Impeachment

'We Followed the President's Orders': Gordon Sondland Says There Was a Quid Pro Quo

"It was no secret," he testified.

|

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that there was an explicit and well-understood quid pro quo between the U.S. and Ukraine: If the latter country wanted a White House meeting with President Donald Trump, then Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy needed to publicly announce politically-charged investigations into Burisma Holdings, where former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter sat on the board, and into a conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to benefit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?'" Sondland said in his opening statement. "With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

The E.U. ambassador linked the request to Trump. "I followed the directions of the president," Sondland testified, telling congressional investigators that those in Trump's circle—including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former special envoy Kurt Volker—were all fully aware of the condition.

Sondland repeatedly expressed resentment toward Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, and his active role in the interactions with Ukraine. "We did not want to work" with him, he said. "Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt." Had he known about Giuliani's "associations with people now under criminal indictment," then Sondland would not have agreed to the working relationship, he testified.

And it was Giuliani, he said, who pushed the investigations forward at Trump's behest.

"Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server, and Burisma," Sondland said. "Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president."

The Trump administration also froze $400 million in military aid to the country, which Sondland later came to believe was tied to the investigations, although he testified that it was never expressly confirmed to him. He lacked a "credible explanation" that said otherwise, though, and subsequently became "absolutely convinced" that the security assistance hinged on a public statement from Ukraine committing to pursuing the investigations.

On September 1, Sondland would go on to tell Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Zelenskiy, that the aid was contingent on an announcement pertaining to the political probes.

But the ambassador refuted a key part of several previous witness testimonies regarding a July 10 call between U.S. and Ukrainian officials, during which time Sondland mentioned the investigations. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a top White House adviser on Ukraine, and Volker both said Sondland was reprimanded for the remarks, whereas Sondland says that he received no such protestations.

Varnishing a series of WhatsApp and email exchanges prior to the notorious July 25 call between Zelenskiy and Trump, Sondland sought to show that the effort was not hidden behind closed doors.

"I talked to the Zelenskiy just now…He is prepared to receive Potus' call. Will assure him that he intends to run a transparent investigation and that he will 'turn over every stone,'" Sondland wrote in a July 19 email to Pompeo, Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Executive Secretary of the Department of State Lisa Kenna, as well as other support staff.

"Everyone was in the loop," Sondland testified on Wednesday. "It was no secret."

Pertaining to the July 25 call, the ambassador said that he was never provided with a readout that included Trump's references to the Bidens.

In that same vein, Daniel Goldman, the Democrats' lawyer, pressed Sondland on whether or not he was aware that an investigation into Burisma was directly connected to a probe into Trump's political rival.

"Today I know exactly what it means," Sondland said. "I didn't know it at the time."

Advertisement

NEXT: Democrats Overwhelmingly Vote to Give Trump's People More Spying Power

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. Was a Quid Pro Quo

    Hasn’t it already been empirically established, and admitted to by the Demnocrats’ star witnesses that there was no Quo— even if there was a quid?!!

    1. Odd that Trump offered one in April no strings attached and literally nothing has actually counteracted that.

      1. What was offered in April?

        1. A trip to the White House.

          The transcript is out there. Released during the impeachment circus.

    2. “Did you order the Quid Pro Quo!!?”
      “You God damn right I did!!”

      Lock him up! Lock him up!

      1. That’s not the truth.

        You can’t handle the truth!

    3. Politico first reported that aid to Ukraine was being held up on August 28th. The House started investigating on September 11th. That means that any actions that happened after that, such as Trump declaring “”I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo” on September 9th or the release of the aid on September 11th do not disprove that there was conspiring before the matter was brought to public attention.

      1. And yet, nothing before that date has been evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

        What we’ve seen is a parade of “witnesses” who didn’t witness anything. Even Sondland’s testimony today included the caveat that he “presumed” his conclusion. In other words, he made it up in his own mind. Surprise! Conclusions aren’t evidence, otherwise, MY conclusion that the members of the House DemonCRAP leadership are all traitors to America working to destroy a lawfully-elected president and tear down the Country would be enough to have them all put to death! [And the sooner the better!]

        This process hasn’t been a search for truth. It has never been anything more than a smear campaign.

        1. This is, of course, correct.

    4. This headline is a complete lie. Sondland said he “assumed” there was a connection. He said he did not talk to Trump. In other words Sondland had nothing, he made it up that there was a connection. This whole thing is falling apart. And most of you posting here did not watch the hearings so all you know is what rags like this one put out. ABC retracted there similar story, but none of the others have. So, you idiots are being deliberately lied to by the conspiracy news media.

      1. When your little crew is tighter than a bullfrogs ass assumptions are usually pretty clear. Isn’t that how the mobsters do it?

        1. Hearing dog whistles, bitch?

          1. Why don’t you tell me what one of those sounds like and I’ll let you know. Bitch!

            1. Apparently I don’t speak dog very well, as your response demonstrates

        2. Mobsters. DemonCRAPS. What’s the difference? [The mobsters are probably smarter.] But you’ve identified the style of what the DemonCRAPS are trying to pull off. Conviction by innuendo.

      2. I dunno. The problem is that the people closest to Trump are not testifying, so it’s a bit disingenuous to then claim that nothing is being proven. The bar for the impeachment inquiries, as opposed to a Senate trial, is to prove the matter is worth holding a trial.

        1. And it’s not, no matter how much you wish it were.
          Keep pleading though, it’s a great look for you

          1. I don’t care whether the House votes to impeach or not.

            1. That wasn’t the pleading I was referring to

        2. This mud-slinging campaign is a cluster fuck. That Trump has decided to keep himself and closest associates out of the DemonCRAP pigsty shouldn’t surprise anyone. Why should he participate in their circus? The witnesses are providing more evidence that Trump did nothing wrong than they are that he committed an impeachable offense. No reason to give them more targets to smear. The whole process is falling apart anyway. It’s now doubtful that the DemonCRAPS have the votes for impeachment. That is, this freak show has actually decreased the number of DemonCRAPS who are willing to fall on their swords to satisfy Pelosi and Schiff.

          1. Do you think your name calling (DemonCRAPS) is persuasive?

            And the votes for impeachment are not doubtful at all. The only question is the number of articles.

            1. The funniest part is the whole D plan went off the rails almost immediately, but they can’t/won’t adjust it.
              Just like the Russia hoax was based on their assumption that if they just had an excuse to dig enough, they’d find something dirty to impeach Trump on.
              Didn’t work. It dragged on too long and they didn’t have anything compelling.
              So someone came up with the whistleblower hoax and they went all in on the Ukraine call. But the assumption here was that the details of the call would stay secret and they could imply a bunch of shady stuff. Unfortunately for the Ds, Trump immediately called their bluff and released the transcript.
              Now their stack is on the line, their hand is dominated, and they can do nothing but watch the board run out and pray to hit a one-outter

              1. “Now their stack is on the line, their hand is dominated, and they can do nothing but watch the board run out and pray to hit a one-outter.”

                I agree. Schiff and Co. are pot committed, in other words the Sunk Cost Fallacy. This all reminds me of the case the Bush Administration was making for going to war with Iraq. The evidence isn’t rock solid and it’s all a big stretch when it comes to the “witnesses” and their testimony. I just don’t see a tangible reason for impeachment. Nothing that would move a significant amount of the American people to accept and ask for. This is going to blow up in the democrat’s faces. So near to an election, why not let the electorate decide if Trump should be removed? Then again, I think we all know why, politics as usual.

    5. When Sondeland said there was a quid pro quo, the quid was the WH meeting with Zelensky. He knew nothing of the military aid at that time, only after the politico release.
      He seems to have correctly thought at that time that it was no big deal.

      1. Mike Mulvaney has also admitted a quid pro quo regarding the military aid. Where is his sworn testimony? Compliance with a subpoena is not optional.

        1. See my objections below.

    6. Yes, he has conflicted his own testimony. Face plant.

    7. There are all sorts of problems here:

      (1) If we are talking about a bribery case per the federal statute (18 USC sec 201), that requires a CORRUPT quid pro quo and specifically excludes conduct taken within an officer’s civil duty. But, the Constitution is even more restrictive. “Bribery” in the Constitution means TAKING a bribe, not offering one (and this is absolutely clear from the discussion of the clause during the Convention of 1787 as reported by Farrand, e.g., 2 Farrand 68-69, 3 Farrand 250-251).

      (2) The witnesses before the committee have given detailed accounts of a POLICY DIFFERENCE with the President over the Ukraine. They’ve even made a good case to prove what we already know, which is that President Trump can be bad-mannered. While that MAY be a good reason to vote Libertarian (I did), it simply does not frame an impeachable offense.

      My guess? The President brings a motion before the Senate to have the case dismissed for cause, and Chief Justice Roberts grants the motion. The Senate will never vote — assuming it even gets that far.

  2. You almost got HIM Billy.

    The walls are closing in!

    Lefties just will never admit that one of the major reasons that Trump is getting more popular by the day is that because Lefties hate him and what he stands for. Large swaths of America hate Lefties and what they stand for.

    1. I’m a libertarian so I hate corruption and lies from the government. You seem to hate people like me that hate the government. What does that make you? I dunno actually.

      1. “I’m a libertarian”

        So when you said you were a Marxist you were lying? Or you’re lying now?

      2. No, you’re not.

        And you have no problem with lies and corruption as long as the person has a (D) after their name.

      3. You’re not a libertarian, Tony.
        You’re a dogmatic authoritarian who loves death, and leans more towards Italian-style fascism than any other philosophy.

        1. Tony doesn’t sock.

      4. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        November.20.2019 at 11:48 am
        “I’m a libertarian…”

        You’re a lying sack of shit.
        Pay your mortgage first and then fuck off and die.

    2. Large swaths also hate you Nazi Trump worshippers.

      see midterm election.

      1. All this hate.

        I’m a lover, not a hater.

      2. Literally nobody here cares what you think. You know this by now.

      3. You mean the one where the Republicans gained seats in the Senate?
        \
        That one? Understand people hate pedophiles more than they hate even Nazis. Everyone hates you shreek. Never forget that. And no one here will ever forget that you lost your screen name because you posted instructions for accessing child porn on the dark web using your old one.

      4. Wait; is this still new Buttplug or old Buttplug?

        1. I am the one and only true Buttplug. The other one is an imposter.

          1. So you’re the one who admitted he got banned for posting kiddie porn. Got it.

          2. So you’re the kiddie-diddler and not the jocular prankster.

      5. So Trump is a Lefty?

        Nazis are Lefties (Socialists).

        1. +100; Exactly.. Its so obviously contradictive to be name-calling the record holder of government De-Regulation a socialist Nazi..

