — and that Joe Biden then bragged *in public* that he had threatened to hold up a billion bucks worth of aid to the Ukraine unless they got rid of that prosecutor?

      1. It’s been mentioned. Multiple times.

        But in Reasonlandia all that has been “debunked.” Which, in plain English, means that it’s entirely true but too inconvenient to warrant further consideration.

        1. Whenever I hear/see someone say something is “debunked” it immediately becomes more likely to be true.
          Take a look at how the word’s been used over the last few years

      2. Because only Don the Con extorted Ukraine in order to falsely implicate his 2020 political opponent.

        1. Yeah, more bullshit from an idiot. The 2016 HRC campaign actively sought, and recieved, help from actors in the Ukraine, including from a member of parliament and the head of an anti corruption police force.

          1. And 3 members of the senate attempted to do just that this year.

      3. Where is the evidence that the prosecutor started looking at Burisma and its board of directors?

        1. Are you contending that Biden had a prosecutor fired for NOT investigating Burisma?

        2. https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

          Raid prior to be fired.

          It’s like not wanting to see

    3. Anyone else find it weird Billy didn’t include this from Volker?

      “Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?” asked ranking Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California.

      “No,” said Morrison.

      Nunes posed the same question to Volker, who also said “No.”

      1. “Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

        “No,” Yovanovitch said.

        “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

        “No.”

        So weird how all the Democrat witnesses are so bad for their narrative.

        1. The Texas Republican proceeded to ask witness Taylor, “Do you have any evidence to assert that President Zelensky was lying to the world press when he said those things?”

          “I have no reason to doubt what the president said,” the Democrat’s so-called star witness Taylor responded.

          Taylor then proved unable to respond to Ratcliffe’s question about whether contents of the Trump-Zelensky conversations during the July 25 call amounts to an “impeachable offense.”

          Neither Taylor nor Kent responded when asked, “Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?”

          1. Whether that phone call included an impeachable offense is above the witnesses´ pay grade.

          2. It’s an improper question anyway. In a trial you don’t call an expert witness and ask, “In your expert opinion, did the defendant commit the crime?” It’s because that’s a question goes to the disputed issue, and it’s up for the court to resolve that and not the witness. The witnesses are there to provide evidence and not draw conclusions.

            Congress being the jury in this regard, it’s up to them to decide whether there was an impeachable offense. They can consult with legal experts about what should define an impeachable offense but not whether the current issue qualifies.

            1. Makes for a good scene though.
              I’m still surprised neither of them responded that this wasn’t their role to determine

          3. But Taylor, Yovanovitch, and Vindman were quite clear that they were standing up to the president and speaking out because Trump’s decisions went against the policies that the bureaucrats wanted to pursue, including the absurd policy of using US power to remove Russia from Ukrainian territory.

            1. They kept saying like “we were following department policy”. “we were following department goals”.

              Well who the fuck set that policy if it isn’t trump or his white house?

              1. So much of this bullshit is people refusing to accept Trump is president, which means he runs the executive branch and can make decisions that are within his authority whether anyone else likes it or not.

    4. So it was frozen in the summer and released in the summer. Oh the horror!

  2. That is nice but so what? The fact that he doesn’t think they are credible doesn’t mean that that is the end of the topic. Moreover, the fact that he doesn’t think that allegations that Biden’s son getting $80,000 a month for a do nothing job with one of the most corrupt companies in the entire country due to some kind of corruption are not “credible” says more about him than it does about the facts.

    None of these people seem to know anything. But, they all have opinions that they expect everyone to take not just seriously but definitively. Sorry but no.

    1. “I did not know the reason for the hold, but I viewed it as a U.S. policy problem that we needed to fix internally, and I was confident we would do so.”

      “I did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President Biden with the Ukrainians, or had conflated the investigation of possible Ukrainian corruption, with investigation of the former Vice President.”

      “At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden.”

      The walls are closing in for sure. But, you know, Volker’s opinion is that Joe Biden is a stand up guy so, you know, impeach Trump.

      What a fucking joke.

      1. I did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President Biden with the Ukrainians, or had conflated the investigation of possible Ukrainian corruption, with investigation of the former Vice President.”

        Because no investigating of Biden could possibly involve corruption in Ukraine? WTF?

        You can tell this guy is lying his ass off. He doesn’t know shit and has nothing to say but is under tremendous pressure to give the Democrats something.

        1. And, despite the effort, he has given them nothing. Prefacing your opinion with admissions that you are not aware of any of the facts upon which you are asked to opine is asinine. In my opinion, Biden is a corrupt piece of shit. When do I get to testify?

        2. John, of course has to revise his testimony. Otherwise he would have committed suicide by shooting himself in the back and then hiding the gun.

          1. Gotta give him credit for not saying anything that can found demonstrably false.

            Of course that also means that it is all demonstrably worthless.

            1. “Gotta give him credit for not saying anything that can found demonstrably false.
              Of course that also means that it is all demonstrably worthless.”

              In the era of Christine Blasey Ford, we call those ‘credible allegations’.

    2. They are top men. TOP MEN.

    3. Yeah, seems irrelevant what he thinks about Biden. Didn’t he say that he saw no attempt to pressure an investigation of Biden? That seems like the relevant bit.

    4. Biden freaking admitted he threatened Ukraine. Does this mean Biden was lying? Obviously, Burisima thought they were getting something. Hunter Biden has a poor reputation, basically no career outside gifted positions, and had no relevant domain knowledge, nor was he paid like a normal director.

      I would like to know what makes all of the lack credibility. As far as I can tell, the best case scenario is yeah, Hunter Biden was hired to protect Burisima, but it didn’t really work. Basically, idiot Ukranians. Ok. Where is that evidence?

      That these guys are trying to cover their bureaucratic ass to remain in the good graces of the eunuch community isn’t surprising. I am not impressed with anyone saying the allegations aren’t credible. Part direct admission,. part blatant and obvious circumstantial evidence, and only a minor leap needing to connect the two.

      1. Get with the program, man! Isn’t it plainly obvious that Biden did not mean what he actually said and that Trump meant what he actually did not say?

    5. Seriously, the only new and relevant fact he’s learned is that Biden stands a good chance of being the guy running against Trump.

    6. Even in the event that everything is on the up and up with the Biden clan, I don’t see how anyone can look at the bare, publicly available evidence, and state that an investigation to confirm the fact is not warranted.

