Impeachment

White House Adviser: Trump Didn't Actually Seem to Care About Fighting Corruption in Ukraine

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's testimony undermines the White House's defense that the president was focused on anti-corruption efforts.

|

A top White House adviser on Ukraine told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that President Donald Trump disregarded talking points on corruption in an April phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

"Those were the recommended talking points that were cleared through the NSC staff for the president," Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman said.

According to a rough transcript of the call, Trump did not address anything corruption-related. Yet the administration has claimed that the president withheld $400 million in military aid to Ukraine because he was concerned about corruption in that country, and the White House's official readout of the conversation incorrectly said that the president honed in on those efforts.

On a July 25 call with Zelenskiy, Trump pushed the Ukrainian leader to publicly announce investigations into Burisma, an energy company where former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board, and into investigating a theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to help Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Jennifer Williams, Vice President Mike Pence's special adviser on Europe and Russia, also testified on Tuesday that she found the July call "unusual" because "it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter."

"There's no evidence of the president trying to fight corruption," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D–Calif.). "The evidence all points in the other direction. The evidence points in the direction of inviting Ukraine to engage in the corrupt act of investigating a U.S. political opponent."

During a closed-door deposition last week, David Holmes, a career diplomat, testified that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told him that Trump doesn't "give a shit about Ukraine." According to Holmes, Sondland said that the president "only cares" about "big stuff that benefits the president, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing."

Vindman also testified Tuesday that, during the July call, he provided Trump with similar anti-corruption talking points, which the president did not cover.

"It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and political opponent," Vindman said this morning. "It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play."

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.) sought to reinforce the Trump administration's anti-corruption defense, highlighting Lt. Col. Vindman's testimony that Burisma had "questionable business dealings."

Yet for the most part, the Republicans attempted to undermine Vindman's character and allegiance to the United States. Vindman was born in the Ukraine and immigrated to the U.S. when he was three-years-old.

Steve Castor, counsel for the GOP, leaned in on a job offer that Vindman received from Oleksandr Danylyuk, the former head of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, which Vindman declined on three separate occasions.

"I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler, and I immediately dismissed these offers, did not entertain them," Vindman said.

"When he made this offer to you initially, did you leave the door open?" Castor asked "Was there a reason that he had to come back and ask a second or third time or was he just trying to convince you?"

"Counselor, you know what, the whole notion is rather comical that I was being asked to consider whether I'd want to be the minister of defense," Vindman replied. "I did not leave the door open at all."

Vindman served in the Iraq War and is a Purple Heart recipient.

"Dad, my sitting here today, in the U.S. Capitol, talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family," he said in his opening statement. "Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth."

NEXT: Will Florida Finally Grant Relief to Inmates Trapped Serving Sentences Under Drug Laws That No Longer Exist?

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. That’s OK, Democrats don’t actually seem to care about fighting corruption either

    1. It’s okay if we do it because they do it. That’s what the higher moral ground is all about. God Bless the Jesus Party.

      1. Thank you Jonah.

      2. I’m not a whataboutist! You’re a whataboutist!

        1. And we can trust this jackass because?

          1. Ugh. Wrong reply column. Damn phone.

            1. It’s okay – we’re all jackasses here so it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to GeoffB1972 (if that is my his real name) as a jackass.

              1. I really liked your blog. Your writing is so convincing that I could not stop myself from saying something about it.
                You’re doing a great job and keep up the good spirit.
                I am looking forward to share your blog on various forums whenever this topic comes across.
                https://www.vhost.web.id/

          2. A few things wrong with Vindeman’s testimony.

            1) He’s trying to interpret political language through a military lens. In military-speak, a “request” from a superior to a subordinate is sometimes an “order”, but when the presidents of two countries are talking and one asks for a “favor” – that’s what it is – not an order.

            2) Vindeman has nothing to offer but his opinion. This is akin to most of the other witless-es who have nothing relevant to offer.

            3) Vindeman appears to be the sort of military officer that other military officers laugh at. A regular “Frank Burns”.

            1. “2) Vindeman has nothing to offer but his opinion. This is akin to most of the other witless-es who have nothing relevant to offer.”

              Perjuryproofing

            2. “2) Vindeman has nothing to offer but his opinion”

              That’s the amazing thing about this inquiry.
              No facts or evidence so far, but the hearsay and opining have been rock solid.
              “My grandma’s, cousin’s, father-in-laws, friend heard Trump quid pro quo the Ukrainian Emperor.”

            3. A regular “Frank Burns”
              A pudgy, sissy Frank Burns who slipped through on “Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

    2. The New York Times has let slip that Colonel Alexander Vindman advised foreign governments on how to subvert the foreign policy of the US government.

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

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

      1. It’s behind a paywall. Could you provide some more details on how “advice about how to deal with Mr. Giualiani” equates to “subverting the foreign policy of the US government”?

        1. Mr. Giuliani is the representative of the duly elected President, carrying out the President’s foreign policy directives.

          1. Giuliani is indeed Trump´s representative. Why has he ignored a valid subpoena to testify about what he did in that representative capacity?

            1. Actually, he’s Trump’s personal attorney, and as such shouldn’t have anything to do with foreign or domestic policy directives. He’s not a representative of the government in any manner.

              1. The president can allow anybody he wants to help with domestic policy, that is his or her discretion. Obama also had non bureaucrats help work in Ukraine on policy during his 8 years as was said during Yovanovitch’s testimony.

          2. No, he is not. He is hired and representative of Donald Trump, private US citizen.

          3. These are all serious questions I would appreciate serious and well-informed answers to, because I don’t know them.

            For Giuliani to actually be a representative of the US government, and not just Trump’s personal lawyer, would he have to be employed by the US government in some way? Vetted and given the proper security clearances? Been trained on relevant policies and procedures? Signed various legal agreements regarding those policies and procedures? To work in foreign policy at the level he is/was, would he have to be confirmed by Congress?

            Did any of that happen?

            Do we know what “deal with Giuliani” refers to? Do we know it means undermine him as opposed to simply how to work with him and understand his words and actions?

            1. President’s have always used private citizens to conduct foreign business outside normal channels. Nothing new and nothing in the Constitution bans it. Quite often they use them to make contact with governments that may not be as open to dealing with official government agents or because they have already established relationships.

            2. Also, as Trump’s personal lawyer, i.e. lawyer to the President, he has most likely had to undergo a security clearance investigation to get security clearance. He would be potentially privy to classified information in his role and thus he had to be vetted. Security clearances are no jokes.

        2. The President of the United States, Head of State, tried to work with another head of state. Civil servants tried to stonewall him so he sent a personal representative. Then the civil servants tried to find a workaround for the President’s efforts to make his own foreign policy in spite of them.

          If the “interagency consensus” is that the President can only implement their preferred policies, there is no point in having elections. Put another way, imagine if a soldier who distrusted President Obama’s diplomatic efforts with Iran shuffled paperwork to prevent the plane stuffed with cash from leaving. Should he be celebrated for representing America’s true interests? Or court-martialed for working to directly subvert the efforts of the Head of State and Commander in Chief?