          Never-mind that Nazi is an abbreviation for National Socialism which is EXACTLY what the left lobbies, pushes and supports.

          It boggles the mind lefties can be so utterly stupefied all the time.

      6. There aren’t a lot of National Socialist Trump supporters, Buttplug.

    3. More popular by the day? You are delusional. He is the most consistently unpopular president in the history of polling. This is not an opinion, it is Trump’s record. He has never (never!) cracked 50%. The historical average for presidents in their 3rd year is 53% approval. Trump has never even come close to past president’s average.

      https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

      1. Sure he is. That is why the Democrats are so desperate to impeach him instead of just waiting for the election next November.

        Go lie to people dumb enough to believe you shreek. You fucking pervert.

        1. “If we don’t impeach him I’m afraid he’ll be re-elected”

          Cong Al Green

        2. I cited my sources. Where is the lie?

          And now you’ve slunk down to the sockpuppet accusations as well? John must be having a grumpy day.

          1. Widdle socky gonna cwy socky?

          2. “slunk down to the sockpuppet accusations as well”
            But you are…

      2. “The historical average for presidents in their 3rd year is 53% approval. Trump has never even come close to past president’s average.”

        From your link:

        Other elected presidents in November of third year

        Barack Obama 43% November 2011

        1. Meaning Trump is as popular as Obama was at this point but without a fawning press who refused to say a negative word about him.

          1. Instead, he’s been continuously slandered by the press for all 3 years, meaning if he was given half the chance any other president got, he’d probably be a lot more popular. So De Oppresso’s statement is a false equivalency. It’s like saying that because more people voted for Obama then Washington or Lincoln, Obama’s a better person. Or maybe there are just more people in the US nowadays.

            1. I was responding to a person suffering from the delusion that Trump was popular. I never spoke about Obama. Obama and Hillary are Trumpists favorite topics, since the only consistent theme in Trumpist ideology is the threat of the other.

              1. All we heard is how amazingly popular Obama was for 8 years. Press assured of us of this. Trump, who we are ALSO assured is hated is…well, just as popular.

                1. Still talking about Obama? Why?

                  1. Because you were wrong and he’s the one who proves it.

                    Cwy more now widdle baby.

                  2. “Why?”
                    Because it’s relevant to your question. It demonstrates that the “socially acceptable” PC presidents were just as unpopular with the plebs as you accuse Trump of being.

                    You’re not good at this, are you. Media Matters should ask for their fifty-cents back.

              2. And you were wrong by your own linky widdle baby sock boy.

        2. Trumpers: “BUT OBAMA!”

          …is not an argument. Trump is the most consistently unpopular president in history. Obama has nothing to do with this.

          1. Except the “Russia collusion/interference” hoax, the spying on his campaign, and the political operatives he left behind in all executive agencies to undermine and slander his elected successor

            1. Nardz : “Russia collusion/interference” hoax

              Have you considered the irony? Mueller testified before Congress on 24July of this year. This is generally considered the final end of his investigation – Mueller’s final word on contacts between the Russian government and people in Trump’s campaign. Of course those contacts were many in number, but Mueller testified before Congress he’d found no evidence of collusion to affect the presidential campaign.

              The very next day on 25July, Trump attempted to extort collusion from a foreign government to affect the upcoming presidential election. He used the favor of the United States government for his own personal gain. America’s foreign policy became a tool for Trump’s private benefit, not any of the country’s objectives .

              Some points :

              (1) Some people insisted it was absurd to believe Trump would trade the good of the country for personal benefit. This was a common criticism of Mueller’s investigation : That it was unfair and unrealistic – crazy even – to accuse Trump of that. Boy, those people look like fools now…..

              (2) Yes: The Russian government labored to see their boy in the Oval Office. Yes: There were a series of bizarre contacts between Trump, his people, and the Russians. Remember, Trump had his fixer Cohen secretly negotiating a major business deal with Moscow officials throughout the election campaign, sometimes taking illicit trips into Russia to meet with Kremlin figures. And, Yes: Trump repeated lied to the American people throughout the campaign when asked specifically about Russian dealings. And, yes: Trump fluffed Putin in every interview the Russian’s name came up throughout the campaign season. But Mueller could prove no crime. So there it ended, right?

              Now you have to wonder if we’re merely a transcript short of the truth.

              (3) But back to the irony : Most of us would tend to be a bit “scared straight” when just clear of a major entanglement with the law. But Trump was neck-deep into trying to strong-arm foreign collusion way back into March and February. Each step of Mueller’s investigation winding down was matched with behind-the-scene sleaze machinations by Trump, Giuliani, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.

              Because that’s how a criminal’s mind operates – always moving on to the next shakedown or scam. Trump is a person who inherited scores of millions from his rich daddy, but still decided to run a petty con like his faux university, or cheat veterans with his fake charity. Trump is a person who used that charity to pay little Don Jr’s seven dollar boy scout fee. It’s just how a criminal’s mind operates…..

              1. Imagine believing this.

                1. Even worse, imagine not being able to prove a single word of it false…

              2. At this point, there is no evidence that any of the dots connect (we have only the opinions of people who CHOOSE to say they do). There certainly is no evidence of a CORRUPT quid pro quo offered outside official duties (what the federal bribery statute, 18 USC sec 2011, requires). And, as for what the Constitution requires, as mentioned supra, “bribery” refers to the president TAKING a bribe, not offering one. There isn’t even an allegation that Trump TOOK a bribe.

                1. Robert Crim : At this point, there is no evidence that any of the dots connect (we have only the opinions of people who CHOOSE to say they do).

                  I picture Mr. Crim as witness to Trump shooting a random stranger on Fifth Avenue :

                  Crim: Well, yes, I saw Trump raise the gun and pull the trigger. I heard the sound of a gunshot and saw the victim fall to the ground with a bloody wound. But I didn’t actually see the bullet go from the gun to the victim, so it’s only an opinion that’s what happened.

                  My, but aren’t we seeing a lot of Right-types creating a whole new standard of evidence just to excuse Trump from the consequences of his own behavior. I wonder if we could get a single criminal convicted if the willful see-no-evil blindness re Trump applied to the average guy selling crack on a street corner.

                  And there is PLENTY of evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo, some of it less than twenty-four hours old. There’d be even more evidence if Trump would permit the testimony of Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, Pence, Giuliani, Kupperman, McGahn, Eisenberg. Ever wonder why he doesn’t?

          2. DOL…YOU.
            ARE.
            COMPARING.
            HISTORICAL.
            PRESIDENTIAL.
            POPULARITY.

            You know what is relevent…HISTORICAL PRESIDENTIAL POPULARITY.

            Sorry if you dislike your own lame arguments.

            1. “STOP TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT I BROUGHT UP!!!”

            2. Historical average. You want to specify and make this about Obama. Which does not change or alter Trump’s unpopularity. I made no claim about Obama, other than he does not hold Trump’s record of most consistently unpopular president in history, according to the polling. There is nothing to even argue about here, you are just trying to change the topic.

              1. “You want to specify and make this about Obama”

                Not really, he’s just the most recent example that proved you wrong.

                But your crying about it says plenty widdle baby.

              2. George HW Bush was at 90%, so that skews your average.

                I wish you had an average intellect

              3. Oh you mean the same polling data that showed he had no chance of being elected and has zero credibility?

              4. (1). Trump is the only president in modern polling history never to rise above 50% approval for any period of a month or more.

                (2) Trump is the only president in modern polling history to never reach 50% in a Gallup Poll.

                (3) Trump was the least popular president in modern polling history upon taking office.

                (4) Trump was the only president in modern polling history never to reach 50% by the six-month mark.

                (4) Trump was the least popular president in modern polling history at the one-year mark.

                (5) As on June 2019, Trump had the lowest polling average of any president in modern polling history,

                It’s not that complicated, Trump-toadies. It’s just numbers. Other presidents have had their ups & downs, but only Trump has been consistently & constantly & unerringly & unceasingly disliked by a clear majority of Americans.

                1. Trump is the only president in modern polling history to reveal what a complete and utter line of bullshit modern polling is.

                  1. So, a few little facts and suddenly “historical unpopularity” isn’t a subject you feel comfortable discussing? I understand completely. Don’t feel so bad. A dumpster-fire presidency just earns a limited audience-share.

                    But there will always be a solid 35-40% of people who approve of the WWE-style entertainment Trump provides to viewers in lieu of presidential leadership. In this fractured entertainment market there’s pretty much an audience for everything, including the comedy of Donald John Trump playing realty-TV president.

          3. Widdle baby gonna cwy becuz he brought up Presidential popularity and it back fired baby?

          4. It is your comparison of Trump with “presidents in history”, of which, if I remember correctly, 0blama was one.
            So, yes, 0blama has something to do with your post.

      3. You know people can read your link right?

      4. That’s all true – but it no longer matters. Once upon a time, those approval numbers were a way of showing whether a Prez had the general approval of the voting age population – whether they actually voted or not.

        Now, neither partisan side gives a damn about the non-voters. Neither party has much interest in expanding their base. They are solely interested in riling up their own base and discouraging the other sides base. So the ideal partisan Prez in future will have LOWER approval ratings. Anything over roughly 30% is simply wasted approval. But 30% approval for one DeRp v 25% approval for the other DeRp means victory is certain cuz the 45% who despise both DeRps won’t vote.

        1. Your analysis may be correct, but damn it’s depressing.

        2. wasted approval

          Good band name.

        3. Yea, Trump totally isn’t reaching out to voters in communities/demographics that didn’t vote for him in 2016.
          Oh, and how would you reach out to those supporting totalitarians preaching the gospel of grievance and socialism?

      5. No one cares what a dishonest SmValor thief thinks.

        1. *stolen valor thief.

      6. Trump will be even more unpopular when the public learns this:

        Hunter Biden fathered Arkansas woman’s baby, DNA test reveals

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/20/hunter-biden-fathered-arkansas-womans-baby-dna-tes/

        So Joe Biden has a new grandchild! How sweet.

        1. That poor kid. A child deserves a loving father, not a worthless cokehead narcissist.

          -jcr

      7. Are they Nazi. Or trumpers. National socialist party isn’t that the dimicrat party keep believing the msm polls .Seems like lots of peeps believed the rapist wife would win.

      8. Trump had 80,000 people show up for his Dallas rally. Yet you really believe that Trump is unpopular? This impeachment nonsense sends more people to Trump’s side every day (and no, I don’t believe the conspiracy theory that all those people are paid by Trump to show up).