    7. “The fact that he doesn’t think they are credible doesn’t mean that that is the end of the topic.”

      Reason reports news the Lefty way. No facts, just the feelings of those involved.

      Here’s the factual description:
      Biden threatened to withdraw aid from Ukraine if they didn’t end a corruption investigation into a Ukrainian natural gas company that just so happened to have his son on the board.
      The Trump administration suggested/bribed/coerced Ukraine to re-open the investigation.

      Whether you see that as the US simply *removing* Obama administration coercion that stopped a Ukrainian corruption investigation, or the US strong arming the Ukraine into investigating prima facie corruption from Biden, the Trump administration was engaging in justifiable foreign policy and *US* executive branch corruption oversight.

      I’d say they had the *responsibility* to have Biden’s corruption investigated, both by the Ukrainians and by us.

      1. To surmise that Burisma was under investigation when Joe Biden questioned the loan guaranty presumes facts not in evidence. Trump wanted an investigation of his strongest potential opponent and was willing to hold military aid hostage to achieve that tawdry objective.

        1. The fired prosecutor says he was investigating Burisma.
          Got any evidence that he is lying?

        2. He flat out threatened them.

          Saying he “questioned” has to be one of the most disingenuous ways to frame what Biden did that I’ve seen yet.

        3. Biden is NOT Trump’s political opponent.
          Biden is currently contesting for the Donk nomination.
          Biden’s political opponents are the fucktards behind the podiums at the Donk debate. And it does not look like CreepyJoe is gonna come out on top.
          The only “investigation” of Hunter Biden (so far) was taken up under the Obama Administration and all of Hunter’s friends said he was doing a bang-up job not being able to speak Ukranian nor having any experience in the energy industries or corporate governance and getting 80 grand a month for not doing so.
          The President of Ukraine says there was no Quid Pro Quo.
          No witness has said they had any conversation with the President regarding a Quid Pro Quo, Bribe or Extortion.
          No witness has said they are aware of any impeachable offense committed by the President.
          The “Whistleblower” colluded with Schiff’s office before filing his grievance and Schiff has (not being under oath) consistently lied about it.
          The “Whistleblower” is not actually a Whistleblower under State Dept. rules and is afforded no protection, much less anonymity.

          Anything I am missing here?

      2. I’d say they had the *responsibility* to have Biden’s corruption investigated, both by the Ukrainians and by us.

        By any means necessary?

        Even if you thought it was Trump’s *duty* to investigate Biden’s alleged corruption, would there be some particular means that Trump might employ in an attempt to carry out this duty that would be inappropriate for the task?

        1. Short of the absurd, such as invasion, no

        2. would there be some particular means that Trump might employ in an attempt to carry out this duty that would be inappropriate for the task?

          Sure: murder, torture, any criminal act really.

          Can you name a criminal act Trump committed as part of this investigation?

        3. When are you fucking idiots going to admit that trump literally wanted bill bar, the attorney general and head of the justice dept, to handle the investigation.

          It’s literally in the transcript, and it’s literally the exact “proper channel” that should be used for something like this.

          And this is how i know you and mike laurson are the same…youre both willfully obtuse and ignorant on the exact same issues.

          It’s no coincidence you and mike both are boiled down to the exact same “an investigation might be warranted but trump went about it like a meanie-head” argument BECAUSE YOURE THE SAME PERSON.

          1. Perhaps you need to stop worrying about who is allegedly a sockpuppet of whom, and instead consider the reason why different people might come to a similar conclusion when confronted with similar facts.

            It is completely improper for Trump or any president to send his personal lawyer to conduct shadow diplomacy.

            1. Why? Because you’re a progtard, Pedo Jeffy.

            2. He sent Giuliani because Trump has also been accused of election meddling and his attorney is the right person to look into that.

        4. Yes. I consider Trump’s actions on this matter unwise. However, there is a far cry from unwise to criminal.

    8. $80K a month. Hunter must of gotten a raise because the last I saw it was $50K a month. Where are you getting these numbers? From a source or just the air.

      1. “Hunter must of gotten”

        Have, not of
        Must’ve is what you’re going for, moron

        1. Thanks for the help. You are my editor from now on.

    9. because switching up your story halfway through makes you a credible witness *rolls eyes*

      We have evidence that the US was asking the Ukrainians to not prosecute specific people. We know that from the testimony the other day that the bureaucrats there were aware that Burisma was shady, and even if it wasn’t up to something, there was the appearance of corruption. Quite frankly, Volker can say whatever he wants, no one who’s paying attention will believe him.

  3. So now that the testimony is public and he has to face his friends who think he didn’t do enough against LiterallyHitler, he’s decided to modify his statement to say he can read minds in Ukrainian and he knows they were confused? Also, this is bribery somehow because the focus groups said ‘bribery’ is more dramatic than quid pro quo.

    This is a clown show. A bank robbery in a Batman movie but without the joker, just his minions, one of whom thinks he’s going to replace the boss.

    1. I opposed the hold on U.S. security assistance as soon as I learned about it on July 18, and thought we could turn it around before the Ukrainians ever knew or became alarmed about it,” Volker testified on Tuesday. “I did not know the reason for the hold, but I viewed it as a U.S. policy problem that we needed to fix internally, and I was confident we would do so.”

      He admits has has nothing to say other than he doesn’t agree with Trump’s policies. This whole thing has been one person after another whining that they are not in charge.

      1. This whole thing has been one person after another whining that they are not in charge.

        Holy shit, has it ever. You always figure there will some like that in any government, but DC is overrun with them. They believe their own propaganda, too, especially the part about Trump being a drooling idiot. Even while they themselves are daily doing things like this. Not a lick of introspection, just furious moral certitude from the crowd that brought us Libya, Somalia, 50 years of abject failure in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and on and on.

        1. Sure. But they paid their dues, and Trump was merely elected. They deserve it. He doesn’t.

        2. Holy shit, has it ever. You always figure there will some like that in any government, but DC is overrun with them

          We should be grateful for Trump to bring this out into the light. Whether it’s Strock, Page, Clapper, Comey, Schiff, Pelosi, Taylor, Vindman, Yovanovitch, the Senators who went on record against Kavanaugh, and all the other people who have made a public spectacle of themselves, this really shows us how Washington works.

          1. Yup. Trump simply being in office has shown a powerful light on how D.C. really is and more and more Americans are sickened by it.