          1. To your hypothetical: both. I’d praise a bureaucrat for not sending away or stealing taxpayer dollars. Still, refusing a direct order from a supervisor (so long as it’s legal) is deserving of a court martial

          2. The Ds keep asking “is this Trump action/request in line with official national security of the US?” or “what is the official US policy towards Ukraine?”
            It would be nice if one of these apparatchiks gave the right answer: “the official US policy toward Ukraine is whatever POTUS says/does”

          3. That’s what I don’t get. With an impeachment, you want something so clearly unethical that no one can support it. There is no legitimate reason for Clinton to be cheating on his wife with his subordinate. At best it’s adultery. At worst, it’s rape, given their power disparity. The average case is still workplace sexual harassment and misconduct.

            On the other hand, with a little bit of framing, and Trump is the good guy trying to stop corruption while being stymied by partisans and the actively corrupt. The Democrat’s tactics seem to be deliberately feeding this viewpoint.

      2. Giuliani is not part of the US government. And therein lies the problem.

        1. No problem nothing bars the president from using private citizens. It is a long tradition.

    3. Best part of Vindmans testimony…. when defending Bidens threat against the Ukraine Vindman says…

      ““Congressman, this is something I actually participated in,”

      I wonder why he was against looking into creepy uncle Joe.

  2. Biggest. Scandal. In. World. History.

    Yes, it’s now even bigger than #TrumpRussia. And recall that #TrumpRussia concluded with Robert Mueller definitively proving that Russians are controlling our government.

    #Impeach
    #Resist

    1. You are extremely lucky that the asylum lets you play around with a computer, but now it is time to give it a rest and go to bed before you wind up hurting yourself….

      1. I don’t know, OBL’s writing has improved dramatically. He only rarely falls into Poe’s law these days. That’s difficult in political satire.

      2. Yeah, I didn’t realize OBL was doing parody at first either.

  3. So how exactly does an American Military officer get offered to become the defense minister of a foreign nation? What did he do for them that would cause them to make such an offer?

    Whatever it was, I doubt it was serving the US. Binion’s attempt to spin this as anything but a disaster for the Democrats is hysterical. Basically the guy was pissed off that Trump didn’t follow his talking points. But he didn’t tell his boss because “it was a busy week” and instead told two CIA operatives about all of his grave concerns.

    1. Of course, the Democrat controlled house isn’t holding these proceedings for partisan gain. They would never do such a thing. And Biden’s son was given a $50K per month seat on the board of a Ukrainian company because he’s board member material.
      Part of me hopes the Dems do send this to the Senate and then when Schiff can’t muzzle the opposition like he’s doing here, the Dems corruption in all this will come to light.

      1. They can’t even get this to go well and they have control over who gets called as a witness and what questions are asked. I don’t think they would ever want a trial.

        1. If this ever gets to the Senate people will go to jail. Just not the people that Reason wants to go to jail.

          1. From the way Barr is talking, I am starting to think that might happen anyway.

    2. “So how exactly does an American Military officer get offered to become the defense minister of a foreign nation? ”

      The Ukraine was looking for talent. An American educated and trained military officer who is Ukrainian by birth would be just the talent. Colonel Vindman noted that several American officers had accepted position in Balkan countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also note that foreign officers helped the US in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. So the offer was nothing unusual.

      1. Sure bro. That’ll totally sell.

        1. So, Ukraine offers to poach an American colonel now testifying in an attempt to remove Trump from power and …. that raises no red flags? Really?

          1. Are you saying that the timeline is that Vindman is testifying then later gets an offer from Ukraine?

            1. What I’m saying is what I wrote. That’s why I wrote it.

              1. Ukraine, for whatever reasons, offers Vindman an official military position, Vindman *turns it down*, Vindman later testifies. How is this a red flag?

                1. //Ukraine, for whatever reasons ….//

                  Those “whatever reasons” are the red flag. But, you know, like whatever, bro.

                  1. So, we don’t know the reasons, so that implies sinister reasons.

                    1. To use your logic, not knowing the reasons doesn’t negate the existence of nefarious reasons so …. we are well within our rights to keep speculating.

                    2. Yes, you have the right to speculate.

                    3. Oh for fucks sake, Laursen.

                    4. You don’t know what Trump’s reasons for wanting Biden’s corruption investigated, but you imply a sinister one, as do all the anti-Trumpers.

                  2. Those “whatever reasons” are the red flag. But, you know, like whatever, bro.

                    He is a career officer the world’s greatest military and a Ukranian by birth.

                    I mean, sure, there *could* be nefarious reasons behind the offer, but since there is also a really simple reason then, no, the offer doesn’t raise any red flags absent additional information.

                    1. //But since there is also a really simple reason//

                      And that reason is …. what, exactly?

                      At the end of the day, if my employees were receiving offers from competing firms, I’d have more than a few questions about their loyalties.

                    2. “At the end of the day, if my employees were receiving offers from competing firms, I’d have more than a few questions about their loyalties.”

                      Seriously?! This is par for the course.

                    3. The reason is what I gave right up front – he is a career officer in the world’s greatest military and a Ukrainian by birth. And while I’m not in a position to judge his professional qualifications beyond that, apparently someone thought he was qualified enough to lead Ukraine policy on the National Security Council, so you can understand why someone on the outside might at least think he was good at his job.

                      I’m not sure how you can hold your employees responsible for what other people choose contact them about.

                  3. You just swallow whole whatever fox news tells you to, eh? You know they cut Vindman’s response where he says he turned it down and notified the correct counter intel resources, right?

          2. So the President’s campaign had numerous contacts with Russia, the President seek to squash any investigations of Russian interference in our 2016 election, the President seem unusually deferential to Russian President. And that raises no red flags. Really?

            1. It has raised a ton of retarded red flags, still waving proudly in the minds of the deluded. Mueller was compromised, obviously.

            2. Obamas campaign had many contacts as well. So did hilary’s

              1. Uhh, no. Not at all Like Trump’s campaign. Triple digit contacts with Russians that they lied about when asked. Never reported offers of assistance from the Russian government, in spite of receiving a warning from the FBI telling the to report that very type of contact.

                You guys put on your tinfoil hat as soon as someone’s son gets a cushy gig, but can’t see what is right in front of your face.

                1. Apparently, Mueller didn’t see it either. Trump is totally a Russian agent and, for that matter, so is Mueller. Everyone was wrong, except you.

                  At this point, you are better off holding a cardboard sign on the side of a highway.

        2. A light colonel. Not even a full bird.

          1. This. Lt. Colonels are the second most junior staff officer positions. In a line unit he would be a battalion commander or staff officer at brigade level.

      2. Oh please. Vindeman is the picture of a mediocrity. His knowledge of Ukraine and speaking the language made him valuable to the US. But, Ukraine doesn’t need that. Vindeman has no skills that literally thousands of other officers do not have.

        The guy is likely a foreign agent.

        1. In other words, you don’t like his testimony, so you are trying to assassinate his character.

          1. what do you call impeachment based on hearsay? a day at the beach?

            1. A lot of it is second or third-hand, but not all. Holmes testimony is firsthand. Sondland will be giving firsthand testimony tomorrow.

              1. Sondland has already testified that he does not have first hand knowledge of anything relevant.

                1. And he is going to testify tomorrow, and we will see what he says this time.

                    1. We are talking about a guy who already revised his testimony once.

                    2. He added a meeting he forgot about between aug 28th and sept 6th. He clarified the no lid pro quo after that meeting.

          2. Actually, we like his testimony.

            1. big fan. I wake up every day and the libs are still crying about 2016 and their best hope is some loser paper pushing beaurocrat. And then I get to come here and read supposedly free thinkers write articles pretending this shit show means anything at all.

              1. Pudgy, and birth control device glasses too.

                Yeah, he’s who you want as the face of your big moment.