      9. I wonder if these polls are as accurate as the polls that predicted that Trump would lose.

    4. Notice how “loveconstitution” here (ha, yeah right) has nothing to say on the matter at hand. Just deflection.

      Way to go trumpie moron..

      1. “Notice how “loveconstitution” here (ha, yeah right) has nothing to say on the matter at hand. Just deflection.

        Way to go trumpie moron..”

        Irony.

        1. If trolls like wearingit didn’t say anything trollish, they would have nothing good to say.

          1. Actually, he’s not very good at saying anything, even trollish.

    5. National Review… Pelosi is already attacking the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Cornered. Rats.

    6. “Lefties just will never admit that one of the major reasons that Trump is getting more popular by the day is that because Lefties hate him and what he stands for. Large swaths of America hate Lefties and what they stand for.”

      Is this a prediction that right-wingers are going to reverse the tide of American progress and stop being curb-stomped in the culture war by the liberal-libertarian mainstream?

      When does creationism go back in the schools? How soon will Obamacare be repealed? When is gay marriage going to be outlawed? What is the schedule for reintroducing prayer to public schools? When will Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid be terminated? What’s the timetable for a nationwide abortion ban (or, for that matter, any state abortion ban)?

      Please tell us more about the impending right-wing reversal of the culture war that has been providing progress against the wishes and efforts of conservatives for more than a half-century.

      1. “liberal-libertarian mainstream”

        Are you an idiot? There is NOTHING libertarian about mainstream anything in the US, you dolt. And you prove it by providing a laundry list of gov’t bullshit that no libertarian would ever support. In case you forgot:
        Schools – public, gov’t controlled.
        Obamamcare – gov’t controlled health care
        Gay marriage – the need to be recognized by gov’t
        Public prayer in schools – see above
        SS, Medicare, Medicaid – gov’t programs
        Abortion ban – some libertarians think abortion should be banned

        Where, in the fuck, is the libertarian world where these things would be permissible?

    7. And those who don’t despise the Left are starting to figure out that even if they like some of the IDEAS in an abstract sense, the entire DemonCRAP platform isn’t reality-based.

      Pocahontas was leading in the polls largely on the strength of her “free medical care for all” program. Once the budget numbers came out, that was over. Even most leftist morons can see that increasing the US budget by 226% and changing the portion accruing to debt from 24% to 67% would result in massive tax increases and financial destruction.

      So while the fantasy of free medical care is nice, the reality of a $5.2 trillion price tag is sobering.

      1. Don’t know who said it first but: “If you think health care is expensive, now, wait until it’s free”.

  3. wonder if Biden cringes every time his name is dropped by Schiff

    1. The Democrats keep doing this. First, they kept reminding the American voters of DNC email scandal with the Mueller probe and now they are reminding the voters about Hunter Biden every day with the impeachment hearings. And they wonder why they lost the Presidential election.

      1. There is some good news for the Biden family though.

        Hunter Biden fathered Arkansas woman’s baby, DNA test reveals
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/20/hunter-biden-fathered-arkansas-womans-baby-dna-tes/

        1. Oh, wow. That’s not good.

        2. Chelsea has a half-sibling?

        3. Has the kid been offered a slot on the Burisma board yet?

  4. Hey! What bullshit excuse are Trumpian fanatics going to come up with next? {Pops popcorn} I can’t wait to find out. This is almost better than porn.

    1. How about actually watching the hearings and not relying on the opening statements, which have been basically torn apart during questioning for the majority of the witnesses. But you’re dumb enough to think opening statements are irrefutable.

      1. Thanks, Jesse.
        What I heard from Sondland was that he said very clearly that he had never heard anyone ask for a quid pro quo or bribery. He did NOT support the side of the Democrats in any way. I’m utterly baffled that people think that today was a good day for Schiff. It was Day 4 of disgraceful hearings that have the rest of the world laughing at us.

      2. His opening statement was written by his lawyers, all of whom are demoncrap party donors.

    2. We have the transcript.

      1. I don’t need to see the transcript of LTAL’s porn habits.

  5. Billy Binion is apparently the same person as poster Pod. Same argument. Same jumping of the gun.

    First, we now have both transcripts of Trump talking to the PM of Ukraine as well as a letter, all showing no conditions:
    https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1197189077860306949 (Links to the letter)

    And we have these statements from the testimony today (never trust the opening statements).

    Sondland: “My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections” [By elections, that appears he misspoke and means ‘investigations.’]

    Sondland says all his conversation with Taylor — including where he said he believed aid was conditioned on the announcement — and others were based on his personal beliefs

    Sondland says he called Trump on Sept. 9 amid concerns from Taylor about the security assistance being withheld and had a very short abrupt call with an unhappy Trump, who was in a bad mood.

    He says he asked Trump essentially: “What do you want?”

    “I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,” Trump said, according to Sondland. “Something to that effect.”

    1. Trump said “Biden” directly to Zelensky. Giuliani couldn’t keep “Biden’s” name out of his mouth. Trump told Zelensky to work with Giuliani and Giuliani was attempting to get Biden investigated. Trump could give two shits about corruption in general. He only cared about the possibility of investigating “Biden”. It was all about Biden.

      1. You failed. You gave it your best and it wasn’t enough.

        1. Your stupidity is not his failure.

          1. True, your failure was your failure obvious sock.

            1. Try again.

              I stand behind my own name, and my own comments, because dipshits like you don’t deserve the time it would take to post under multiple accounts.

              Nobody’s ever going to adopt you with your intellectual disability. You might as well kill yourself now and spare the rest of us from ever having to confront your idiocy again.

              1. The real coup starts next Nov 2020.

                1. No. The coup started in November of 2016. The Proglodytes are fighting back, to keep their control over the populace, and those who are afraid of having to make their own decisions are supporting them.

                  I like to imagine the wails of anguish that would follow a Libertarian being elected POTUS.

      2. Wouldn’t matter.
        There is enough public evidence that it requires investigation.
        Whatever Trump’s motivation or methods for pursuing that investigation were/are, they’re immaterial.

      3. Trump did indeed say ‘Biden’ directly to Zelensky
        And this is what he said–

        The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. 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.

        And that’s all.

        And he released it almost immediately–something no one expected him to do.

        And it screwed the Left/Dems/Media seven ways from Sunday.

        EVERYTHING they’d planned relied on Trump not releasing that transcript.

        And when he DID, well, they had no idea what to do.

        So they decided to go ahead as if he hadn’t.

        I’ll say that again, because it’s important–

        They decided to go ahead as if he hadn’t.

        Think I’m crazy? Consider all the testimony you’ve heard, consider who they’re using as ‘star witnesses’. Consider their bizarre insistence that everyone pretend they don’t know the who the whistleblower is.

        And then consider what it would sound like if we COULDN’T simply reference the transcript.

        When you do that, everything starts to make sense.

        If Trump hadn’t released the call we’d have nothing to go on but hearsay–and the inevitable bits that would ‘leak’–and you’d need to keep the ‘whistleblower’ secret so that he could release them.

        All those opinions being offered would be being used to establish a pattern of behavior.

        But Trump DID release the call–and the curtain dropped away. Leaving all the Democrat/Left/Media machinations exposed.

        And none of them, not a one, knows how to stop, so the machine grinds on, chewing them up and squirting them into casings for every eye to see.

        1. That transcript is terrible for Trump. It’s more proof that Giuliani’s actions were Trump’s actions. It’s evidence that Trump wanted Biden investigated. Zelensky is asking about assistance and Trump goes directly to the investigation. It’s right in your face.

          1. That transcript is terrible for Trump.

            Yes, that’s why he keeps tweeting it.

            Because it helps the retard parade.

            Moron.

          2. Yes, keplep telling pepole that they can’t read, that’ll work.

          3. He never said “investigate or no aid money”. The Ukrainian Prime minister wasn’t aware the aid was being held at the time of the call.

            Trump essentially ran a monologue by the Ukrainian PM, saying things like Guiliani is a great former mayor and that one woman ambassador was bad and that it felt suspicious that Joe Biden forced the prosecutor and resigned and it would be good if their AG could do something about it.

            That’s it. There’s no chance that Ukrainian PM would take that as a serious mandate to launch an investigation – in exchange for aid or otherwise. Trump probably rambled on other topics that’s not shown on this particularly transcript. Zelensky essentially replied “We hear you, man, your concern is noted” and committed to nothing.

          4. OK: The Prez wants the Biden matter investigated, and the investigation comes back that some evil Ukrainians part of a corrupt gas company tried to bribe the former vice president by lining the pockets of his son — and good ol’ Joe REFUSED to be influenced!

            That’s right: Joe is the VICTIM of the bribery conspiracy!

            I fail to see what’s corrupt in all that, at least in terms of the President looking.

        2. There are many phone calls, texts, emails, and personal conversations in a months-long timeline. What was said on the July 25th call is just a part of it all.

          1. And none of them so far has been able to make a reliable case.

        3. The day Trump released the transcript, I said, “He’s got them. He’s hooked them and now he’s going to play them like a fish.”

          The longer this goes on, the more the DemonCRAPS show themselves to be dishonest and untrustworthy, the farther they’ll fall. And you’re right. They don’t know how to disengage now that their lies are out there for everyone to see. If they quit now, everyone in the Country will be asking, “Why did they just waste the time and money to do that other than to smear Trump?” They’ll be revealed (again) as fools – and again, Trump will be shown to have done nothing wrong.
          But if they continue, they have 31 representatives in Red States. Their vote for impeachment would be political suicide. But voting against impeachment would shatter the DemonCRAP party. Already splintering along moderate/communist lines, a further cracking on the impeachment vote would result in chaos.
          If the Dumbasses don’t vote impeachment, again, they’re international fools!

          The impeachment vote will be the gaff Trump uses to bag the DemonCRAP fish.

          Even if the Dimbulbs impeach Trump, the Republicans have another tool to bedevil them. The ability to call everyone to account – including Schiff, Pelosi, the “whistle-blower”. Put them under oath. Can you imagine how many centuries Schiff would get for perjury by following his current tack? And, oh yes, many of the DemonCRAP candidates for president would get anchored in DC, not out on the campaign trail. It would be a little like placing Pochahontas, Crazy Bernie, Spartacus, Klobachar and Harris under house arrest in DC. Let Biden run loose. His biggest obstacle isn’t even Trump. It’s himself. After his brain disengages a few more times in public, the voters will only have to think about an Alzheimer’s patient with his finger on the nuclear button to turn away.

        4. The memorandum of the July 25 call is incriminating. Zelensky asked for Javelin missiles. Trump replied with a request for a favor regarding investigating Joe Biden and his son´s company. Trump reminded Zelensky that the U.S. had been very good to Ukraine but kvetched that the relationship had not been reciprocal.