      2. Is it that they are used to presidents just doing what they and other career diplomat types tell them to do?
        I don’t know if it’s good or bad that Trump kind of does his own thing with foreign policy, but it sure is interesting to watch.

        1. So… the permanent bueracracy thinks they know more than elected representatives of the people. Who still thinks congressional term limits are a good idea?

          1. “What is official US foreign policy?”
            “Whatever the fuck POTUS says it is.”

            1. But, but… he’s not interagency!!!

          2. So… the permanent bueracracy thinks they know more than elected representatives of the people.

            This is pretty much universal in Western democracies. There is an entire British comedy show about just this topic (back when the BBC was actually still smart).

      3. “on July 18”

        Did I miss a timeline? Wasn’t the call on the 25th?

        1. Don’t worry, memories will be jogged and testimonies revised as necessary.

    2. The thing about “revisions” to one’s testimony is that they are more or less admissions that you are either (i) clueless (ii) full of shit or (iii) clueless and full of shit.

      Unless you are correcting the spelling of your name, under no circumstances does a “revision” bolster one’s credibility. To the contrary, a revision destroys it.

      1. Or it is something really technical or specific and you got the numbers wrong. But no one changes their testimony about what their opinion is of something. I mean what the fuck? Did he lie the first time or is he lying now?

        1. And that is problem with relying on opinions as a foundation for impeachment. If the facts at the heart of the matter cannot be established, and opinions on the facts can change from one day to the next, there is no basis for impeachment.

          “Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”

          Bruce Lee was a wise man, but trying to Bruce Lee the impeachment process is asinine.

          1. Democrats are the empty cups, with their progtarded masters filling them with water, but with infant’s pablum.

          2. Remember when a certain blue dress was crucial because it contained, you know, actual evidence?

      2. The lay term for ‘revisions’ is: changing your story.

        Man the Dems cannot even get their star witnesses nailed down on the first go round.

        The Gang the Couldn’t Impeach Straight.

        1. I’d like to think the Dems would be smart enough to drill their witnesses on what they were going to say on the stand, but apparently not.

  4. The ambassador, who was called to testify by Republicans, also sought to revise his testimony from his closed-door deposition. “I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question,” he told congressional investigators today.

    WTF?

    1. They showed him pictures of what an Arkancide looks like.

      1. Or he got a visit from Bill Clinton on the tarmac, where they discussed grandchildren and golf. Clinton, “You want your grandchildren to end up under the golf course?”. Volker, “Wait – it’s all coming back to me now!”

    2. What is the point of his testimony if he is changing it due to non contemporaneous evidence? At that point he admits he is simply stating his opinion on things and not facts.

      1. Gotta give the Repubs credit. They called him in order to nail down his story, and they did it well enough that he had to subsequently ‘revise’ it.

        1. +10000000

    3. “I have learned that JEFFREY EPSTEIN didn’t kill himself.”

  5. Just a few more revisions, and we will finally have our truth – – – –

    Really? A broadcast video of Joe Biden confessing is ‘not credible’?

  6. Fairly certain most juries would convict Biden based on just the publicly available evidence:
    – Hunter receiving millions of dollars from a company known and being investigated for corruption
    – that company’s frequent use of the Biden name in communications with the State department
    – Joe’s CFR speech boast that he threatened to cancel a $1 billion gift to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the official investigating said company and confirmation that Ukraine did fire the official in order to receive the money

    1. I would hope that wouldn’t be enough for a criminal conviction. Though I’m sure it was all about trying to buy influence.

      Seems like it’s just accepted as a perk of the job, fucked as that may be.

      1. Definitely enough to get through a grand jury

      2. Zeb, try sitting in on some federal trials someday.

        It shocks the conscience what federal juries will believe coming from US Attorney’s mouths.

    2. I agree. This would be a hard case to beat without some real exculpatory evidence that isn’t in the public record. You’d have to show that Biden was just bullshitting to look important when he was really just a useless dunce, Hunter never advertised he could help to get the job (how did they even find the guy — is there a headhunting agency they used?), and, basically, that they just wasted money on a charlatan.

      1. Or that the deposed prosecutor was in fact fired for failure to investigate.

        1. Wouldn’t place your entire Biden defense on this line…

          1. Yeah. Raiding the oligarch shortly before he was fired is gonna be rough.

            As well as the emails a month before Biden demanded his firings from supporters of Burisma to the State Dept.

  7. Volker also testified that he did believe there was a quid pro quo. Don’t have the transcript, but he said that Trump wanted Zelenskiy to make a public statement about efforts to fight corruption, including looking into Burisma and the 2016 election allegations, but that including a reference to those things was not a deal-breaker when it came to releasing the aid.

    I mean, we’re talking about what someone “thought” or “felt,” we might as well apply it both ways.

    1. Damned lack of an edit button: Should be “did not believe.”

    2. Joe Biden felt all those young girls needed hugs.

    3. “Don’t have the transcript, but he said that Trump wanted Zelenskiy to make a public statement about efforts to fight corruption, including looking into Burisma and the 2016 election allegations, but that including a reference to those things was not a deal-breaker when it came to releasing the aid.”

      How does this equal a quid pro quo, out of curiosity?

      “I’d like you to do this but you won’t be punished if you do not” is a favor, not a quid pro quo.

  8. Anyone trying to make sense of what really happened should read the letter that Ron Johnson sent to Nunes and Jim Jordan yesterday. It’s not that long (11 pp.) and gives a very matter-of-fact blow-by-blow description of the meetings and calls that Johnson had with Trump, Zelensky, and others. Bottom line: Trump held up the aid for about two weeks because he wasn’t convinced that Zelensky wasn’t just another in a long line of crooks running Ukraine.

    1. That seems to be the gist of what Volker and Morrison have been testifying to today.

    2. The letter says it was held up 55 days.

      Still interesting reading.

      1. Cheers. I don’t know where I got 2 weeks from. (Stupid Scribd documents aren’t searchable.)

        1. Could you have thought two months and then typed it wrong?

      2. And at least the aid was Javelin missiles not blankets and glass beads …

    3. Thanks for posting the link. He basically describes Trumps actions as consistent with the views he’been expressing since he was a candidate. We’re a bunch of schmucks for letting these clowns take advantage of us, NATO is a waste of money and it’s time for the Europeans to clean up their own shit. I happen to agree with Trump but even if you don’t, his views on foreign policy explain a lot about his dealings with Ukraine.