                1. He might be pudgy because he was wounded and now is on staff. But do whatever you can to take away from the man who serves his country and tells the truth. I understand the the truth is detestable to you Trumpies.

                  1. Might?

                    Strong words.

                    Are you basing this on any facts you know, or are you only repeating gossip you heard from someone else?

                    Maybe he’s just a pudgy, lazy doughboy. Maybe there is truth to the rumors that, while in Ranger School, Vindman got multiple low peer ratings because he was “a lazy chow thief.”

              2. Trump is not allowed to disagree with his subordinates. The solution? Fire everyone and hire only people who agree with you, like Obama did.

                1. It fits some liberal parenting. You are not allowed to disagree with your child.

                  1. You’re not. If your kid wants to cut his dick off and buy a brand new pair of tits, your obliged to agree. The liberals are perverse but at least they’re principled, I’ll give them that.

          3. I love his testimony. It was a fucking disaster for the Democrats. But the facts are what they are and they don’t make him look very good.

            1. I cant believe there are actually idiots who thought Vindmans testimony went well for democrats. I was laughing hard at some of his responses. Dude is not smart.

          4. “In other words, you don’t like his testimony, so you are trying to assassinate his character.”

            Not speaking for John, but I LOVE his testimony. Damned near comical.

            And he’d have to character for it to be assassinated.

          5. I loved his testimony. It totally destroyed the democrats narrative. He literally undercut Schiffs opening statement when Schiff said Vindman testified trump acted illegally. Vindman testified today he saw no illegal acts, possibly immoral. Vindman also testified he was working with Biden when Biden threatened the Ukraine. “Congressman, this is something I actually participated in”, when asked about biden.

            His testimony was great.

          6. Well, you baby killers didn’t like what David Daleiden caught on video, so you assassinated his character and even got a corrupt judge to order a jury to find him guilty. So, we just are following your examples.

      3. Federal officials have to be free not just of corruption, but also the appearance of corruption. Last I checked, the military is Federal.

      4. A currently serving officer would be required to report such an officer to his chain of command. It’s what you call an “emolument”.

        1. And he did.

      5. The Ukraine did not seriously offer him a job. Somebody flattered him with, “You’re so smart, you should be the Defense Minister.” I’d like to think he was smart enough to see through it, but Vindman is not exactly lacking in vanity. This is of a piece with him calling himself the President’s top adviser on the Ukraine before acknowledging that he hadn’t actually spoken to Trump in person. The danger with Vindman is not that he’s a traitor, but that he’s very certain of his own righteousness and that both allows him to manipulate and allows him to be manipulated in ways that can undermine a military chain of command with a civilian at the top.

        1. Mr Vindman, excuse me… LTC vindman is so full of himself I wouldnt be shocked if this is what happened.

    3. //So how exactly does an American Military officer get offered to become the defense minister of a foreign nation?//

      I’m surprised this isn’t raising more eyebrows. The impeachment sham is decidedly dead, but it is certainly starting to seem like a lot of the Ukrainian-American players in the Obama years did their outright best to ensure that Ukraine remained as corrupt as possible and that nobody asked too many questions.

      1. Ukraine seems to have been a giant cash register for these people.

        1. For Hunter Biden, certainly. Vindman, however, turned down the offer. Three times.

          1. I notice he did not actually answer the question.

          2. Vindman, however, turned down the offer. Three times.

            Then the cock crowed!

          3. Is Vindman still on active duty?

            1. Vic….Were you thinking that such an offer from a foreign country would have required Lt. Colonel Vindman to report the contact (and the offer) three times? There must be some kind of military regulation for that somewhere.

              1. Yep. A foreign power trying to recruit and active duty member is a big deal.

              2. He did report it.

                1. We don’t actually know that Mike. We know what he said he did, but nothing documentary….yet. Let’s see the reports he filed.

              3. There is and you get training on it every year, mandatory. Forgive me it’s been 14 years since I ETS’d so I can’t fucking remember the stupid acronym. Like multiple of those annual lectures, I think I paid attention the first time I had to sit through it, and zoned out every time after that for 9 years. The fucking power points never changed.

          4. Mike… if you bothered to read any past links you know there was a ton of money flowing through the DNC and the Clinton Foundation to the Ukraine as well. There is a reason discussion on the 2016 election is not allowed in the media.

          5. When, and to whom did Vindeman report each of those recruitment attempts?

            Specifics matter.

            1. He should have reported it to his chain of command or CID.

      2. And they supported the regime because the opposition was tied to…Russian influence. I’m seeing a pattern: Ukraine, Syria, the USA…!

      3. Any such offer would be nothing more than getting felt out – to see if you were a player.

        Admitting as such is one thing, telling it like it was a legit thing marks you as something other than an intelligent intelligence officer.

        1. That is what is amazing. He brought it up himself and bragged about it to the committee. Vindeman is the picture of a stooge and patsy. If anyone ends up going to jail over this, Vindeman will be the fall guy. He is perfect for the roll.

    4. Wow, that’s a lot of conjecture to make based on an offer that Vindman didn’t solicit and didn’t accept.

      1. Well, if it is still acceptable to surmise that Trump is a secret Russian agent working for the Kremlin, then conjecture as to Vindman is fair play.

        1. I guess, if John’s standard for his own thought is to be no better than the Democrats.

          1. You are so fucking stupid that you can’t see a problem with a military officer who manages to ingratiate himself to a foreign government so thoroughly that they offer him a cabinet position?

            Wow. you are dumb.

            1. He’s not stupid. He knows its problematic but believes that gaslighting people on a comment board is going to rally libertarians to vote against Trump, or something like that.

              1. So, he’s not stupid, he just behaves like a moron.

      2. I hope this goes to the Senate so Biden has testify under oath and you have to sing show tunes and cover your ears with your hands so you don’t hear the bad news that the people you’ve supported for a decade have been breaking laws in order to gain massive amounts of wealth

        1. As I have said many times, I’m fine with an investigation of Biden. I think the Hunter Biden matter smells of corruption.

          1. you do realize this entire hearing is an attempt to stop said investigation, correct?

            1. Disagree. There is little evidence that Trump was seriously asking of an investigation. Seems to me the main purpose of the hearing is for the Democrats to try to sway voters opinion against Trump, not to stop the investigation.

              1. The only actual evidence is of him encouraging the Ukrainians to do an investigation.

                Everything is either opinion, hearsay, or hearsay opinions.

              2. “” Seems to me the main purpose of the hearing is for the Democrats to try to sway voters opinion against Trump,”‘

                I would have a big problem with that. Sounds like outright abusing the impeachment process for their own political gain.

                1. I have a small problem with that, but it’s the kind of thing I’ve seen from Washington, D.C. my entire life. Also, that it is politically motivated doesn’t mean it isn’t uncovering actual evidence that Trump has been using the powers of his office to benefit himself politically. Both can be true.

                  1. Heres where you continue to demonstrate you arent neutral. There has been no actual evidence uncovered. Trump is making less now than he did before being president.

                    1. I didn’t say anything about Trump using the powers of his office to benefit financially.

              3. Is using the House of Representatives’ impeachment power to sway an election more or less ethical than asking another country to see if your opponent was up to dirty business overseas?

                1. They are both playing political games.

              4. If they were looking to sway voters why did Pelosi it was important to not let voters decide in 2020 just yesterday. This mimics Al Green, AOC, and other Democrats.