          1. Tim Morrison, a White House aide with the National Security Council said the Javelins were already delivered, it was other military aid that was forthcoming.
            He testified that, if Russia attacked, during the 55 days of the hold, the Ukrainians wouldn’t have been at any more of a disadvantage, militarily.
            Zelinsky said he was “ready to buy more Javelins”, he didn’t ask for anything.

          2. So, your position is that we should just give Javelins to anyone who wants them? To kill a tank? With RUSSIAN crews inside?

            Didn’t Viet Nam teach you ANYTHING?

            I, for one (were I president), would think very long and very hard about the wisdom of someone offing a bunch of Russian soldiers with weapons that had my name on them.

            Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to try to use the Javelins as a bargaining chip to get everyone to STOP SHOOTING at one another and return to the status quo ante? Which, of course, fully justifies their temporary withholding.

            This is the primary problem with the entire demodonkey effort. Even IF Trump saw the personal political advantage he could reap from getting the Ukrianians to piss on the Bidens, that STILL is not enough to warrant impeachment PROVIDED there also was a good policy reason for the withholding consistent with the president’s official duties.

            Again, the Demo-dots don’t connect. Finding a non-violent way out of the Ukraine hostilities merits the Nobel Peace Prize, not forced removal from office.

            1. Ukraine is at the heart of something very, very rotten.
              I’d like to know exactly why that is

      4. No he didnt. Perry and pence have both called Sondland a liar for that statement. Also we now have…
        RepMikeTurner: “Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct.”

        Gordon Sondland: “That’s correct.”

        1. JesseAz :Perry and pence have both called Sondland a liar for that statement.

          So they’re ready to testify under oath to that?

          JesseAz : “Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct?”

          Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, and Mike Pompeo. All people refusing to testify under oath, correct?

          You know every word you’re saying is a lie. But you’re a Trump supporter, lying is part of your DNA…….

      5. Happy to hear it. Our diplomat-, policeman-, and commander-in-chief has every right to investigate corrupt US government officials (like Biden!), even if it requires pressuring foreigners. Motives are irrelevant if the corruption is there. Biden is immune because he is a political opponent? Hey, let’s just flush our executive branch down the ffing toilet.

    2. Another statement:

      RepMikeTurner: “Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct.”

      Gordon Sondland: “That’s correct.”

      This is going worse than Vindmans testimony for democrats.

    3. “Billy Binion is Pod”
      That makes a lot of sense actually.

      Whose sock is Kirkland? Shikha?

    4. Many of those are good points, but Trump’s September 9th denial was made on the very same day the House inquiry started.

  6. Nunes is out of his mind.

    1. Sondland is already contradicting his opening statement Pod. When do you start losing it?

      1. Nunes: “Yeah, you say quid pro quo, and everyone keeps saying there was quid pro quo, but was there a literal drug deal? No? Well, then!”

        1. Sure screech.

          1. Eloquent as ever, John. You realize that I’m the one having a political discussion, using the market place of ideas, while you are just being an asshole, right?

            Consistently, you and other Trump cultists deflect straight to ad hominem. Probably because your arguments suck and fall apart once citations start getting dropped.

            1. You’re the one who busted out baby talk when your opponents made you look stupid, widdle baby.

              1. He goes by baby jeffrey for a reason.

            2. Calling you a name isn’t an ad hominem you fucking retard.

              1. Are you trying to earn the dumbest poster title around here? You’ve got a few challengers ahead of you currently, but claiming that calling someone names isn’t an ad hominem fallacy might just earn you first place.

                1. Unfortunately, you’ve got an insurmountable lead

        2. We have opinions and recollections…that seem to change a lot…but nothing showing Trump asked for anything.

          Yup, ROCK solid.

          1. Yes, yes. It’s all a big conspiracy against poor persecuted Trump. He is such an upstanding individual with such a long record of honesty and integrity. All these other dozens of military officers, public servants, diplomats are a bunch of slime ball liars who are lying because…well we haven’t figured out the because yet. Wait, no, I got it: they’re deep state never trumpers! The bastards!

            1. They could provide SOME evidence. Not asking for that much. The one of them who asked Trump what he wanted got the answer of “no quid pro quo”

              1. He did get that answer from Trump on the first day of the House investigations.

                1. Seems Sondland, when asking Trump directly what he wanted from Zelensky, was told “nothing”.

                  Wonder why that didn’t make his damned near endless opening statement.

            2. You act like trying to steal the Presidency is beyond Democrats and their apparatchiks widdle baby.

            3. Yes, yes. It’s all a big conspiracy against poor persecuted Trump

              Yes, it is, you fucking retard.

              It started before the man got elected. Before he could pull a single string.

              And YOU WERE ALL FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT HOW YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE HIM OUT.

              You didn’t even give him a chance to do anything wrong–you made shit up before he got elected and tried to prosecute that–and you’ve kept doing the SAME FUCKING THING for his entire presidency so far.

              Is he a good president? Is he a bad president? WHO THE FUCK KNOWS? The asshole can’t take a breath without one of you imbeciles trying to indict him–and then turn that indictment into an impeachment–for it.

              1. And they wonder why a rational person could be skeptical.

    2. So, undeniably more honest than Schiff, but confused.

    3. Sure Billy. Trolling your own website, and even your own articles to get your clicks up is pretty fucking pathetic.

        1. BILLY IMPLODING!!!

          1. It obvious when certain troll socks spend all day in a single article.

            Most of the rest of us browse the articles and comments and post here and there on things that interest us.

            Boehm is famous for trolling his own articles in order to mitigate the far better comments that blow his garbage writing out of the water.

    4. Agreed. But it is fun to watch him flail away. Would it be so much easier just to say the President did it and I don’t care.

    5. Nunes is the hardest-working man in politics (except for Trump, I suppose). He is a hero, especially to CWBs (Californians With Brains).

      1. You know what you call a Californian with brains?

        A NEVADAN.

  7. I told everyone #TrumpUkraine was the tipping point that would lead to impeachment. So my major prediction for 2019 has come true, just like my #BlueWave prediction in 2018.

    #NotBadForAnAllegedParodyAccount

    1. It’s no longer satire anymore OBL. We’re living in your nightmares. At this point you’re just an already-jumped-the-shark sitcom, and I’m always surprised to find that you’re still on the air.

  8. My guess is that Giuliani will be the fall guy, along with Sondland. Rudy will say he gave vague instructions since that’s what he got and Sondland is now using 20-20 hindsight to interpret those in his own favor. Rudy gets pardoned, Sondland does hard time.

    1. I’d reverse who gets jail time and who gets off, but otherwise I agree.

      1. Considering you’ve been wrong about everything else, no one cares.

        1. Hes even wrong about him not being Jeff’s sock.

    2. Fall guy for an ethical non-crime?
      Fuck that.
      I’m disappointed Trump hasn’t gone nuclear yet – investigate EVERYBODY.
      FBI drops whatever it’s doing and declare war on corruption in US government.
      Will be fun

      1. I’d be stunned if the FBI declared war on corruption in the FBI.

        1. True.
          Maybe the JAG corps?

    3. This “Giuliani is the fall guy” stuff is funny, but also revealing.

      Sondland was pissed about Giuliani’s presence because it was an obvious indication that Trump didn’t trust Sondland or the rest of the entrenched bureaucracy. And rightly so.

      He was the monkey wrench in their plans and they hate him for it.

      Nothing stings quite so much as the truth.

    4. Ukrainian Indictment Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million | Zero Hedge

      Quote:
      An indictment drawn up by Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General against Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky claims that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million for their ‘services’.

      “The son of Vice-President Joe Biden was receiving payment for his services, with money raised through criminal means and money laundering,” he then said, adding “Biden received money that did not come from the company’s successful operation but rather from money stolen from citizens.”

      According to Interfax-Ukraine, MP Andriy Derkach announced at the same press conference that deputies have received new materials from investigative journalists alleging that the ‘family’ of ex-President Yanukovych funneled $7.4 billion through American investment firm Franklin Templeton Investments, which they claim have connections to the US Democratic party.”

      “Last week, November 14, the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), unnoticed by the media, announced a new suspicion to the notorious owner of Burisma, ex-Ecology Minister Zlochevsky. According to the suspicion, the Yanukovych family is suspected, in particular, with legalizing (laundering) of criminally obtained income through Franklin Templeton Investments, an investment fund carrying out purchases of external government loan bonds totaling $7.4 billion,” said Derkach, adding that the money was criminally obtained and invested in the purchase of Ukrainian debt in 2013 – 2014.

      “The son of Templeton’s founder, John Templeton Jr., was one of President Obama’s major campaign donors. Another fund-related character is Thomas Donilon. Managing Director of BlackRock Investment Institute, shareholder Franklin Templeton Investments, which has the largest share in the fund. It is noteworthy that he previously was Obama’s national security advisor,” Derkach added.

  9. For you wingnuts – this is a REAL scandal. Trump will be impeached but the Senate will save his sorry corrupt ass in the end.

    Benghazi = Fake Scandal. Not real.

    1. The last 2 weeks make you even more bitter than usual.

    2. Even if that’s true, the disastrous economy alone will guarantee Democratic victory in 2020. I’m still hoping Warren gets the nomination, but I’ll settle for someone like Biden.

    3. No one died in Benghazi, right? And no one in the US could have done anything to save them, right?

      1. You mean like how Dubya was informed by the CIA that bin Laden was going to attack the US? And he ignored it?

        1. I think he means like how you got banned for Kiddie porn.

          1. Now I’m in banned so fuck you. If they don’t care anymore why do you.

            1. I think both the “new” and the “old” BP are posting here, simultaneously. How is that even possible?

              1. The old one is spoofing.

                Becauze he got his name stole.

                1. To think he went out of his way to reclaim a name known best for posting how to get child porn.

              2. The one that got banned for kiddie porn has a capital i instead of an l.

                1. Ya know, if someone wanted to really fuck with everyone, they could grab a third alias, since there’s 2 “L”s in the name. 3 SPB’s, all arguing with each other. Imagine the glorious chaos.

                  1. I am waiting for proof that the two we see aren’t just multiple voices in one head.

        2. Feel free to list SPECIFICALLY what Bush should have done to prevent terrorists from attacking federal buildings in NYC. That is what the PDB said was going on.

          Then note that no terrorist attacked a federal building in NYC.

          1. Bush’s ignorance on the most important event of the century is not much of a scandal. Just like an attack on a remote outpost in Libya isn’t one.

            Extorting an ally for personal political gain IS a scandal.