      1. I’d like to be able to explore Trump’s thoughts on the sinecures obtained by close relatives of government officials.
        As I understand it, Trump requires more of his children than his average employee. The idea of the children of politicians getting these cushy no-work jobs, to be able to obtain influence, must annoy him and could be why he wanted the Biden father/son relationship investigated.
        I don’t think he felt he needed any “dirt” on the serial molester, with a constant foot in his mouth, to be able to beat him.

      2. Ukraine is very much in the Sphere of Influence of Russia.

        Trump is evidently very aware that the USA has to be prepared for war with Russia if we are going to pull Ukraine away from that Russian Sphere of influence. Its one thing to try to keep Ukraine safe from Russian expansion actions.

        How would the USA like Russia messing around in the Western Hemisphere…again? Russia sniffing around with Venezuela is already becoming a problem in US diplomacy to let Venezuela implode.

  9. Well let’s play a thought experiment here.

    If Trump had said, on the phone call, “I want you to do me a favor, I want you to do more to fight corruption in Ukraine”, without naming any specific person or entity, no reasonable person would think that that was out of line or unreasonable. That is just two heads of state discussing an important issue.

    If, however, Trump had said, on the phone call, “I want you to do me a favor, I want you to give me tax incentives for my company to build a Trump hotel in Kiev”, I think most reasonable people would agree that this would be an abuse of the president’s position to foster his own personal interests. He shouldn’t be using his official position to conduct business for his company.

    So what is the general standard that ought to be applied for when a presidential request for a favor from a foreign leader crosses the line or not, from legitimate to corrupt?

    1. The general standard is stop playing around with hypothetical situations and opinions, and start dealing with the facts.

      1. I would argue that exploring these hypothetical situations help us to understand the general principles involved in these scenarios without getting enmeshed in the passions and particulars of the current events.

        1. I think we have all had enough of exploring hypothetical situations after Schiff’s parody.

          1. Schiff is, at this moment, throwing out tons of hypotheticals.

        2. “…I would argue that exploring these hypothetical situations help us to understand the general principles involved…”

          Imagine Jeff is a goat-screwing individual with an IQ of 55.
          Hmmm. Yeah, that explains a lot.

          1. Never change, Sevo. And no I’m not getting off your lawn.

            1. Sure you will Pedo Jeffy. Don’t you have to moderate this week’s meeting of you NAMBLA chapter?

              1. You must have been butt-fucked out of your mind by your redneck uncles as a young little hick, LOTS. All you see now are pedos everywhere.

                1. Well yeah, you won’t stop posting.

    2. More baby sophistry and thought experiments because the facts dont tell the story he wants. How quaint.

      1. Perhaps you could try engaging in a constructive dialogue on the matter.

        Where do you draw the line between a presidential request of a foreign head of state that is innocuous, and a request that is obviously corrupt? What is your general standard between the two?

        1. You know baby jeffrey… most intelligent people explore facts and then form opinions. You ask for people to imagine facts that fit your opinion. Your thought process is sophomoric and backwards.

          1. The point of these hypothetical situations is to explore the general principles involved, instead of taking every issue in an ad-hoc manner unmoored from any governing philosophy on a course of action.

            What Trump actually did was not clearly corrupt, but also not clearly innocuous. Reality is messy. That is why I constructed hypothetical situations in order to try to bring some type of rational order to try to understand the messy nature of reality.

            You obviously have your opinion that you think what Trump did was no big deal. Okay, fine. Then what is the harm in exploring the outer limits of what Trump could do that you would find still within the bounds of acceptability? It won’t change anyone’s opinion on current events, but it will illuminate a guiding overall principle that can be applied in future situations.

            1. chem…I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You are asking where the line is drawn, how do we absolutely know it was crossed. It IS a good question. I have no doubt we will see this ‘not guilty, but not 100% innocent either’ behavior permanently in our politics, so we ought to address the question.

              Where do you draw the line? What makes for wrong?

              1. It is difficult to draw a line between innocuous and impeachable Presidential conduct because the Democrats’ position has basically been “any conduct is impeachable if you have enough votes in the House to impeach.”

                Clearly, that is not helpful. This is why, in the criminal context, crimes consist of discernible elements. A + B + C = Crime. You need to prove A, B, and C. If you cannot prove C, there is no crime, no matter how “bad” or “immoral” A and B may seem standing alone.

                Rather than drawing lines arbitrarily, I would invite people (and, the Democrats) to set forth a clear theory of what it is they are trying to prove.

                What is the impeachable conduct, and what are the elements? Without concrete and discernible elements, all of the hypothetical thought experiments in the world won’t bring us any closer to figuring anything out.

              2. In the context of presidential requests of foreign leaders, I would say, if those requests are between two nations having a large power differential, so that the “favor” being asked is not really a favor that may be freely turned down, but is more of an implied demand; and if the request is to perform some act that would benefit the president on a personal level FAR more than it would benefit the US national policy in some vague sense, then that would cross the line into impeachable territory. I would consider it in analogy to, say, your boss asking you to “do him a favor” and mow his lawn on the weekend. You and your boss have a large power differential so you don’t really feel free to turn down the boss’s request for a “favor”, and it’s hard to argue that mowing your boss’s lawn has any more of a tangible benefit to the company than it does to your boss personally. If your boss were to do that, then that would clearly be an example of your boss abusing his power, and he ought to be fired. A similar deal goes for presidents, I would say.

                What do you think?

                1. 1. The “favor” requested would benefit the US more than Trump
                  2. The much less powerful nation hasn’t fulfilled the “favor” yet
                  3. The “favor” is a treaty *obligation*

                  1. 1. The “favor” requested would benefit the US more than Trump

                    It would? Trump asked for 2 favors. The first was to look into the completely nutty Crowdstrike conspiracy theory. Telling Zelensky to go on a wild goose chase to hunt down a phantom server in Ukraine is not to anyone’s benefit. The second was this:

                    “The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

                    It sure sounds like what Trump is asking is NOT for Zelensky to look into whether Hunter Biden broke any Ukrainian laws, but to cooperate with the AG to see whether Joe Biden broke any American laws. Even if Biden did break the law, it is hard to see how uncovering this would benefit the US generally, MORE than it would benefit Trump personally with his political ambitions, considering Biden’s position at the top of the polls back in the summer.