      3. We know that he didn’t solicit it. That is the point you fucking moron. He didn’t get the offer for nothing. He must have done something to get them to do it. And what that was would be very interesting to know.

        1. He did not have to do something to get the offer. Moderation4ever gave a perfectly feasible possible scenario above.

          1. He did not have to do something to get the offer.

            So countries just offer people the position of being minister of defense at random? For nothing?

            Are even capable of embarrassment? How can saying something that stupid no embarrass you?

            1. I, for one, was offered the Interior Ministry of Poland just last week. Unfortunately, my polish was all dried up.

              1. Has anyone asked Vindeman about the Nigerian prince that still owes him money?

        2. Stop asking uncomfortable questions. Trump is in the hot seat here, Trumpkin, nobody else. Stop deflecting. Questioning the credibility and motives of adverse witnesses is dirty, and desperate, and it’s NOT ALLOWED!

    5. It’s amazing how dumb you morons convince yourselves to be.

    6. “So how exactly does an American Military officer get offered to become the defense minister of a foreign nation? What did he do for them that would cause them to make such an offer? Whatever it was, I doubt it was serving the US.”

      Disaffected clingers who aim cheap slurs at wounded combat veterans while shilling for a walking bone spur who pardons war criminals are among my favorite casualties of the culture war.

      Open wider, clinger. Your betters have even more progress lined up for you.

      1. Why not just call Trump a war criminal? That packs way more punch.

        Your socialist Utopia is looking like it’s going to hit another 4 year speed bump.

      2. Look you idiot, lots of people are combat veterans. Just because you failed the test and scared the shit out of the psychiatrist at MEPS and were turned down doesn’t mean everyone has to think those who were not are above criticism.

        Do us all a favor and stop using reason through your numerous mental and emotional issues.

        1. MEPS? This cunt never walked through the door of MEPS. No recruiter would send him.

        2. People are combat veterans, but I get the distinct impression that that does not include you, John. And Vindman’s service is a stark comparison to Trump’s draft dodging and lying.

      3. //Open wider, clinger. Your betters have even more progress lined up for you.//

        Damn. That was homophobic as fuck. And I thought homophobia was for clingers ….

    7. I am still wondering how he and Schiff do but do not know who the blower is.

      Or how other NSC people tried to get him removed but an Obama holdover blocked it.

    8. You do know this American Military Officer has a twin brother don’t you? The twin is an American Military Officer as well. The twin who is an American Military Officer as well also works at the same place this guy did before he was shuffled off as being a suspected leaker – Trump’s National Security Council. Are you fucking kidding me?

    9. All this wasted breath and the story has already broken that Danylyuk just clarified that he was joking when he offered Vindman the position.

      1. ” …Danylyuk just clarified that he was joking…”

        All three times?

        Has anyone told Vindeman? Because he sure didn’t present them as him being ribbed by the Ukrainians.

        Laughingstock.

        1. It makes a laughingstock of Vindman, but also of the Republican Congressman who brought the irrelevant matter up in questioning. And fools of John, and me, and a whole bunch of other people in this comments section.

  4. Yes, Binion.
    This is the apparatchik to place all your faith in.
    Free minds!
    Free markets!
    Lol

    1. How dare you question the word of a man in uniform!! Libertarians love and trust the nations military and intelligence services.

      1. If you go back and read Reason’s coverage of the Kavanaugh smearings (which is an amusing experience, given what we know today — I encourage everyone to do it) there gets to a point in the stories where you can see Robby et al know it’s all bullshit but they don’t dare contradict the Beltway-NoVa narrative.

        I’m seeing the same thing happening with their impeachment coverage, which is probably why Binion is doing most of it — he’s likely the only True Believer left at Reason who actually thinks that the Dems are really on to something here.

        Next November, when we read Gillespie’s mournful column about how Trump’s landslide victory has indefinitely postponed the Libertarian Moment, we will be able to look back and read how yet again Reason failed to notice — or rather, acknowledge — the obvious.

        1. Here is Reason’s Kavanaugh coverage:

          https://reason.com/tag/brett-kavanaugh/

          Please point to specific examples where Reason supported the Kavanaugh smearing narrative.

          1. Please point to specific examples where Reason supported the Kavanaugh smearing narrative.

            Please point to where he said they did.

            1. “… there gets to a point in the stories where you can see Robby et al know it’s all bullshit but they don’t dare contradict the Beltway-NoVa narrative.”

              1. Right, so they’re required to take the claims seriously and analyze them, instead of saying “this is some bulllllshiiiit”

                1. Jeff is to stupid to know when he’s being mendacious.

          2. I didn’t say Reason supported the narrative — I said they didn’t dare contradict it.

            This is illustrated by comparing Robby’s October 1st column, where he admitted Swetnick had “serious credibility issues” with ENB’s Roundup the next day where she claimed those same issues somehow “cast doubt on the judge’s own claims”.

            But as I noted before, everyone should read those articles and judge for themselves because i think they reveal the staff didn’t really believe the Kavanaugh accusers, but went along because that’s what all the Cool Kids in the Washington Media were saying.

            1. “went along because that’s what all the Cool Kids in the Washington Media were saying.”

              It’s a little wordy, but it’s sure as Hell more apropos than “free minds and free markets.”

            2. That is exactly what happened. And I think you are right that it is happening here.

            3. One of the first reason articles on the topic claimed that Ford’s testimony was supported by circumstantial evidence. Which isn’t at all true.

              1. I believe they (whichever Reason writers were on the beat) kept referring to “credible” testimony despite the howls of protest from the commentariat that there’s a vast difference between “plausible” and “credible”.

        2. +1

          Even Pelosi is starting to signal that this isn’t going anywhere.

          The sadness here is palpable.

          1. When and how did Pelosi give any such signal? When she talked about how the president´s conduct constitutes bribery?

      2. Why do you have such a strong opinion of the falsity of the testimony of a man you don’t know? It seems like a libertarian wouldn’t have a strong opinion either way in a Democrat vs. Republican political battle.

        1. not all libertarians think each party is equally reprehensible. it is perfectly acceptable for libertarians to prefer the Right Wing, given that the Right is the place where libertarianism originates and the Right is the only friendly environment for libertarians.

          1. I disagree that libertarianism originated in the Right or that it is more friendly for libertarians. Neither the Left or Right is aligned with libertarianism.

            1. Libertarians find liberals and conservatives objectionable in roughly equal measure.

              Faux libertarians, however, cling to conservatism.

              1. Libertarians find liberals and conservatives objectionable in roughly equal measure.

                Faux libertarians, however, cling to conservatism.

                No True Scotsman, your table is ready.

            2. Who is the Democrat version of Ron and Rand Paul?

              What party do most libertarians come from?

              Do leftist conferences push libertarian literature the same way the organizers of CPAC do?

              With what political party do you associate these libertarian favorites: Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Thomas Sowell, Mike Lee, Barry Goldwater, Zora Neale Hurston, and Peter Thiel?

              you WANT to say libertarians aren’t aligned with either the Left or the Right, but you’re absolutely, 100% wrong.

              1. “What party do most libertarians come from?” My impression is that libertarians in certain regions (such as the South) are more aligned with conservatism/Republicanism. It is different in other regions, such as the West Coast, where more libertarians are not aligned with either major party, and there are more that are ex-liberals. Just my impression, though.

                Ayn Rand – No party affiliation, Barry Goldwater – Republican, not sure about the others.