            1. “Bush’s ignorance on the most important event of the century is not much of a scandal. Just like an attack on a remote outpost in Libya isn’t one.

              Extorting an ally for personal political gain IS a scandal.”

              So, again, what could Bush have done to prevent terrorists from attacking federal buildings in NYC? Mind you, none DID so, but still…

              YOU brought up Bush and his incompetence. Cannot imagine why you’d have no clue how to do better.

              1. Look, I don’t care about Dubya now. He was the last GOP POTUS to slink out of office with a 22% approval rating. I care about the Con Man now.

                Trump will pack his bags in ignominy like Bush had to do.

                1. “Look, I don’t care about Dubya now.”

                  Odd, since you brought him up and all.

                  “He was the last GOP POTUS to slink out of office with a 22% approval rating.”

                  More not caring, it seems.

                  “Trump will pack his bags in ignominy like Bush had to do.”

                  STILL not caring, are you?

                  Show me on the little boy you’re plowing from behind where Bush touched you.

                2. “Look, I don’t care about Dubya now”

                  All your crying about him says otherwise pedo.

                3. “”Look, I don’t care about Dubya now.””

                  You mean now that you can’t provide a response once people have questioned your narrative. You brought him up.

            2. If extorting an ally for personal political gain is a scandal, what would you call backing a coup against the government of that same ally? No big deal? What if the coup was being led by a militia group made up of actual Nazis, which means the US backed a Nazi group to overthrow an ally’s democratically elected government. I’m no Trump fan, but I’d say that’s a bigger scandal involving Ukraine than this current one and yet there’s never even been an investigation into it, and somehow now we’re supposed to care about this bullshit with Trump and our ally?

        3. Bitch, please.

          If all of the hijackers had been arrested in Boston on the morning of 9/11, you’d have accused Bush of profiling Muslims and mocked him for being scared of guys with box cutters.

          You’d have benefit concerts for the ‘9/11 19’, and Obama would probably have pardoned them.

            1. Still, we did grant the Saudis a lot of visas under Clinton-Bush-Clinton (as SoS)

              1. Of course, Obama’s record is worse by frequency (as opposed to overall).
                Libya consulate had been requesting more security for months before the ben ghazi attack – and they were running weapons out of there.
                The FBI had been warned (by those evil Russkis!) about the Tsarnaevs before the Boston bombing.
                In fact, the FBI seems to have been involved in one way or another prior to many terrorist attacks under Obama

      2. And no one went on a bunch of TV shows and lied about the cause being a YouTube video. And the person who made that video wasn’t then thrown in jail as part of a cover up.

    4. No one gives a shit. The public tuned this out days ago. Go back to jerking off to child porn. It is actually quite nice that you think it is a big deal. That just means the public not caring will make it even worse for you.

    5. You Russian bots are so cute.

    6. Benghazi – Four Americans dead.
      Two because 0blama and HiLIARy didn’t want to admit that the Lybians couldn’t provide enough security, after we had engineered the overthrow of Qaddafi, even though the Ambassador had asked for it, and two, who might have been saved if our military had been sent to help, during the fight.
      And then every 0blama administration official lied about it to maintain the narrative that Al-Qaeda had been destroyed, a major talking point for the upcoming election.
      Yeah, no scandal there.

  10. “””I followed the directions of the president,” Sondland testified, telling congressional investigators that those in Trump’s circle””

    So if Trump committed a crime, Sondland admits he was part of it.

    1. The directions of the President that he never heard and can’t explain how he got. And that he admits were disavowed by the President in the phone call.

      The walls are closing in. Shreek and Binnion are sure of it.

      1. Yeah, the ONE person to talk to Trump about what he wants and Trump said no quid pro quo specifically.

        This sounds like a rock solid case so far.

      2. Accidental flag announced

      3. “Yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers.”

        Comment just prompted me to picture this scene.

    2. Of the president, not From the president.
      Weaseling.

    3. Yeah, I seem to recall that “I was just following orders” is not considered a defense for a government official.

  11. “The Trump administration also froze $400 million in security assistance to the country, which Sondland later came to believe was tied to the investigations, ALTHOUGH HE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS NEVER EXPRESSLY CONFIRMED TO HIM”.

    Walls closing in.

    1. Why, “prettygoodforanallegedparodyaccount,” have you finally given up on Hilda? It’s still her turn you know, and she has been under tremendous pressure to run again. This way she could just run for re-election in 2020!

    2. As has been noted…anybody thinking “The Republicans should just get Trump to step down” ignores that they intend to impeach EVERYBODY. No matter what.

      Pence has already said he never spoke to Sondland while in Poland. The meeting Gordon references never happened.

  12. At this point, this is all an academic debate. The public doesn’t care and is very unlikely to be made to care. And the Democrats are unlikely to even hold a vote on Impeachment much less send it to the Senate for a trail. It is all over. The attempt failed.

    1. LOL

      In the future, historians will point to November 20, 2019 as the day Drumpf’s Presidency effectively ended.

      1. But somehow lingered on until January 20th, 2025. It was a miracle I tell you.

        1. Like multiplication of days in office, Down right righteous.

    2. POTUS Trump will be impeached, John. I want you to be right, but I think Team D has come too far now to back out.

      But as I said once….this is sure going to be one interesting Senate trial.

      1. They will impeach even with no real evidence and then blame the Senate for not doing their job.

        1. Yeah, something like that, Vic. Not a bad national strategy for Team D, when you stop to think about it.

      2. Schiff testifying in the Senate.

        Then, we will need popcorn.

      3. Even more interesting will be the effect on the Democrat senators who are running for POTUS, when they have to spend a large chunk of time in their seats rather than fundraising and giving speeches.

  13. “and into a conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to benefit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.”

    … That happened. Did you think that when you became a journalist you’d be one of the bad guys?

    Truly the enemy of the people.


      1. In other words, the 2019 Politico report relies on the distinction between Kyiv operatives working directly with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee versus what Stern and Vogel reported, which is that Kyiv officials relied on intermediaries to transmit allegedly damaging information about the then-GOP nominee. That seems like a pretty thin distinction.

        Buffers, we got lots of buffers.

    1. Didn’t we just spend two years and millions of dollars investigating the evil Russians for meddling into the 2016 election?

      Does Binnion know that Ukraine was run by a Russian puppet in 2016? No of course he doesn’t because he is an idiot.

      1. No, Ukraine was run by a corrupt US puppet in 2016 – Poroshenko. That was our guy, after the deep state’s first choice, Yatsenyuk (“Yats” as Victoria Nuland called him) proved to be even more corrupt than the Russian-allied Yanukovich was ousted in the 2014 coup.
        Zelensky was Ukraine’s response- their own version of electing Trump

        1. Russian-allied Yanukovich *who* was ousted in the 2014 coup.

          1. Russian-allied Yanukovich, who was ousted in the 2014 coup led by a Ukranian Nazi faction that was being backed and supported by the Obama administration.
            FTFY

            This current Ukranian “scandal” pales in comparison to backing Nazis to overthrow your ally’s government. Imagine if Trump had been president when that happened.

            1. McCain even held a rally for them.
              Legit, war-crimes committing neo Nazis

        2. This scared the shit out of Democrats because they were counting on corrupt Ukrainian politicians to keep the secrets.

          The along comes a comedian who never served one day of political office and was elected to stand up for Ukraine’s interests and not Russia’s, corrupt businessmen’s, or corrupt politician’s interests.

      2. And we established for a fact that Russians did meddle in the election, that the president’s campaign, including his son, son in law, and campaign manager took a meeting with Russian government agents knowingly. Yes, we did investigate and found a stinking pile of treachery. Because the GOP is infected with said treachery and did not stand up to the president, cultists have interpreted that as a lack of evidence or wrongdoing. That is not the case.

        1. Widdle baby got a conspiwacy to cwy about do you?

        2. We have not established as fact that the Russians interfered in any significant manner.
          The only “fact” we have is that they bought $100k worth of ads on Facebook before and after the election.
          Other than that, we have presumptions and the word of professional liars whose job is to meddle in elections, craft tools to frame others, and propagandize. The “evidence” they cite is meticulously kept hidden and/or contradicted by other evidence they try to ignore or cover up.

          1. Don’t forget that the Russians also made Facebook groups! They pretended to be Americans and invited Americans to join these groups.

            Truly horrifying stuff.

        3. a meeting with Russian government agents knowingly

          The horror! Outrageous!!

        4. He never said “investigate or no aid money”. The Ukrainian Prime minister wasn’t aware the aid was being held at the time of the call.

          Trump essentially ran a monologue by the Ukrainian PM, saying things like Guiliani is a great former mayor and that one woman ambassador was bad and that it felt suspicious that Joe Biden forced the prosecutor and resigned and it would be good if their AG could do something about it.

          That’s it. There’s no chance that Ukrainian PM would take that as a serious mandate to launch an investigation – in exchange for aid or otherwise. Trump probably rambled on other topics that’s not shown on this particularly transcript. Zelensky essentially replied “We hear you, man, your concern is noted” and committed to nothing.

    2. How exactly did Ukraine interfere in the election?

      1. So, you’re so fucking stupid that you didn’t see the link he posted you God damned retard?

        1. I see it. It’s an “opinion” piece loaded with misinformation. It’s pure crap.

          1. So now you have a problem with opinion pieces?

            1. Do you realize you’re pushing garbage straight from Giuliani?

              1. I’m not pushing anything. I’ve never liked Giuliani. I generally don’t like prosecutors going into politics.

                1. What I meant was that Giuliani is a source of the “disinformation” that you believe to be evidence. Giuliani was being fed these lies by specific discredited people including a mobster who is connected to Russia. And a prosecutor who has since recanted his allegations against Biden.

                  1. What am I believing to be evidence?

                  2. “What I meant was”

                    We get it, you got destroyed so you backpedal.

                  3. I simply pointed out that you, being someone who has been believing all the opinion pieces against Trump, is now criticizing an opinion piece.

                    I’ll agree with you that opinion pieces are crap. I have been saying that since day one.

            2. How… Chemjeffian. How obviously Chemjeffian.

              1. Hivemind gonna hivemind

          2. And anyone would care what you think over what the author thinks because…?

  14. The least Trump supporters could do is admit Trump is a criminal and they don’t care what he does- he has their undying support.

    At least they’d be honest in addition to being completely nuts and irrational.

    1. The least we could do is stop laughing at you delusional idiots and just tell you to fuck off. But, you are so deserving of your misery it is hard to do that.

    2. The least insert president hereTrump supporters could do is admit insert president hereTrump is a criminal and they don’t care what he does- he has their undying support.