                    2. The much less powerful nation hasn’t fulfilled the “favor” yet

                    That’s not really relevant in determining whether asking for this “favor”, under the conditions that Trump presented, is appropriate or not. After all, if your boss “asked” you to mow his lawn on the weekend, would refusing his request make it any less of an abuse of his authority to even make the request in the first place?

                    3. The “favor” is a treaty *obligation*

                    You are referring to this treaty?

                    https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

                    Did Trump, Zelensky, or anyone else make the claim that this request was formally made pursuant to this treaty? The treaty specifies a particular procedure that must be followed when a request is made. Where are the documents generated pursuant to this request?

                    1. chem…I appreciate your response. Seriously, I do. It was a good question and one that we, as an electorate, need to answer. Now if I am following you, the line you draw is ‘magis cui bono’: Who benefits more? And the choices are the POTUS or the US. So it becomes wrong when the POTUS benefits more than the US.

                      Doesn’t that make it an entirely arbitrary judgment? What are the principles that guide how you are supposed to decide?

                2. A, B, and C. Give it to me straight. I can’t make out the elements from what you posted and it seems too vague to unravel in a meaningful way.

                  But that was part of my point. If you can’t distill the prohibited conduct to a sentence or two, you are probably not thinking about the issue very clearly and don’t really know what you want to prohibit.

                  Also, try to keep it within the realm of something that wouldn’t be struck down on grounds of vagueness.

            2. There have been two actual impeachment trials in the history of the nation. Two, with no convictions, and Nixon resigned before he could be tried. So, we are to believe that this phone call to another head of state is so far beyond the pale that it this, this is what finally requires the actual removal of a president, for the first time in American history?

              1. Nancy has assured us that this phone call was WAY worse than Watergate. Not just on the same level, or close to it. No. It was WAY worse. If Watergate was 8 out of 10, Ukrainegate is 12 out of 10.

                https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/17/in-trump-nixon-impeachment-comparison-pelosi-talks-resignation.html

                This is why people aren’t taking this seriously. Not only are the Democrats operating in a complete fog where even they don’t know what the hell they are trying to prove, they are embellishing it to the point of absurdity.

          2. “Your thought process is sophomoric and backwards.”

            Says the abject partisan. You think you are thinking logically? You have your conclusion (trump is a demi god who can do no wrong and never lies) and you twist your reasoning to allow it.

            1. Cry more widdle baby.

            2. Lol. Baby jeffrey is so hurt he switched to his attack sock.

              1. Typical solipsism from Jesse. More of that logic on display.

                1. Cry more widdle baby.

                2. Solipsism. I don’t think that words means, what you think it means.

    3. So what is the general standard that ought to be applied for when a presidential request for a favor from a foreign leader crosses the line or not, from legitimate to corrupt?

      That line is defined in the law and precedent.

      Precedent, among other things, also includes massive foreign donations to the Clinton foundation, a foundation that the Clintons have benefited from personally.

    4. In our real legal system, if there are two possibilities – one legitimate and one, not so – we don’t convict on the basis of the possibility of it being the not-so legitimate motivation and give the benefit of the doubt that it was the legitimate reasoning being employed.
      But, in the real legal system, we don’t have the highest ranking member of the prosecution side saying that the accused has to come forward and prove he wasn’t guilty, like Nancy did.

    5. There is no standard, he can say what he wants and talk the way he wants.

      You’re just pissy because you think trumps mean and arguing the semantics and friendliness of this request is your last leg to stand on.

  10. Are we changing the definition of credible again?

    1. “That depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”

  11. Vindman had a no good terrible day. Cant stop laughing at his testimony. First he admits he is the one who wrote the call summary Democrats have been touting proves trump lied about his calls (vindman said he included on his own what he though ukranian policy should be). Then he admits he knows the whistleblower when he refuses to say the name of the 2nd person he told, also admitting he knew he was the leak. Then Vindman contradicts Schiffs opening statements when Vindman states he never thought what trump did was illegal, just immoral. Man what a bad day for Vindman.

    1. That’s Lt. Col. Vindman to you, peon.

      Some of the comments on Twitchy about this guy pulling rank are hilarious. E.g.: “This is Frank Burns level.”

      1. Just started reading the other reason thread on vindman… how we have mikey actually thinking Vindmans testimony helped democrats…

        1. I think the general consensus is that unless a witness wholly and unequivocally exonerates Trump, the witness may as well be proclaiming Trump’s guilt.

        2. Just reading this thread for the first time. I made zero statements opining whether Vindman’s testimony helped or didn’t help the Democrats.

    2. Yeah, we know how much you Trump Trash draft-dodgers hate military men with Purple Hearts.

    3. That’s an impressive little tale. Vindman is a decorated military officer who was wounded in combat. It is disgusting how you Trumpies swallow every lie and every smear from your cult leader. I guess truth really is treason in an empire of lies.

      What about the part where Gym Jordan tried to assert that Vidnman wasn’t trust worthy? Watch yourself, great clip: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/jordan-questions-vindman-on-his-judgment-and-leaks-73686597617

      1. “That’s an impressive little tale. Vindman is a decorated military officer who was wounded in combat.”

        So he’s just like Hitler

        1. It’s weird how they think a military suit makes someone unimpeachable as a witness… but only when it defends the democratic narrative.these are the same people who castigate Oliber North, Colin Powell, and others.

          Baby jeffrey is not intelligent.

          1. It’s literally nothing. Absolutely worthless.

            1. and let’s be honest who the fuck do they think they’re fooling with that disingenuous we suddenly care about soldiers and getting injured in the line of duty crap

          2. Baby jeffrey is not intelligent.

            He’s Canadian. What do you expect?

      2. Do you want me to post Vindmans admission that he is the leak or the one where he says he was involved in Bidens demand to Ukraine? Which one baby jeffrey?

        1. Go ahead. Unlike Trumpies, I am not afraid of the truth.

          1. Widdle baby need a new nappy?

      3. You are the definition of stolen valor. Don’t presume to lecture anyone what a what hero is. By definition he is NOT a war HERO. A war hero would have awards for heroism/gallantry/Valor. He has None. The Purple Heart is not a character based award. You could be a complete amoral slime ball and still get a Purple Heart.

      4. We also just had a decorated military officer skip post and murder his parents so…

      5. Vindman has been accused of being a leaker by several people so far. And he admitted he leaked info about the call.

      6. “”Vindman is a decorated military officer who was wounded in combat.””