                1. Ayn Rand – campaigned for Willkie against FDR

                  All the rest are Republicans.

                  1. And is the current Republican Party of Trump, in your opinion, the same Republican Party those people allied with?

                    1. No

                      They are more pro- drug legalization, more pro-gay, and less military interventionist

                2. I’d agree with your take on where most libertarians come from, but the left is definitely more hostile towards us as a group. That’s not to say its always puppy dogs and rainbows with the Right, but generally speaking, the right doesn’t try to paint us as one step removed from neo nazis, and it usually isn’t set on taking as many rights away.

                3. What part of the west? Because most of the Libertarians I know in Montana and Idaho came to the party from the Republicans, as did I.

              2. Or simply go by Don Ernsberger’s findings 25 years ago. His previous notion had been that the Democrats and Republicans were equally good/bad, but he found the Republicans were overwhelmingly better, the Democrats being the antithesis of libertarian all around.

        2. I don’t have to know the man to judge the truth of his testimony. I can do that by listening to it. And is testimony reveals the man to be a liar. I am judging the man by his testimony. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

          1. Logically, the only way you can judge the truth of his testimony without firsthand knowledge of this matter yourself is to (a) catch material contradictions in his testimony, (b) know of a history of lying on his part, (c) contemplation of your own navel.

            1. That is some ways. Other ways are by the believably of the testimony itself. The guy claims that he was so concerned about this call but didn’t tell his boss about it because “it was a busy week”.

              You seem to either be dumb enough to believe that or think that everyone else is that dumb. Sorry, I am not. The guy is a liar and a complete fucking disgrace.

              1. “The guy is a liar and a complete fucking disgrace.”

                Yes, Mike certainly is.
                Oh – you were talking about Vindman?
                Yes, him too

    2. Binion does seem to be f’ing with Trump supporters.

      For example, when he writes, “On a July 25 call with Zelenskiy, Trump pushed the Ukrainian leader to publicly announce investigations into Burisma…” As has been pointed out, Burisma isn’t mentioned by name in the transcripts.

      1. That calls into question the completeness/accuracy of the ¨transcripts¨. Vindman was listening to the call.

        1. Along with several others who disagrees with Vindman’s interpretation of the call content and why his version was not included in the official copy. Get that, he was the odd man out. The ones that the others felt was inaccurate, officially ruled as such.

  5. Some fucking disgruntled undying said some shit.

    Seriously. That’s your evidence. Some flunkie’s perception.

  6. “…There’s no evidence of the president trying to fight corruption,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D–Calif.). “The evidence all points in the other direction. The evidence points in the direction of inviting Ukraine to engage in the corrupt act of investigating a U.S. political opponent…”

    We’ve heard from several people that they think it wasn’t a nice call, and one or two of them spoke with someone who might have talked to someone else who overheard……….
    Pathetic.

    1. So last week it was “Trump was bribing Ukraine to investigate Biden”. Today it is “Trump didn’t care about corruption at all”. Can these clowns just pick a lie and stick to it?

      1. No, this is why it’s infuriating to discuss politics with leftists. All they do is throw out 10 things at once, and once you dismantle everything they’ve said, they change subjects and throw out 10 more.

        They can never stick to a topic because all they know is slogans and talking points, but have never given any critical thought to anything they say

        1. On a positive note, the slogan that the Bidens “did absolutely nothing wrong” seems to be fading rather swiftly.

          Now the argument is morphing into “Well, fuck, everyone and their mother was concerned about Biden’s corruption for years but Trump certainly didn’t REALLY care …. and, therefore, even entertaining the thought of an investigation was beyond the pale!”

          I really don’t see how this doesn’t completely wreck Biden because the only thing that is becoming more and more certain is that not only was Biden unabashedly corrupt, but that Obama State Department and its foreign policy “experts” did everything in their power to make sure that nothing disrupted that gravy train. How many other people are tied into this? Biden is probably just the tip of the iceberg …

          1. Biden and his kid are going down, which also implicates Kerry’s kid… here’s a fun idea, Biden obviously loves his sons to a fault, and he’s a little too old to worry about jail time. Offer him and Hunter a deal: come clean and testify about everything, and they get to keep their freedom but are both banned from politics for life. If they are caught lying or trying to hide stuff, then they get the same treatment the FBI gives the regular joes who it wants to make an example of.

            1. Hmm, sounds good but implies that there is a single, consistent standard by which the actions of Republicans and Democrats are judged.

              1. yeah, I know its essentially fantasy wish-fulfillment at this point. Unless Barr comes in and arrests a huge chunk of the DNC in his investigation, this will probably only end when one side pushes the other too far and the guns come out

                1. You mean again?
                  That is, beyond the attempted assassination of dozens of R elected representatives?

                2. What does the Democratic National Committee have to do with this?

                  1. I was using it as shorthand for Dems in General, similar to how folks use GOP. Sorry for the confusion.

  7. “It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and political opponent,”
    No that’s literally his job, enforcing US law. The IRS forces countries to help them collect expat taxes. Biden is not not the Dem nominee so is not his opponent.

    1. See my comment above, they just keep throwing out crap over and over and when corrected will through out more. It’s why the NPC meme really hit home and pissed them off
      So much

    2. Except when that U.S. citizen is Carter Page, George Papadapoulos, Paul Manafort, or General Flynn. In those cases, and those cases only, investigating American citizens is perfectly fine.

      1. Exactly. The brain trust here at Reason somehow forget that, when the Obama administration heard reports of Russians trying to influence the last election rather than warn the candidates they immediately authorized clandestine investigations of people involved in those candidacies.

        Trump is a criminal for asking a foreign country to do an investigation on their own soil. But Obama unleashing the FBI and intelligence agencies (and possibly encouraging foreign agencies to do things they legally couldn’t) on US citizens is totes ok.

        It’s all projection with this crowd.

        1. Everybody knows Obama did not do it for political reasons. No way. Nope. He was a mainstream African-American that was articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. Not that guy. Never.

  8. You know who else was a decorated combat veteran?

      1. You’re not supposed to step on the joke, rookie

    1. Benedict Arnold?

      1. ^This^. During the early parts of the Revolution Arnold was our most successful general. He was a trusted confidant of Washington’s. Why did he betray his country? His ego couldn’t take getting passed over for commands he felt he deserved and he couldn’t stomach his superiors not following his advice. Gee, doesn’t sound familiar?

    2. Charles Whitman?

    3. Georgie Jessel?

    4. Richard Blumenthal?

    5. Robert E. Lee. Thomas Jackson. James Longstreet. John Bell Hood. Albert Sidney Johnston. Hell most of the Confederate Generals.

  9. All I know is that, while serving HONORABLY in the US Navy, my ship was the second US Naval ship to port in Odessa, Ukraine (this was 1996). Somehow I and the other 1,000 sailors and marines on my ship never was offered a $50k/month salary to sit on the board of a Ukrainian company. Apparently, as none of us were discharged from the military for using cocaine, this disqualified us. Maybe if any of us had a daddy that was a US Senator for 40 years and the (then current) sitting VP of the US, things may have been different.

    1. This would be a more damning criticism of Vindman if he had accepted the offer.

    2. I mean you are basically criticizing Vindman for doing what Hunter Biden should have done.

      1. No curiosity why they offered him the Ministry of Defense while, in the US, he was lowly advisor in the NSC?

        He certainly was not approaching the upper echelon of military advisors here.