      FTFY

      1. Not if that Prez executed US citizens sans trial. All honest people would be calling for impeachment and imprisonment.

    3. The 3+ years of constant and unrestrained investigation that hasn’t turned anything on Trump indicates that he’s possibly the least criminal person in the entirety of US federal government

    4. You seem to think that many, if not most, of us have this unquestioning devotion to Trump.

      I don’t care about Trump; for that matter, the guy’s a huge jerk. A narcissist. An egomaniac of global proportions. A pussy grabber. Say whatever you want, I probably will not disagree.

      But, I support Trump. Not because I like, respect, or even agree with him on most things. No, I think there is a bigger fish on the line. I’m sure you’ve noticed the judicial appointments that have been occurring over the past couple of years; upwards of 200 or so by the end of 2019.

      Among these Gorsuch is my idea of a great justice; not perfect, but great. He believes in due process, the Fourth Amendment, freedom of speech, and the separation of powers. He believes that Congress should be held responsible for legislation, and not be allowed to delegate its responsibilities to an bloated, self serving, and largely unaccountable administrative state. He believes federal judges should interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended, not according to what they think is “right” or their preferred policy positions.

      This is huge; in my fondest hopes I believe this country may even begin to actually function like a constitutional republic again.

      So, as far as I am concerned, orange man can have another four years for this [actually Graham, McConnell, and FEDSOC] to do its transforming work. Of course that will mean all progressive dreams will have to curl up and die somewhere.

      Of course you are free, according to the public will where you reside, to pursue your own path. It’s called secession. Good luck with that.

      1. Trump is not libertarian in ideology or rhetoric. But he is the most libertarian President in my living memory.

    5. “”The least Trump supporters could do is admit Trump is a criminal “”

      What has Trump been convicted of? I think the Clintons have done some criminal shit. But I would not call Hillary a criminal because she has not been convicted of anything. I do note that as someone who has held a security clearance I would be in prison for what she did. Bill however plead guilty to obstruction and perjury and impeached for such but the dems in the Senate didn’t find those criminal acts worthy of removal.

      You believe Trump is guilty, of whatever people want to say he is guilty of, without trial. That’s not how justice works in a free society.

      1. Bill Clinton never plead guilty.

  15. Over/Under on what the next scandal will be? How many former Soviet Republics are there that the intelligence community can weave into the narrative?

    1. The Clinton endorsed investigation of Russia into Brexit. That shit show starts in 3 2 1 …

    2. That’s not how over/under works.
      *what* the next scandal will be would be odds, such as X 3:2 (bet $60 to win $90) or X +125 (bet $100 to win $125)
      *when* the next scandal will be is the appropriate place for over/under. Set the line at 14 days, the under is any date before that and the over is anything beyond that

      1. Check out Mr. Ackshually over here. But you’re right and I knew it after I sent the message… I needed to suggest a specific example.

        1. I just think gambling analogies/terms/propositions should be used properly.
          I’m annoyed when someone compares something to blackjack instead of poker as if they’re equivalent. They’re not – totally different dynamics

          1. The scandal machine is more like roulette. Where she stops, nobody knows.

        2. I only “ackshually” it up when it seems significant.
          This one was just kinda for fun

    3. I’m sure they can drum up some kind of collusion with Georgia – which would be great since the headlines would confuse everybody.

  16. “…although he testified that it was never expressly confirmed to him.”

    So speculation and hearsay rules the day? And all this time congress hasn’t done jack shit but pursue myths of collusion and alleged conspiracies.

  17. In other news…Politico: Massive Dark Money group boosted Democrats in 2018. $140 million. “Most of the group’s funders are likely to remain a mystery because federal law does not require “social welfare”-focused nonprofits to reveal their donors”.

  18. It’s alternate reality. For a bribe or QQP to take place Zelensky would actually have to be investigating 2016 and the Biden’s. Actually somebody should be investigating all of this.

    But nobody is doing this and aid has been provided.

    SO WTF is going on here. Its absolutely ridiculous.

    1. Trump was busted by a whistleblower. Just imagine where we would be if this scheme had not been exposed. Can you do that?

      1. Technically, he wasn’t a whistleblower. The rules require first hand knowledge for that to be the case. All he did was turn in some paperwork.

      2. To be busted something had to happen,

        Are the Ukrainians investigating 2016 and the Bidens. Nope

        Was military aid still provided . Yep

        So you’re a complete fucking moron who buys into whatever gnosis.

        Busted for what?

        1. Busted buying investigations from a foreign govt. Do you really believe criminal investigations are something to be bargained over? That’s how it’s done in Banana Republics. This would be a scandal even it hadn’t involved Trump’s political opponent. It’s even worse that it involves the 2020 presidential election. We can’t have a fair election if Trump is conspiring with mobsters and using foreign aid to buy canned investigations.

          1. Ah, the argument falls apart so he starts with the stupid unrelated assertions act.

          2. ““I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,” Trump said, according to Sondland. “Something to that effect.””

            Doesn’t sound like bargaining to me.

          3. Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele, a British national to dig up dirt on her political opponent, Donald Trump and to then pass this bogus report into the highest levels of the US government to provoke a fake investigation.

            If it were not for double standards, the Left would have no standards at all.

            1. Steele said in court documents that the purpose of the dossier was so Hillary could contest the election.

              Which is worse, someone digging for dirt to run in a campaign? Or someone digging for dirt to contest an election.

      3. “Just imagine where we would be if this scheme had not been exposed. Can you do that?”

        The exact same place we are now, with slightly different particulars.

      4. “”Trump was busted by a whistleblower.””

        If your mom walked into your room while you were jacking it to porn. That’s getting busted.

        If I heard your friends talking about how they heard you were jacking it to porn, that is not getting busted.

  19. From my understanding of all this is that, ok fine, but it’s still not a crime. Unless someone can correct me here.

    ‘Scratch my back (or balls or whatever genitalia people claim to have these days) and I’ll scratch yours’ is the rule not the exception in diplomacy.

    Has anyone ever read the history of the Renaissance City-States who invented diplomacy?

    1. Do you understand that criminal investigations of Americans are not something to be bargained over with foreign govts?

      1. ““I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,” Trump said, according to Sondland. “Something to that effect.””

        1. Trump might have said it when confronted but his actions and other statements tell a different story. Trump clearly referenced Biden when he spoke to Zelensky and Guiliani, who was running point on the scheme, clearly wanted Biden investigated.

          1. Still doing the Professor X act.

          2. “”clearly wanted Biden investigated.”‘

            Suppose he did. That in and of itself doesn’t mean bribery occurred.

      2. “Do you understand that criminal investigations of Americans are not something to be bargained over with foreign govts?”

        Swedish prosecutors just dropped the charges against Julian Assange to clear the way for him to be extradited to the U.S.

        Do you really think the Obama administration never discussed Edward Snowden with the Russians?

        1. “Swedish prosecutors just dropped the charges against Julian Assange to clear the way for him to be extradited to the U.S.”

          Does anyone believe they did this without any prodding from the U.S.?

          1. Pod/Billy will believe whatever the narrative requires.

    2. It’s frequently used in compromises. Ok, I’ll give you this if you give me that. It’s something that was once done with frequency on capitol hill. But I can see how partisans sour on it because you are helping the other side. So quid pro quo is now wrong. Not because it’s criminal, it’s not. But because it’s against the partisan way. I could see this being particularly true of anyone who has uses the resist hashtag.

      1. It’s not that “quid quo pro” is wrong. The question is what are you asking for and what are you using to get what you’re asking. Trump wanted his political opponent investigated so he could use the investigation to win his reelection.

        1. Hunter Biden is his opponent?

          1. Trump to Zelensky: Biden “stopped” the investigation of the “good” prosecutor.

            Trump falsely believed (giving him a benefit of ignorance) that Biden was involved in a scheme to stop an investigation of his son. It’s a batshit crazy belief. But Trump believed it because it was convenient to believe.

            Trump’s problem was that he wanted to give his discredited unsubstantiated beliefs an air of legitimacy by having a foreign govt commit to an investigation. That’s the crime.

            1. You didn’t answer the question you can’t answer.

              “Trump to Zelensky: Biden “stopped” the investigation of the “good” prosecutor.”

              And, do you think you’re convincing anyone with the obvious quote games? It’s lie you think we can’t see you making shit up out of thin air then pretending it’s a quote by including a single word.

              Schiff said about the call, “perfect.” Who are you to question Schiff when he says “perfect” about the call?

              SO AGAIN, because you can’t answer without it destroying your argument…

              Hunter Biden is Trump’s opponent?

        2. “”Trump wanted his political opponent investigated so he could use the investigation to win his reelection.””

          Speculation on your part. However, let’s say it’s true. Where do you think Trump would get the idea that you could have a political opponent investigated by someone overseas?

        3. Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele, a British national to dig up dirt on her political opponent, Donald Trump and to then pass this bogus report into the highest levels of the US government to provoke a fake investigation.

          If it were not for double standards, the Left would have no standards at all.

        4. Given that Trump is a very arrogant man, I have doubts that he’s so terrified of facing Biden in 2020 that he would engage in such a hare-brained scheme. In Biden’s case, I think Trump’s arrogance is justified; I figure sooner or later Biden will show up at a campaign event with no pants on, because he forgot to put them on.

          1. Sooner or later Biden will show up at a campaign event with no pants on, because an aide forgot to remind him to put them on.

            Is probably closer to the truth.

  20. [9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

    [9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

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

    So, he’s changing his story now?

    Hasn’t it been established that the aid in question was in fact delivered–without an investigation launched by the Ukrainians?

    If the story is now that the Trump administration tried to pressure the Ukrainians to launch an investigation, under the guise of an implied but never stated quid pro quo, but when it came down to it, the president released the aid–despite there not being any investigation launched by the Ukrainians? Then I’m going to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the existence of a quid pro quo.

    Regardless, if we’re talking about the credibility of witnesses who have changed their testimony, I suppose that’s better than listening to a woman tell us about how Trump hurt her feelings and others telling us about what they thought they heard third parties say.

    Still, we’re talking about mighty weak sauce if you want to use this testimony to make representatives in pro-Trump districts vote to impeach him in an election year. I still say we will probably hear little more about this impeachment after Thanksgiving, and we should all be thankful once this embarrassing attempt by the Democrats to overturn the 2016 election is over.

    1. Hasn’t it been established that the aid in question was in fact delivered–without an investigation launched by the Ukrainians?

      Yes, that’s the lack of quo in this whole discussion.

      1. So, at best we’re talking about a failed attempt at a quid pro quo–as stated by someone who texted someone else that he talked to President Trump about it, and Trump told him explicitly that there was no quid pro quo.