        I served with some of those, and my first hand experience is that some of those were lying assholes. Being decorated and wounded in combat does not make you a more reliable person.

    4. He also seemed completely unaware of Joe Biden’s boast of using the loan guarantee to force the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor, they obviously didn’t want to get rid of.

  12. And these are the heroes everyone is desperate to give taxpayer money to.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/the-progressive-policy-community-ukraine-fantasy/

    1. I do think there ought to be more conversation about why the US is giving aid to Ukraine in the first place.

      1. With bi-partisan support.

        1. Among 100 or so other countries…

      2. To get the countries to do what the United States wants, which is basically why anybody pays anybody else for anything.

        If Trump’s phone call is impeachable, we may as well get ready to impeach every President from now until the end of time.

        1. If Trump’s phone call is impeachable, we may as well get ready to impeach every President from now until the end of time.

          That’s not half bad: it keeps the House and the president from doing too much damage.

          1. Sure, just lets the permanent bureaucracy run free(r)

            1. They do that anyway. The only question is at what rate Congress gives them new tools and taxes to misuse.

      3. No kidding. Ukraine is an American ally under attack from America´s principal geopolitical rival.

        1. The funny thing is, all of those are just talking points that you haven’t the faintest idea of the story behind.
          Is Ukraine our ally because the US funded and orchestrated the Maidan coup? What did the US gain from it, and what do we gain from our alliance with Ukraine to justify all the money taxpayers are losing there?
          Where has the Russian military advanced in Ukraine? Do they have active Russian military officers in the Donbass neighborhoods being shelled by Ukrainian artillery? Is it wrong for Russia to send aid to people facing ethnic cleansing?
          Why is Russia our “principal geopolitical rival”? How are our, the people’s, interests advanced or defended by taking an aggressive and hostile approach to Russia?

        2. Russia is a failing state with a GDP less than Italy. Ukraine is irrelevant to the US. Whether you consider them an “ally” or not doesn’t matter.

  13. So he lied the first time around? Jail time!

    1. He should be prosecuted.

      1. Remember: It is not a lie if you believe it. Unless, of course, your name is General Flynn. Then it’s a lie, even if other people think you’re telling the truth.

  14. So what if Trump had demanded $3.5 million for one of his offspring, instead of dirt on a political rival? Would the Democrats still be looking for another impeachment reason?

  15. Apparently Volker doesn’t read Wingnut.com.

    If he did he would find that Hillary killed Vince Foster with a piano wire, Bill Clinton ran a child sex service out of a pizza parlor and Biden bribed the Ukrants. Also BENGHAZI!!!! because wingnuts have to wingnut. ALWAYS BENGHAZIE the king of the fake scandals!

    READ WINGNUT.COM NOW. OR BRATFART.COM!

    Is that fucker still dead?

    1. Yes, I think Ambassador Stevens is still dead.

      1. But I was talking about Andrew Bratfart, heart dripping with blood, so filled with bile and anger that he keeled over with hatred one late night on a walk.

        A true conservative that Andrew.

        1. “Andrew Bratfart”

          Of course you were, he’s still alive in your head.

    2. How embarrassing for you.

      1. It’s all on Wingnut.com. You know that.

        Just for old times sake -let’s go!

        BENGHAZI!!! BEN-GHA-ZI!!!! BLOOP! DERP!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!! FUCKSHITWHORE!!! BENGA=HAZI!!!!!!!!

        Good time, Nuthead!

        1. OK, this is definitely the real Mr. Buttplug. I recognize that smart left-libertarian analysis. Hopefully the impostor is gone for good.

          By the way, have you seen the latest disastrous economic news? 8 of the top 100 richest people on the planet have lost money this year.

          #DrumpfRecession
          #IMissObama

          1. As Ron Paul says, the Fed is pumping the economy with trillions in free money and zero interest rates while the Con Man is running up trillion dollar deficits making the US Dollar worthless.

            BUY YER GOLD BOYS! AND GIT SOME AMMO FOR THE RACE WAR!!!

            (Ron Paul Handbook)

            1. And don’t forget Sam’s Club closed a bunch of stores. That’s the most reliable indicator of economic ruin.

              Indeed, we’re deep in the global recession predicted by Paul Krugman. I’m hoping Elizabeth Warren wins in 2020 and rescues us.

              1. It’s part of the Retail Apocalypse, dude.

                Add to that all the Red State men on Trump’s SSDI. And so many farmers have killed themself due to the Dotard’s trade war that UE keeps going down.

            2. As Ron Paul says, the Fed is pumping the economy with trillions in free money and zero interest rates while the Con Man is running up trillion dollar deficits making the US Dollar worthless.

              True, but at this point, does it matter? Trump can delay the crash for another year or two, at which point he’ll be reelected, which is still preferable to having the crash now and getting a socialist.

        2. Not having your child porn alias really broke you. How embarrassing for you.

          1. How many feet below ground is your Doomsday Prepper Freedom Bunker, Jesse?

            1. I still own you.

              1. Never heard of you before.

    3. Wrong, Clinton ran a sex trafficing ring on the lolita express with Jeffrey Epstein, where bill was curiously listed on flight manifests over 20 times.

  16. Volker may have at some point said that the corruption allegations against Biden were “not credible”, but I was listening to NPR’s coverage at the time and he used a hell of a lot stronger language than that about Biden. This guy knows Joe Biden and Joe Biden is the most honorable and decent man he knows, the very idea that Biden might do anything the least little bit corrupt is utterly ridiculous. No mention of how it is that a diplomat, somebody presumably knowledgeable in not only how things are but how they appear to be, wouldn’t bat an eye at Hunter Biden’s situation and it wouldn’t occur to him to think that maybe something might not look so good there. And then seem to be rather indignant that somebody might question somebody that he personally has vouched for. If Kurt Volker says Joe Biden is a good egg, that should put an end to any question of investigating Joe Biden’s actions.

    1. And that is the problem with relying on opinion for want of facts.

      Baseless opinions about Trump and his motivations held by subordinate bureaucrats are being touted as evidence that Trump engaged in impeachable conduct as a matter of fact. The same people then opine, without any factual predicate, that Joe Biden was as straight as an arrow can get; right off the assembly line; impeccable in every way; therefore, it is obvious he did nothing wrong and there is no basis for an investigation.