        1. I do have curiosity about it. Curiosity is different than jumping to conclusions that he was up to no good.

      2. No he is not. His is wanting to know what Vindman did to get such an outrageous offer from a foreign government.

    3. I’m thinking the offers you and your shipmates did receive were probably better (and certainly more legitimate.)

  10. A top White House adviser on Ukraine told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that President Donald Trump disregarded talking points on corruption in an April phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

    Really? This is it? Seriously? I mean, for something like impeachment I was looking for, “Yo, the SOB Orange Man Bad just capped some homey’s ass on 5th Avenue”. But no, POTUS Trump did something infinitely worse….he intentionally disregarded talking points from NSC for a phone call with a newly elected president of a country.

    Oh…the horror.

    1. Yep its the first time ever that a president ignored what an underling said he’d like him to do.

    2. ya know, its probably a good thing for the Dems that DC is 76% Blue and only 6% red, as of 2016. It could get ugly if they tried their bullshit anywhere outside their safety bubbles

    3. He disregarded talking points Atlas. My God, who does that bastard Trump think he is? President?

      1. No John, it is worse than that. Really….it is horrible: He intentionally disregarded talking points.

        This is sure going to be one interesting Senate trial.

  11. I see Reason’s move to D.C. is as disastrous as I expected.

    1. I never put those facts together, but now that you mention it…!

      1. Cocktail parties and fruit sushi have corrupted Reason. KMW, for shame!

  12. Nunes addressed him as Mr. Vindman who corrected him and wanted to be called ‘Lt. Col. Vindman’. Nunes should have started calling him by his future name, Private Vindman.

    1. Rabbi Vindman

      1. lol I hope Vindman goes on to be a shitty mystery writer

      2. This guy is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

  13. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony undermines the White House’s defense that the president was focused on anti-corruption efforts.

    Uhhhuhuhhuh….huhuhuhuhuh.. Uhhhhuhuhuh.

  14. The takeaway I get from that is that Vindman confirmed that corruption was on the agenda in negotiations between the administration and that of Ukraine.

  15. “It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and political opponent,” Vindman said this morning. “It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play.”

    It would be improper for the United States to continue the charade that we landed on the moon in 1969.

    1. //it would be interpreted as a partisan play ….//

      God forbid. Really sound advice.

      But, fine. Okay. From now on, anything that can be “interpreted” as a “partisan play” is forbidden.

      How about impeachment?

      “Oh shit, but my logic …. wait ….. whoa, whoa …..”

      ::stroke ensues::

      1. Docter! The patient… he’s appeared to have overdosed from a mass application of stupidity to the head!

        1. Can you imagine how it would have played here if some pissant LtC had tried to tell Obama he was doing foreign relations wrong???

          Or worse, the Republicans had called him to testify to that opinion???

          1. RACISM! REEEEEEEEEE!!!!

            But seriously, isn’t it funny that the Dems are losing it over people talking bad about Vindman because “he’s a vet”, yet last I checked they had no problem throwing shit at Bush and Mccain… racism has been the goto slander for any GOP presidential hopeful.

            1. General Flynn was, and remains, a human punching bag …. and not once did his military honors spare him from the wrath of the resistance crowd.

              1. Yes, being a highly decorated vet hasn’t stopped them from criticizing Marcus Luttrell, either.
                Or Lt. Col Allen West.

          2. Obama did the smart thing, relatively speaking, and fired every holdover from the Bush administration on day one. For all of his faults, he understand full well that in order to have run a tight ship you need to throw the dissidents, and potential dissidents, overboard.

            I hope Trump learned his lesson.

  16. “Counselor, you know what, the whole notion is rather comical that I was being asked to consider whether I’d want to be the minister of defense,” Vindman replied. “I did not leave the door open at all.”

    Heard it from a friiieeeennnddd whoooo…. heard it from a frieeeend whooo…

    1. What are you trying to say? That Vindman is gossiping about his own actions?

      1. What are you, his NSC-lawyer twin brother?

      2. I heard that everything Vindman claims is false.

        And as we know, second… even third hand testimony is even BETTER than firsthand.

  17. And all the lackeys up to their usual. Keep on serving dear leader you fortunate morons.

    1. wearingit
      November.19.2019 at 4:13 pm
      “And all the lackeys up to their usual. Keep on serving dear leader you fortunate morons.”

      Fucking lefty ignoramuses weighing in with nothing but blather.

  18. tool gives tools bad name. film @11

  19. The first time Vindman testified he was upset that they didn’t use his words in the transcript.
    The second time Vindman testified he was upset that they didn’t use his words in the phone call.
    Sounds like he’s just upset that the world isn’t following his script.

    1. Someone mentioned Benedict Arnold above. Not tying Vindman to him but as an offhand joke. But it was Arnold’s bruised ego that led him to go from war hero to traitor.

  20. Schiff can say anything he wants about Trump fighting corruption. But if the OMB was also reviewing aid to Lebanon at the same time due to possible corruption, then there is proof that the admin was looking at corruption.

    1. That still wouldn’t negate the accusation that Trump was seeking personal political gain by digging up dirt on the Bidens.

      1. If your argument entails reading other people’s minds for want of objective, observable facts, that is a sure sign that you have a bad argument. Trump does not carry the burden of affirmatively negating every half-assed inference about what he was thinking at any particular time and to what degree.

        1. What Trump was thinking isn’t relevant. It is what he did or didn’t do (his actions) that matter.

          1. Tell the Democrats that.

      2. That’s not the accusation I was commenting on.

      3. Do you think Schiff is seeking personal political gain by digging up dirt on Trump?

        1. Yes. Of course. He’s an ambitious Congressman.

  21. Why are you people so fucking stupid?

    You write these fucking headlines and then prattle on as if you don’t understand that even your lame headline shows the problem with this whole thing.

    No one cares what things seem to Vindman. Or any of these other assholes.

    “It seemed’
    ‘I thought”
    “In my opinion’
    ‘I don’t think Trump”

    EVERY FUCKING WITNESS IS OFFERING OPINIONS.

    Not evidence. Not proof. Every single one is talking about how they felt about what they thought Trump was doing.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    1. Holmes wasn’t offering opinion. His testimony was a recounting of a conversation he heard.

      Sondland’s testimony tomorrow should be firsthand.

      1. a recounting of a conversation one hears is not testimony

        1. Of course it is testimony.

          1. No it isn’t. It is hearsay.

      2. And the conversation he heard was someone giving their opinion of something they had heard from someone else.

        1. Yes, Holmes was repeating Sondland’s opinions, directly from a conversation he had with Sondland. Whether Sondland’s opinions are formed solely from things he heard second-hand from others is something he will testify about tomorrow, hopefully. Weighing against his opinion being based completely on second-hand is the fact that he was one of the people involved in this matter who was speaking directly with the President.

          1. “Yes, Holmes was repeating Sondland’s opinions, directly from a conversation he had with Sondland….”

            You post that as if it’s other than laughable?

        2. The conversation between Sondland and Trump is non-hearsay. It is not being offered by Holmes for the truth of the matter asserted. Trump inquiring about whether Ukraine was going to do the investigations is not even a declaration, and it has tons of legal significance.

          John, when and where did you get your legal training, if any?

          1. Unless he was involved in the conversation (i.e. also on the phone) it is hearsay. Look up the definition. He can report on his conversation with Sondland and Sondland’s opinion but cannot testify to Trump’s part of the conversation or what was discussed in detail.