        And on the basis of this information, they want to overturn the results of a presidential election.

        Fuck that noise.

        1. So, at best we’re talking about a failed attempt at a quid pro quo

          Seems to be the case. And one wonders whether the Biden-Burisma thing would have gone public if the Dems had just left it alone.

          Talk about Streisand Effect.

          1. Ironically, the more this drags on, the more it damages Joe Biden. It sweeps away the media’s fawning coverup of his corrupt and dysfunctional family dealings.

            1. This.

              I’m wondering if this impeachment drama will turn out to be the biggest political own-goal since Elizabeth Warren publicized her DNA results.

              1. She should have never fell for that and just admitted that it’s family lore. That would have been the honest thing to do.

                My great grandmother was either half Choctaw or full Choctaw depending on who in the family you ask. I don’t run around saying I’m part American Indian even though it may be true. Until I see some real evidence, it’s just family lore.

                1. Half Indian? Go back where you came from!

                  Half Native American? Stick around.

              2. I’m not sure it will hurt Biden in the primaries.

                It’ll hurt him in the general election with swing voters, but registered Democrats won’t see what Biden has done.

                It’s a birther plot to them, at worst.

                1. “I’m not sure it will hurt Biden in the primaries.”

                  I can understand that line of thinking. Conversely some Dems may finally realize that they got Trump precisely because they turned a blind eye to the general unelectability of their anointed candidate, and realize that maybe, just maybe Biden needs to go.

                  Buttigieg stock rising.

                  1. Mayor Butthead doesn’t really have a shot at it. I just don’t see him getting upwards of 70% of the AA vote. Or more than 65% of the Hispanic vote.

                    1. Ever been to an AA meeting? 12 steps. All it takes.

                    2. LOL….nice one, BigT. 🙂

                      I did have a family member whom I accompanied to AA meetings, though, when I was a child. The stories I heard had a lasting impact.

          2. Seems to be the case. And one wonders whether the Biden-Burisma thing would have gone public if the Dems had just left it alone.

            I don’t see how it would have. Hell, even the right wing sites like infowars and such were not talking about it. We only know about it because the Democrats launched the impeachment inquiry.

            1. Either Trump is incredibly lucky and constantly benefits, albeit incidentally, from the Democrats overplaying their hand, or Trump understands that histrionic reactions are their only play and he can lure them into a trap.

              Because, quite frankly, this seems too well coordinated to be an accident. This was supposed to be about Trump and, slowly but surely, it has become all about Biden.

              I don’t understand the Democrats’ narrative for impeachment at all.

              Trump’s narrative, however, is clear. And, as icing on the cake, the Democrats are now in the position of having to defend Biden’s apparent corruption as an element of proving Trump did something wrong.

              It is really starting to seem like Trump is playing chess, while the Democrats are too busy trying to figure out how the pieces move.

              1. It’s hard for the Dems to play chess, when at best they have a checkers IQ.

                Collectively.

                Most of the Republicans aren’t much better, but ANY better is still better.

    2. Any denials from Trump or others made after the Ukraine story broke on August 30th are possibly self-serving lies.

      1. A contention that proves nothing and gets us nowhere.

        1. That Trump said “no quid pro quo” is a Republican talking point I kept hearing from Congressman that has very little argumentative merit, since he said it after he was already being investigated.

          1. It’s the only direct evidence that has been presented

          2. It has merit. Straight from the horses mouth. The talking point that “he’s lying” has no merit, however. It proves nothing. Doubting the veracity of people’s statements doesn’t mean the statements they have made are false. Calling somebody a liar doesn’t make your case. It is pointless.

    3. Unclear on the concept of an inchoate crime?

      The aid was released when Congress began looking at the holdup.

  21. Some predictions,

    1) The house will vote to impeach, yes its ridiculous but of course we know that already
    2) The IG report will detail all kinds of wrongdoings and then conclude either they didn’t mean it or none of it matters carry on, somehow process crimes don’t apply to Dems
    3) Barr and Durham will talk a big game but in the end a big nothing burger, see IG report
    4) The senate will try to reverse the field on the Dems in the senate trial but won’t because they just can’t help laying down

    I think it’s too much to overcome. We’ll be talking how Biden won like we did with Bubba about how did that corrupt bastard win.

    I think it’s all too much to overcome.

    1. 1) The house will vote to impeach, yes its ridiculous but of course we know that already

      I think it was more likely they would vote to impeach before the public impeachment inquiry started.

      I suspect they have lost support for impeachment over the course of these hearings.

      Remember, there are 27 Democrats running in districts that voted for Trump in 2016. There are only three Republicans running in districts that voted for Hillary.

      The question for me before was how the Democrats would handle voting to impeach Trump in those districts. The question for me now is whether they bother to take a vote. If the Democrats were smart about this, they’d find a way to not take a vote. If they vote to impeach Trump, just going by those 27 seats, they’re more likely to lose control of the House and those 27 Representatives are more likely to lose their seats entirely.

      1. If this goes to the Senate there will be blood. Sure Republicans like Romney, whose kids too have enriched themselves on Ukrainian energy money, will try to tamp it all down. But I don’t think the rest will go along, especially not if Pence signals that, no matter what outcome, he’s not done with getting to the bottom of Ukrainian corruption influencing US politics.

        Proverbial knife fight in a phone booth.

        No way Biden survives.

        1. Newt was one of Bill’s biggest critics about his sexual activity during the impeachment. Look where it landed Newt.

    2. Defeatist troll alert!

      1. Realist alert
        Latest is McCabe won’t be prosecuted for perjury

        Why?

        Michael Flynn’s attorney might want to know

        This whole thing leads to Obama and even Barr is too chicken to go there

        1. McCabe won’t be prosecuted for perjury

          Link?

        2. Funny story:
          McCabe was on CNN going on about how there’s no deep state

  22. http://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian-indictment-reveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp

    Meanwhile, in addition to the dull Trump reality show spinoff Impeachment, there is some actual news going on.

    Dubinsky made the claim in a Wednesday press conference, citing materials from an investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma.

    “Zlochevsky was charged with this new accusation by the Office of the Prosecutor General but the press ignored it,” said the MP. “It was issued on November 14.”

    “The son of Vice-President Joe Biden was receiving payment for his services, with money raised through criminal means and money laundering,” he then said, adding “Biden received money that did not come from the company’s successful operation but rather from money stolen from citizens.”

    But it gets better

    According to Interfax-Ukraine, MP Andriy Derkach announced at the same press conference that deputies have received new materials from investigative journalists alleging that the ‘family’ of ex-President Yanukovych funneled $7.4 billion through American investment firm Franklin Templeton Investments, which they claim have connections to the US Democratic party.”

    “Last week, November 14, the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), unnoticed by the media, announced a new suspicion to the notorious owner of Burisma, ex-Ecology Minister Zlochevsky. According to the suspicion, the Yanukovych family is suspected, in particular, with legalizing (laundering) of criminally obtained income through Franklin Templeton Investments, an investment fund carrying out purchases of external government loan bonds totaling $7.4 billion,” said Derkach, adding that the money was criminally obtained and invested in the purchase of Ukrainian debt in 2013 – 2014.

    “The son of Templeton’s founder, John Templeton Jr., was one of President Obama’s major campaign donors. Another fund-related character is Thomas Donilon. Managing Director of BlackRock Investment Institute, shareholder Franklin Templeton Investments, which has the largest share in the fund. It is noteworthy that he previously was Obama’s national security advisor,” Derkach added.

    I think this goes a long ways to explaining why the Democrats decided that Trump must be impeached now. When he mentioned launching an investigation to the President of Ukraine, the various Democratic agents listening into the call must have shit their pants.

    1. Just damn. Huge if true.

      1. The indictment exists and does make those allegations.

        1. Holy Cow! If true (a huge IF, considering it is coming from corrupt AF Ukraine)…then Creepy Joe is done. I mean, he better start finding the best legal counsel money can buy in DC.

          As it is, Biden won’t be the nominee.

    2. Interesting. Just to be clear, does the article linked to above ever claim that Biden participated in acts achieved by criminal means or in the stealing of money from Ukrainian citizens, or is it saying others are accused of that and Biden’s involvement was receiving payments for being on the board?

    3. I’d be willing to wager more than a few Democratic Senators and Congressman are tied up in the Ukraine than we would ever care to admit …

  23. President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement,” Sondland says, adding that Trump only said he wants “no quid pro quo,” and wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do the right thing.”

    Oooops…Looks like Mr. Binion has an edit to make to his article.

      1. Listen….Don’t go doing that. You’ll turn blue waiting for Binion to correct his error. 🙂

  24. “If the latter country wanted a White House meeting with President Donald Trump”

    Wait. So this doesn’t even involve the foreign aid money at all, which has been the subject of the controversy and impeachment proceedings for months? Are you telling me now that Trump is all good in that respect, and the Democrats are now pivoting to a different issue? Amazing.

    “conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election”

    Oof. This is 80-IQ, MSNBC-level propagandizing. How embarrassing for “Reason.” Here’s a little article from Politico dated 1/11/17:

    “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers”

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

    The more accurate reporting would be that Democrats and the bureaucratic state have been attempting to impeach Trump on a series of bizarre, unsupported conspiracy theories. First Russia now Ukraine.

    1. It’s mind boggling how stupid this is

      Opening question for the next hear say witness should be “why are you here”?

      Because other than you don’t like Trump I’m not seeing anything

    2. Nobody pivoted. The accusation for weeks now has been that there were two things of value to the Ukraine possibly being withheld in exchange for favors: (1) a White House meeting with the President, (2) release of military aid.

      The sort-of pivot that happened was that Sondland was precise in his testimony today that he was more sure about the quid pro quo on (1) than (2). That wasn’t the Democrats’ pivot, it was Sondland clarifying his testimony.

      1. “Clarifying”
        Mike, you’re pathetic.
        You’re as emotionally invested in defending the honor of the deep state as anybody I’ve ever seen.
        And if you knew your position was anything other than complete bullshit, you’d not constantly lie about your motives.
        But you do you.
        And we know you is 100% hivemind

  25. Hmm, funny.

    Vindman says he didn’t take his concerns to his superior because he was busy that day.

    He DID provide his edits of the transcript, though, to that same superior on the same day he was too busy to address his concerns.

    1. It increasingly appears that Vindman’s concerns relate directly to the vocabulary used while engaging in diplomacy with the Ukraine. In his inevitable third appearance I worry he will destroy his credibility by outing himself as a grammar-nazi.