      “Biden is a good guy, therefore, any suggestion that he be investigated means that Trump is a bad guy.” At the end of the day, this is what the argument comes down. In order to inculpate Trump, Democrats need to exculpate Biden; yet, the Democrats insist Biden and his son have no connection to the impeachment question and should not testify under any circumstance.

      The Democrats are stuck exploring opinions because they do not have the facts, plain and simple. It is a disastrous strategy.

      1. REO ImpeachWagon: “Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you been messing around. Oh, but I don’t believe it, no not for a minute…”

        1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    2. Schiff just repeated it – “unacceptable” is the word Volker used in regards to a possible corruption investigation into Biden vis-à-vis Burisma. “Not credible” and “unacceptable” are as vastly different as the “credible” and “plausible” used in the Blassey-Ford testimony regarding Kavanaugh.

  17. This is very sad IMO:

    https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780540637/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-say-impeachment-hearings-wont-change-their-minds

    65% of Americans already have their minds made up about the impeachment inquiry, one way or another.

    1. Because we all know what Trump is. Some people are ok with a conman who plays hard and fast with the law, and other people recognize that the rule of law is the only thing keeping us from becoming a shit hole country.

      1. You’re talking about Schiff, right?

        1. Hes also talking to himself. He is good for one response to himself each time.

        2. I don’t know, has a court ruled that Schiff participated in “a shocking pattern of illegality” or barred him from participating in a charity until he takes basic ethics classes? Has Schiff had to settle several lawsuits for fraud for a fake university, or a fake multi level marketing company?

          Wait, no. That’s all Trump. Trump the serial conman. It’s on the record.

          You guys are worse than Mormons when it comes to following a known conman.

          1. Keep shitting on Mormons. Romney was your only hope in the Senate and now you’ve gone and alienated your one ray of light.

            Oh, and go fuck yourself.

          2. No, Schiff was the guy who got on national TV and read an entirely fake transcript of the call. You know the guy who used his position as Congressman and Chair of the Intelligence Oversight Committee to lie to the American people and slander the President of the United States. This, of course, after assuring the American people for months that, as head of said committee, he had already seen absolute proof of Trump-Russian “collusion”?
            Very credible dude, dude.

            1. Schiff never called his paraphrase of the July 25 call a transcript. But I suspect you know that.

              1. Oh, well, that’s a point. He only insinuated that the POTUS was a felon using his position as a sitting Congressman and Chair of the Intelligence Oversight Committee to lend weight to his slander. I stand corrected.

            1. Who tha fuck are you replying to? Because I have never claimed to be something I’m not.

      2. And some of us realize that “rule of law” is dead and gone and now it’s just the law of the jungle. What you’re seeing here is warlords protecting their turf and if you’re smart you’d better decide which warlord you’re going to side with.

        1. That’s too cynical for me.

        2. But thanks for admitting that you do not believe in the constitution or in the rule of law.

          1. Some of us believe in the above, but are realists about the current situation. Read the archives about police mis-use of force, Biden’s lies about sexual assault, the right’s about face on dismantling Obamacare, the “laws” used to argue Obamacare was not a tax but then a day later it was a tax. You can believe in something and also argue that it is no longer in existence…

            1. Sounds like tribalism but with more steps. Thinking that it is “realistic” that there is no meaning to the law is defeatist and cynical.

              1. ^stuck clock being right^

            2. 9/11 changed everything.

          2. Funny; a thief lecturing about morality!

            Stolen Valor

            1. Your “evidence” of stolen valor is that I do not agree with your politics? Sounds legit.

              I’m a patriot and I’ve proven it. You’re a fuckboy slinging mud.

      3. “”Because we all know what Trump is.””

        And this is the crux of it. Trump’s guilty, isn’t it obvious. We just need to find a crime.

        1. I can’t believe anyone supported him after he implored Russia for help getting elected on national tv. Traitorous.

    2. Impeachment is either a political process, or it isn’t. If, as the Democrats urge, it’s a purely political process and the facts don’t really matter all that much – that is, if impeachable conduct is whatever Congress wants it to be – then I don’t blame Americans for running to their respective political corners. When your party’s platform from day one has been “impeach the motherfucker,” it is a tad disingenuous to then get upset that people aren’t sitting there with furrowed brows, carefully weighing the “evidence.”

      That so many Americans have already made up their mind demonstrates quite clearly that they view the process as theater rather than a legitimate proceeding whose purpose is to establish facts. And, based on what I’ve seen, it is theater. Really bad theater.

      1. Impeachment is a political process, but facts do matter. That is why Trump´s refusal to cooperate in the investigation by preventing witnesses with first hand knowledge (e.g., Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc.) is troubling. The inescapable inference is that their testimony would inculpate Trump even further than the matters already of record do so.

        1. Right. Because people who don’t participate in their own prosecution should be presumed to be guilty of each and every crime of which they are accused.

          Still pretending to be a libertarian?

        2. Or you know, the dems could grow a pair and begin official impeachment HEARINGS instead of inquiries. And if they vote to impeach in the house then that would open EVERYONE up to subpoena, including the bidens, in the senate trial.

          That’s why the dems won’t move forward with a vote. They intend to try to “impeach” him in the public eye without ever voting for it because once this thing goes to the senate Mitch McConnell and the Rs can literally subpoena anyone they want related to this and schiff won’t be able to cut them off or block their questions.

          1. In an actual Senate trial for impeachment, all US Senators participating are to be sworn in. The Senate can then swear in all witnesses as well.

            This was likely added as a constitutional requirement to keep Senators from lying to make their case without being called as a witness.

        3. “Fifth Amendmend? Libertarians don’t think it’s important. No illegal search and seizure ALSO overrated!”

      2. Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

        While the impeachment process by Congress was given wide latitude, there are still basic rules and requirements. Impeachment is not a free-for-all.

        Congress has to convict an Impeachee of treason, bribery, or other high crime and misdemeanor for an impeachment to successfully remove someone from office.

    3. 65% are very sure it’s political theater that isn’t going to be informative. That’s more sad in what it reveals about their faith in Congress than it is about the public’s ability to be open-minded. Nobody wants showtrials and circuses.

      1. I like a good circus.

        1. This one isn’t good. Not a single fucking acrobat to be found. Lots of clowns, though. Elephants, too.

          1. Lol. That’s funny. Good job well done.

    4. Well, no new facts have come to light since the transcript was released. I have not learned one thing from the “testimony” so far except that hearsay is now considered hard evidence against the president. We have had the facts for months now.
      In fact, the facts of the case are not really in dispute. The question is the interpretation of the facts.