      3. Do you not understand how that qualifies as hearsay?

        During a closed-door deposition last week, David Holmes, a career diplomat, testified that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told him that Trump doesn’t “give a shit about Ukraine.” According to Holmes, Sondland said that the president “only cares” about “big stuff that benefits the president, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.”

        He testifies that someone told him about something the President had said that he didn’t directly hear. Moreover, he testified about what the President was concerned about as understood by Mr. Sondland.

        1. That is what is known as double hearsay. The person saying “the President said” is hearsay and then Homes saying “that person told me they heard the President say..” is hearsay on top of that.

          And no, Mike or Jeff or whoever he is refuses to understand what hearsay is and means. He constantly gives wrong definitions of it in spite of it being explained to him.

          1. At this point it is safe to conclude that he cannot. understand the meaning of the word hearsay.

            Why he cannot is up for debate.

            1. Probably because he is a marionette who first showed up when this whole Ukraine thing became news and comments on nothing else.
              The Ds seem to be that desperate

          2. You have never deigned to explain your definition of hearsay. You just hurl insults at people who question your interpretation.

            How is it hearsay if Holmes reports verbatim a conversation that he heard? Really explain it.

            1. It’s not ‘his’ definition, it is the legal definition of hearsay – a report of someone else’s words.

              “I said” is not hearsay

              “He said” is hearsay.

              What it’s not is rocketfuckingscience.

              1. Hearsay is not simply a report of someone else’s words. For example, it is not hearsay if the person whose words are being asserted is available as a witness to be cross examined.

                If Moe testified that Joe said he is going to kill his wife, and then Joe is also a witness Moe’s testimony is not considered hearsay.

                1. If Moe testified that Joe said he is going to kill his wife, and then Joe is also a witness Moe’s testimony is not considered hearsay.

                  IANAL, but that’s literally hearsay. It is a case, however, in which it might be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, since it is strongly against the party’s interest. Or it may count as an excited utterance. Even though this might be admissible this would hardly count as “good” evidence.

                  1. I’m not a lawyer, either. However, we need to clear a few things up.

                    First of all, the question that comes up in criminal courts is the *admissibility* of hearsay. Hearsay isn’t automatically prohibited.

                    One rule in criminal court is that hearsay is admissible if the persons who are said to have said something incriminating are available to be examined as witnesses themselves.

        2. It might be hearsay if Sondland weren’t also a witness scheduled to testify. Since Sondland will be in the witness stand and will be questioned about what Holmes said that Sondland said, it is technically not hearsay.

      4. Holmes wasn’t offering opinion. His testimony was a recounting of a conversation he heard.

        ABOUT SOMEONE’S OPINION.

        1. You don’t understand the distinction there? It might be hearsay if it weren’t for the fact that Sondland will be testifying tomorrow, which means he is available to give his own version.

          1. It’s not a question of hearsay you blithering idiot–it’s that EVERYTHING refers to people’s opinions of what Trump was thinking or doing and nothing refers to Trump actually DOING those things.

            “I think he was doing it for a personal political favor”

            “In my opinion, it was a bribe”

            “I understood it to be for oppo research”

            EVERYTHING IS LIKE THAT.

            There’s no one saying that Trump–who mouths off like a pro–SAID “I’m gonna nail Biden’s ass to a wall” or “These guys are gonna give me what I want or they’re getting nada” or any of the millions of things that we can all hear in that Trump voice.

            Instead it’s what this one or that one thought about what was going on.

            And when you finally DO get to what the ACTUAL principles say–Trump and Zelenskey–it affirms Trump.

            This is people who want Trump gone talking to each other and affirming and re-affirming their opinions on that–without listening to anything outside what they believe–or blatantly ignoring or silencing it.

            There is nothing REAL here.

            1. Hard to tell because the closer one gets to Trump the more there are key people refusing to testify, not to mention the use of Trump’s personal attorney as the main agent of the parallel Ukraine policy.

              And before anyone says it, I realize it is a disputed matter whether people in Trump’s Administration have to comply with Congressional subpoenas. I’m not opining whether that is right or wrong, just pointing out that because key people are refusing to testify it makes it hard to know whether the accusations are true or not.

              And before anyone raises “innocent until proven guilty”, that is a legal standard. Clearly, in the discussions here in the comment section there are lots of claims of *knowing* Trump did nothing wrong; claims that go way beyond the legal concept of innocence.

              1. Nobody gives a shit, Mike.
                There is cause for investigation of Biden.
                If Trump literally said “investigate Biden or you don’t get money” it doesn’t matter.
                Only a fucking idiot would think Trump placing that condition on foreign aid is anywhere near impeachment worthy or even approaches the abuse that this “inquiry” is.
                But it’s all good.
                You want civil war, marionette?
                You will die, and your progressive comrades will lose.

              2. There are TWO key people. TWO.

                Trump and Zelenskey.

                THEY were the ones having the conversation.

                And BOTH say the same thing.

                The way events unfolded backs up what they said.

                There IS NOTHING ELSE BESIDES OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WHO HATE TRUMP THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

                Are you incapable of seeing that?

                It’s not ‘is there valid executive privilege?’
                It’s not ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

                It’s that there is NOTHING.

                Even if everything they say is absolutely correct and they all actually felt how they say they felt–NONE of that has anything to do with what Trump was talking about and WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

                This whole thing–and every previous one–is Democrats/The Media/ and The Left trying to convict Trump of things THEY MADE UP IN THEIR HEADS.

    2. Well, these are the fact witnesses that aren’t hiding behind a Trump executive order not to testify. If he has nothing to hide, you’d think he’d like to get everyone out there testifying to that end.

      1. //If he has nothing to hide, you’d think he’d like to get everyone out there testifying to that end.//

        If Americans have nothing to hide, they have no need for a Fourth or Fifth Amendment.

        Are you still pretending to be a libertarian?

        1. No, I never have. What about all the people here who do literally nothing but lick the ballsack of the most powerful government official in the land? Is that libertarian? Maybe after all this time I just don’t know.

          1. Literally licking a ball sack is more libertarian than figuratively wiping your ass with the Constitution.

            1. Impeachment is clearly spelled out in the constitution.

              1. //If he has nothing to hide, you’d think he’d like to get everyone out there testifying to that end.//

                So are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

                Love it when illiberal, statist assholes selectively cite to the Constitution.

        2. Tony is not libertarian.

          He’s a statist.

        3. Also, do you know what a subpoena is?

          Did everyone become totally ignorant of American law and constitutional law in the past 6 months?

          1. Please, educate us. I am very interested to see what you think a subpoena is.

            ::grabs popcorn::

      2. that makes complete sense, have them go out into a show trial where only the Dems can ask questions. Based on how the media has been playing this, when the Trump folks answer honestly, they’re gonna get nailed for lying because it differs from the Dem hacks with their hearsay and opinion. The media will cover this shit up like they’ve been trying to do with John Solomon’s coverage of this.

      3. “”hiding behind a Trump executive order not to testify.””

        What EO number is that?

        Don’t bother because I know you meant to say executive privilege.
        Obama used in when the republicans were investigating the fast and furious debacle.

        “”If he has nothing to hide,””

        Really? You’re going to jump on that band wagon?

  22. “There’s no evidence of the president trying to fight corruption,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D–Calif.). “The evidence all points in the other direction. The evidence points in the direction of inviting Ukraine to engage in the corrupt act of investigating a U.S. political opponent.”

    Well, then, there’s no reason we can’t just trust Adam Schiff at his word.