      1. Vindman is Frank Burns. No way is that little weasel not a grammar Nazi.

  26. I can’t figure out if Trump sounds more like a Chicago-Area crime boss or aSouth American right-wing dictator. What do you guys think?

    Dear 18-year olds who want to join the Army: Question: You actually want to put your life on the line from orders given by this clownish Mob Boss? {guffaw} Why?

    1. And he is going to be President for another five years. God your tears and anguish are lovely. Cry, please cry some more. Never deprive us of the pleasure of your misery.

    2. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
      November.20.2019 at 3:16 pm
      “I can’t figure out if Trump sounds more like a Chicago-Area crime boss or aSouth American right-wing dictator….”

      You can’t figure out a LOT of things, like how to pay a mortgage, so you sound like some lefty scumbag.
      Fuck off.

  27. If the latter country wanted a White House meeting with President Donald Trump, then Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy needed to publicly announce politically-charged investigations into Burisma Holdings, where former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter sat on the board

    …and did nothing wrong, correct? I’m having a bit of trouble reconciling the talking points though…. Somehow it was opposition research to look into anything the Biden family did, even though they are as pure as the driven snow? Don’t you have to look at something that could present your opponent in a negative light in order for it to benefit you politically?

    and into a conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to benefit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

    Again, we aren’t allowed to look into something that nutjobs have crazy wrong theories about because….why?

    It’s like a school banning books about lizards because theories about lizard people exist.

    1. sorry, I guess I suck at tags

    2. If Biden didn’t do anything wrong, then how is Trump digging up dirt? If he did, then how is Trump not doing his duty?

      1. If Biden has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
        So I’ve been told.

        1. I’d say there is probable cause to investigate the Bidens, both in the US and in Ukraine. Wouldn’t you?

      2. Exactly. It isn’t “dirt” if it’s true.

        Or, is it? Is it still digging up “dirt,” and therefore beyond the scope of acceptable Presidential conduct, if the investigation reveals actual corruption by a former Vice President?

        Nobody has been able to sensibly explain this. The truth cannot be “dirt.” Can we at least agree to that?

        1. The truth is dirt.

          “for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

    3. I think you are correct that the Democrats’ public belief that there is “nothing wrong” in Hunter Biden’s board position at Burisma isn’t as deeply held as they profess.

    4. However, if Trump did use his office to pressure Ukraine into an investigation of the Bidens, and get his personal attorney involved in negotiating the investigation, that wrong is not canceled out by anything the Bidens did wrong.

      1. //However, if Trump did use his office to pressure Ukraine into an investigation of the Bidens ….//

        Why is that wrong? It is only wrong if Biden was known beyond all doubt to be innocent of any impropriety, for lack of a better term. If Trump asked the Ukrainians to create false evidence to implicate Biden in some sort of crime or corrupt scheme, that would be a problem. However, if there is a legitimate thread to pull, and pulling on the thread reveals actual corruption on the part of Biden, what is the problem?

        I have not seen any adequate response to this other than, “Well, he’s a candidate …. so ….”

        “So what?”

        1. There’s nothing wrong with it.
          Mike is a concern troll and marionette, devoted to his masters

      2. He got his personal attorney involved because Trump has been accused of election interference. And there actually was election interference from both Russia and Ukraine.

  28. The people pursuing this impeachment are the same people that defended Bill Clinton committing perjury for the purpose of defeating a sexual harassment lawsuit.

    They set the precedent.

    Make them live by it.

    1. What would be particularly galling to me if I were a Trump sycophant like you is if I tried to impeach and convict Bill Clinton on charges he fucked his intern and ejaculated in the Oval Office closet (eww!) only to see him serve out his term and retire with a 72% approval rating. Contrast his predicament with Dump’s, who did absolutely nothing wrong except campaign for a foreign country to investigate his political rival in exchange for Millions in foreign aid, where—at best— half of the population wants him gone (in a mystifying preference for Mike Pence) leaving him stuck with 41 or 42% of the population that think he’s the Second Coming of Jehovah.

      I’d be pissed if I were you, Trumpian.

      1. “…is if I tried to impeach and convict Bill Clinton on charges he fucked his intern…”

        Which never happened.
        You should be pissed, you fucking lefty ignoramus.

        1. Yeah, yeah… I know, he was charged with lying in court about fucking his intern— which wouldn’t have been interesting and hilarious if it hadn’t been a lie about fucking his intern.

          It’s a shame you guys couldn’t convict him and, instead, turned such an unprincipled and corrupt politician (i didn’t Vote for him… Nono) into one of America’s most popular Presidents. Maybe you guys lack the power to persuade. When is the last time you Republicans actually won the popular vote? 1988? Geesch.

  29. Sondland’s opening statement : https://tinyurl.com/rse25td

    “First, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Rudy Guiliani at the express direction of the President. We did not want to work with Mr. Guiliani. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Guiliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President’s orders.

    “Second, although we disagreed with the need to involve Mr. Guiliani, we did not believe that his role was improper at the time. As I previously testified, if I had known all of Mr. Guiliani’s dealings with individuals now under criminal indictment, I would not have acquiesced to his participation. Still, given what was known at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear wrong.”

    Seems like Sondland was doing everything he can to cover his own ass and displace as much blame as possible onto Rudy Guiliani.

    1. I haven’t listened to all the testimony yet, but there was definitely some finger pointing at Guiliani.

      Mostly, what I heard today was a lot of Congresspersons from both sides of the aisle grandstanding and trying to shoehorn their personal opinions on what happened into the form of “questions”, with little interest in Sondland’s answers.

      1. That’s been this whole thing. If you want anything of value, ignore any time an actual elected representative is speaking. The counsel for each side do a better job of asking the right sort of open-ended questions to produce information and focus the witness testimony.

        Anytime anyone in the room other than the witness, or Stephen Castor is speaking, it’s not worth watching-not unless you’re enjoying the obvious and clear hatred between Nunes and Schiff. Those two look like they’re ready to stab each other as soon as the cameras are off.

  30. What I get from this is Democrats find open and transparent investigations of crimes to be horrifying and impeachable—when Democrats are involved.

    1. The accusation is that Trump used his high office to pressure Ukraine for an investigation that would benefit him personally as a candidate in the 2020 Presidential race. It is disingenuous to keep oversimplifying and mischaracterizing the matter as his being impeached for merely pursuing an investigation.

      1. It is disingenuous to keep pretending like the difference between an impeachable “personal benefit” and a proper “national benefit” is possible to discern under these circumstances. The only difference seems to be that, if Trump was looking into Biden, it must be personal. Why is that? Because to tar Biden with the feathers of corruption would make all of the Democrats’ caterwauling about Trump’s corruption seem absurd in comparison and would hurt their electoral chances. The Democrats don’t care about corruption, because if they did, Biden would have been investigated years ago.

        Zombietimeshare is exactly right.

        1. Because it’s the only example of corruption Dear Leader could find. That’s pretty interesting and any fucking normal person can put 2 and 2 together to see what Dear Leader was doing, but not you, Inspector Clouseau. Why is that I wonder.

          1. At least you admit it’s corruption.

      2. I do not care if he dud.

        Democrats in 1998 convinced ys that character does not matter.

        Make them live by the precedent they set.

        1. So you find Dear Leader’s character acceptable?!? How about the time he raped a 13-yo at Epstein’s mansion and then told her after he was done (gross.) that he would kill her family if she mentioned it. Ok with you, Mr. Family Values?

            1. Character does not matter.

              It should, but it does not.

              Democrats have no credibility arguing that character matters now.

  31. “The Trump administration also froze $400 million in military aid to the country, which Sondland later came to believe was tied to the investigations, although he testified that it was never expressly confirmed to him.”

    So… this here says it was not confirmed that it was quid pro quo. The only quid pro quo was a meeting with Trump, but that’s not what everyone is talking about here when they say quid pro quo though, is it? This is cherry-picking, sound bites, and click-bait; aka fake news. You’re better than this Reason.

    1. I’m convinced they let Binion take one in the ass for team, for the clicks. They needed someone to post palpably misleading summaries of witness testimony and, alas, here we all are. A reputation is a small price to pay when the currency is clicks.

      1. Maybe Binion actually enjoys that sort of thing…

      2. I’m convinced they let Binion take one in the ass for team, for the clicks

        That’s KMW at work. My guess is that she directs the headline writers to make them juicy for the clicks. Smart, but unprincipled, businesswoman. Capitalism often corrodes integrity.

  32. There is a striking contrast between Trump’s persona and his actions as President, the latter entirely devoted to the national interest.
    This comment on Quora is representative of a lot of us.
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-single-biggest-factor-that-influenced-you-to-either-support-or-oppose-Trump/answer/Trey-Brannon-1
    If he had kept his mouth shut and closed his twitter acct, he’s be doing fine right now.

    1. If he closed his Twitter account, he’d already be removed from office. He is facing people who smeared Kavanaugh as a serial gang rapist and fabricated the pee gate memo, and who have most of the corporate media behind them. The only reason Trump is surviving is because he fights back.

      Blame Democrats, progressives, and corporate media for the disgustingly crude level of discourse, but it’s not Trump’s fault.

      1. No, he would have surrogates to do his defense for him. It worked for Obama. And Clinton.

  33. Funny, I’ve watched every interview. They don’t jibe with your headline.
    1. President Trump has every right to investigate where foreign aid is going, and to whom. In this case, weapons that could be resold to the wrong people. He made it a campaign promise to cut foreign aid.
    2. There was evidence that the Obama administration was concerned about corruption in the Ukraine. Documented and testified to in these hearings.
    3. The Obama administration was corrupt. They sold ambassadorships to political donors.
    4. Burisma was laundering money back to Democrats. Biden was one of them.
    5. Therefore Trump has a responsibility to hold up aid, and to investigate corruption both in the Ukraine and the United States. Quid pro quo is used with every foreign aid package. To couch it as a poltical deed is specious, and hypocritical. This is the Dems, especially Obama’s lukewarm leftovers, avoiding a scandal that can cost them this election.

  34. And yet Sondland specifically admitted Trump never said there was anything approaching a quid pro quo. So sad. I guess reason.com has joined the rank of fake news generators. Or at least Billy Binion has. Billy, you need to stop getting your info from HuffPost. You know they’re very leftist biased, don’t you? If you’re going to write stuff like this you might want to go back to them.

    1. Sondland admitted even more: nobody in the administration told him of any conditions, not even as a rumor. The link was entirely in his imagination.

  35. Sondland under questioning revealed that nobody told him that aid was conditional on anything. He wasn’t told by Trump or anybody else, he didn’t even get it as hearsay. It was something Sondland dreamed up entirely on his own.

Please to post comments