      I would think that the vast majority of people would have made up their minds already.

      1. Who needs hard evidence? Just today we had a bombshell in which Party A testified about a conversation where Party B told him something stated by Party C, which Party A never heard and did not witness or verify. Party B also told him, definitively, what his opinion was of Party C’s opinion, and was relayed to us through the words of Party A who understood it all perfectly, trust him.

        1. We don’t get to vote on this forum, but Plus 1, my friend.

        2. You forgot…party b read about party c’s opinion in the new York times

    5. Jeffy has a sad.

      It’s a political process.

      Sad Jeffy is sad.

  18. If they’d use Reason’s commenting tool for impeachment testimony, we wouldn’t have all these revisions.

    1. Yes, very funny. But if you could edit your posts, then so could the idiots, and it’d be harder to prove what lying goalpost movers they are.

      1. Yea, I’ve come to like the lack of editing option.
        Sucks for typos, but keeps a good record

  19. What’s the over/under on how many close Trump men will be in prison on election day? Stone, Cohen, Manafort etc.

    Uday and Qusay Trump count as two.

    I am making the o/u 8 with -110 either way.

    1. Brennan is going up the river- so is McCabe.

      1. People don’t get that scared and defensive unless they know that jail time is a real possibility.

  20. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

    There are no “corruption allegations’ against Biden.

    There’s Biden ON FUCKING CAMERA, TELLING EVERYONE HE TOLD UKRAINE TO DO STOP INVESTIGATING OR THEY WEREN’T GETTING ANY MONEY.

    The word for that, outside of clown world, is “confession

    As with the fucking Russia idiocy, we’re at the ‘Trump did nothing wrong’ point now.

    This is pure insanity that only exists because the left controls so much of the media and they can–and are, simply lying and having themselves back themselves up over and over in other media.

    This is an echo chamber busily sealing all openings.

    1. Biden urged the firing of a corrupt prosecutor who was failing to pursue investigations. His threat to withhold the loan guaranty actually increased any threat to Burisma personnel.

      1. Whatever. Joe’s son is making a million a year to be on the board of a company that is being investigated for corruption while Joe is threatening a foriegn nation to fire the guy running the investigation is fine, but Trump asking Ukraine to look into it is impeachable?

      2. not guilty
        November.19.2019 at 9:55 pm

        ^perfect example of what Azahoth said

      3. If that was the case, then an investigation will surely clear him. However, given his clear conflict of interest and the extremely odd situation involving Hunter, surely an investigation would clear him.

        By the by, essentially every article I have read about the situation before Trump became involved came to the opposite conclusion. I don’t trust anything written after Trump became involved, because too many people hate Trump so badly that they would say “water is dry” just to spite him.

        1. Sorry, I meant to type, “surely an investigation is worth pursuing”.

  21. Nice
    I am 25 years old working as Marketing in Emporium77 . Please visit my site http://eropasport.com/

  22. People aren’t accusing Joe Biden of “corruption”, they are accusing him of a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest is likely legal under US law as it stands, but it should not be.

    That is, for an American to invest in the son of a foreign VP would be illegal under US law, but for some reason for a foreigner to invest in the son of a US VP is legal.

    Either way, Hunter Biden may have violated Ukraine law, and Trump needed to give the Ukraine the go ahead to investigate him, since previous administrations had blocked it.

    Furthermore, American voters deserve to know the truth about this, regardless of whether it is legal or not.

  23. Well, that’s good enough for me – not.

    The US meddling (coup) in Ukraine, coordinated by Biden, is not credible.

    I wonder if installing puppet governments is considered quid pro quo?

    1. Over three million dollars in two years to an unqualified coke head sure seem pro quo-ey.

      1. In the recorded telephone conversation between Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and Ukraine Ambassador Geoff Pratt, they are CLEARLY heard discussing the planning of the coup that ousted the democratically elected president, and the western puppets that they will install.

        Near the end of the call Nuland can be heard saying that their efforts should earn them an “atta boy” from Vice President Biden.

        http://m.youtube.com/watchv=CL_GShyGv3o

  24. “April 16, 2014 – U.K. investigates Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy

    The U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) blocks accounts of Burisma’s majority shareholder, Mykola Zlochevskiy.”

    Curiously April 2014 is the same month that Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board.

    They keep telling there are no facts to back up allegations of corruption by Biden, but 2 do facts stand out: Hunter Biden was paid an enormous amount of money for a position he had zero qualifications for; 2) Joe Biden, by his own admission, leveraged US aid to fire a prosecutor who had made moves adverse to Burisma’s interest.

    1. Which, while not conclusive, are actual facts. Which makes them a thousand times more damning and CREDIBLE than the suppositions and opinions swirling around Orange Man.

      But debunked is as narrative does in Readonlandia.

  25. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do ………  ……..  Read More

  26. “I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question,”

    Yes, no doubt he learned that the Dems have dirt on him and changing his testimony was the price of silence.

  27. Poor Deep State.

    More and more Americans are convinced based on evidence that much of your government is so corrupt that many bureaucrats will do and say whatever it takes to get their way.

    Furthermore, the MSM are propagandists for this Deep State to protect it from budget cuts and answering to a civilian political process, like elections.

  28. What this does is confirm that taking testimony privately before public testimony compels people to answer truthfully. There is no opportunity to fabricate a story and so honesty is the best policy.

    1. Haha. I needed a good laugh this morning.

      1. Glad I could help.

        1. Haha. You are really on a roll.

  29. >”I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question,”

    first, the figurative gun @my head is uncomfortable.

  30. Then why is Biden fighting an investigation into his actions? I hear incessantly about how, if Trump has nothing to hide, he shouldn’t resist an investigation.

    OK. Same goes for Biden. Put Biden in front of a committee of Republicans who make no pretense that they are interested in a legitimate hearing, and let Biden prove that he is not guilty.

    I can’t stand either party, or politicians in general. The screaming hypocrisy of all the progressive loyalists out there is just the latest example of why not.

  31. If you want to be a government employee or politician you only have to do one thing: memorize the phrases, “I didn’t know” and “I do not recall”.

    These cunts either run our country or are responsible for parts of it, and they don’t know or can’t remember much of anything. Fucktards.

Please to post comments