  23. Accusing a uniformed member of the American armed forces of possibly having dual loyalty is a really good look for Republicans. They should stick with that.

    1. Oh shut up Tony. I don’t know why I expect a little better quality of trolling from you but somehow I do.

      The guy is a weasel. I didn’t think it was possible to get someone so shady that testifying in uniform didn’t help them with the public, but Shiff managed to pull it off.

      1. Did you watch the hearing, or did you just read some intern with a blog at Breitbart’s hot take on it? Be honest.

    2. Accusing a duly elected President of having dual loyalty and being an agent of a foreign power, on the other hand, is American patriotism at its finest.

      1. There is evidence for one and not the other. Being an immigrant to the US isn’t evidence of dual loyalty, as much as the current incarnation of American conservatism would want you to believe it is.

        1. I know, I know. Mueller was compromised. The report was a fraud. Trump is a Russian agent. There’s totally still evidence to support that conclusion. At least you can be sure he’ll be more flexible after the election.

          1. I don’t know what’s going on in Trump’s mind. Maybe Russia has blackmail on him. Maybe he just hates America and would prefer to have as much control as Putin does. I don’t fucking know. I do know what was in the Mueller report, not that anyone here bothered to learn.

            1. Keep fighting the good fight. I cannot praise your intelligence but I admire your resolve.

              1. You left out shitbag’s stupidity.

    3. He is an officer in the NSC but somehow a dual citizen of the US and Ukraine. Did you know that?

      1. Where did you hear that Vindman has dual citizenship? All I can find when I google is that he was born in the Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, which would seem to make it unlikely he has Ukrainian citizenship.

    4. You mean like General Flynn? Or General Betrayus?

    5. Did you say the same thing when liberals attack Lt. Col. Allen West? Or when liberals have attacked former SEAL Marcus Luttrell? Or when Liberals attacked both Bushes? Or when they attacked Ronald Reagan?

  24. Walls closing in.

    All of this time I thought that Trump was Orange Hitler. The Atlantic has set me straight. Trump is now Orange Marx!! https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-like-donald-trump-not-boris-johnson/601957/
    hahaaaaaa..somehow the Clintons and the global swamp didn’t vet Corbyn and are now spinning. Expect a U.S. Style Russia investigation into Brexit, whoever wins on Dec 12th.

  25. I didn’t wade through the comments so don’t know if someone mentioned it, but how is it America’s problem to fight corruption in another country?

    Maybe deal with the corruption in Washington first?

    1. When you’re giving money to another country, corruption becomes a factor. My two cents.

      1. This is the correct answer. When you’re promising to send the millions of dollars, you want it go to its stated purpose and just line pockets. Which it will anyway, but if you’re holding up aid because you’re concerned about a country’s internal corruption, it seems valid.

    2. The reason is that we give the countries millions of dollars in aid and we don’t want the money stolen instead of going to what it is supposed to go to. So, the deeper question is why are we giving these countries so much free money?

      1. “BeCaUsE TEh RusSiAnS wIlL inVAdE EUrOpe iF wE doN’t!!!”

    3. I’d say it’s our problem if the corruption is connected to us as well (Burisma, possibly the Clinton emails and Trump dossier). If it’s just in that country though, while it wouldn’t necessarily be our job to fix it, we should still take an interest in squashing it if we’re offering money/weapons to them.

    4. It begins with the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kyiv (or Kiev) on July 22, 1998. A comprehensive treaty agreement that allows cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine in the investigation and prosecution of crimes? It was passed when Joe Biden was a member of the U.S. Senate and signed by then-President William Clinton. Bet they are sorry now.

      It appears President Trump was following the law to the letter when it comes to unearthing long-standing corruption.

  26. I will say this: I haven’t watched a lot of the hearings, but I’ve tuned in a bit today. I hate the ridiculous political theater that happens when elected representatives try to ask questions, but the two counsels (Goldman for the Democrats and Castor for the Republicans) do a great job of asking questions to help solicit actual testimony.

  27. Methinks the LTC’s actual problem is that he believes he alone is the supreme American authority on Ukraine. He is pissed that DJT didn’t use his “talking points,” and is absolutely livid that DJT doesn’t toe the “interagency” line with Ukraine.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/12/alex-vindman-is-living-breathing-proof-that-the-deep-state-exists-and-it-is-corrupt/#disqus_thread

  28. Schiff isn’t looking for evidence. He’s just doing 2020 election theater.

    1. He can be doing both at the same time.

      1. So why isn’t he? He hasn’t offered any evidence other than people’s opinions and people reporting on other people’s opinions.

  29. 70% of the country thinks Trump’s actions were wrong. Roughly 50% want him impeached and removed from office.

    I am among the former but not the latter. Impeached yes, but he needs to stay just where he is, and all his Republican bootlickers need to stand for election having defended impeachment-level bribery.

    1. //Impeached yes, but he needs to stay just where he is//

      Makes perfect sense, if you have shit for brains.

      “Indict the man! But …. but, here the thing: Don’t convict him. Don’t even put him on trial. This way, you can slander him and destroy his reputation without the burden of having to prove anything!”

    2. Tony has a sad.

      Everyone laugh at Tony.

      Sad, sad Tony.

  30. “White House Adviser: Trump Didn’t Actually Seem to Care About Fighting Corruption in Ukraine”

    With a headline like that, Shultz didn’t actually seem to care about reading the rest of the article.

    Am I to understand this impeachment now hinges on what Trump seems to care about, like for reals?!

    LOL

    1. Well, you know Vindman really had some important stuff and then his boss just didn’t do what Vindman told him to do!
      Did you hear the Kaepernik also told the NFL that, after throwing some passes, “the ball is in their court!”?
      Both of these folks need a lesson in who holds the cards; they’d both be tapped-out in three hands.

  31. Let’s see, Vindman & Williams are butt hurt because the President, their boss, had the audacity to disregard their talking points on corruption.
    And yet today both Vindman & Williams have testified that “there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma Board of Directors”
    First, I’m pretty sure that the country understands that the President doesn’t “do” talking points. He’s about as plain spoken as you can get. So his speaking plainly here is not a surprise. He’s done it from the start and his doing anything differently would actually be unusual.
    Second, diplomatically alluding to corruption like the (Deep) State Department wanted is OK but actually naming the potential corruption (which I point out again, both witnesses agreed with) is impeachable?
    And finally, because the named, potentially corrupt politician happens to be running for office, we’re supposed to give him a pass and not pursue an investigation into his potential corruption? Talk about a get out of jail free card. All I’ve got to do is find a foreign power that wants to pay me millions for helping them. Then I can jump into a political race which makes me untouchable. Nice.
    Fortunately I don’t think even Democrat voters are as silly as the author seems to be.

  32. Reason magazine, which still claims to have libertarian leanings, apparently thinks it was good for the State Dept to arrange the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president just because he accepted a better offer from Putin than the one he negotiated with Assist Sec of State Victoria Nuland and the EU. Tens of thousands have been killed as a result of this coup.
    The new president of Ukraine wants to stop fighting Russia but the vile regime in Washington won’t let him.
    Dissolve the US government.

    1. Are you suggesting that perhaps a POTUS should conduct foreign policy EVEN IF HE’S TRUMP?!?!?!
      By making phone calls and suggesting various options, EVEN IF HIS ADVISORS FEEL SLIGHTED!?!?!?!
      Well, I NEVER!

  33. A-HA! We got him now!

Please to post comments