Reason Roundup

As Impeachment Moves Forward, Trump's Story Changes

Plus: more vaping panic, good news about robots, moving forward with marijuana decriminalization, and more...


"I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo." Those were Donald Trump's words this week, as members of the House of Representatives grilled various ambassadors and other officials about the president's dealings with Ukraine. One by one, they portrayed a pretty damning situation for Trump.

The Republican messaging around impeachment this week has been that the president was simply concerned about widespread corruption in Ukraine, that he wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to look into the Biden family's business there as a part of a larger corruption investigation, and that he conditioned no aid on this reasonable and unrelated request. Meanwhile, an array of folks with firsthand knowledge of the situation have testified that Trump's primary (or sole) corruption concerns involved his political rival Joe Biden, that Rudy Giuliani and others had been working behind the scenes to make this happen, and that everyone involved understood this was not merely a stray request.

But Trump himself hasn't exactly kept the narrative straight.

Back in October, when news of Trump's July phone call with Zelensky had just broken, Daily Mail politics editor David Martosko asked the president: "What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call?" Trump's response:

Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer….

I would say that President Zelensky—if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens. Because nobody has any doubt that they weren't crooked. That was a crooked deal—100 percent.

Last night, CNN anchor Jake Tapper re-upped that comment on Twitter, prompting people to point out that this sounds a lot different than Trump's explanation of things this week.

(Some folks seem to be under the impression that Trump's "very simple answer" about the Bidens is new, but it's from October 3.)

During yesterday's impeachment inquiry proceedings, former White House advisor Fiona Hill accused House Republicans of spreading misinformation about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. "This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves," Hill told the House Intelligence Committee.

Yesterday's testimonies were the last on the schedule. "In the coming days, Congress will determine what response is appropriate," said Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

Democrats have promised to hold an impeachment vote before the end of the year, but that may not be realistic.

It's also possible we're gearing up for a Russia Probe reprise, reports Politico:

Now that House Democrats have wrapped up public hearings on President Donald Trump's pressure campaign to get Ukraine to launch politically advantageous investigations, there are plans to hold at least one public impeachment hearing on Trump's misdeeds as alleged in [special counsel Robert Mueller's] report.


More vaping panic. Trump may backtrack on his backtrack on a ban on flavored nicotine vaping products, in the face of pressure from public health lobbyists. Meanwhile, Massachusetts is poised to ban menthol cigarettes along with flavored vaping products; the state of New York is suing Juul; and New York City is also expected to pass a ban on flavored vaping products. "If they ban it, I'm gonna have to go back to smoking cigarettes," New York City resident Abdoul Diallo told CBS New York.


Some interesting new research on human relationships with robots:


Now that a bill to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level has cleared the House Judiciary Committee, what's next? "Major roadblocks must be cleared before the measure can ever become law," notes NBC News.

For one, the Judiciary Committee is only the first committee to have taken up the bill; it also has been introduced in seven other House committees, any or all of which could alter the debate.

And it isn't a lock to pass the Democratic-led House, because members are sharply divided over whether to try to push through sweeping legislation like the MORE Act or to go more slowly, emphasizing regulatory issues like the financial ramifications of decriminalization. Meanwhile, the measure is likely to be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate, opponents and even its primary sponsor suggested.

The bill would also expunge marijuana convictions and authorize a tax on marijuana sales.


NEXT: Free People Don't Ask the Government for Permission

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”

    Can we get a mashup of that and the “Walls are Closing In” montage?

    1. What’s up, Pimp Juice?

      1. It’s the beginning of the end.

        1. We’ll be fine. Especially if we buy our own sex bot.

    2. Hello.

      Yes, because the Democrat narrative has never changed. smh.

      “The Republican messaging around impeachment this week has been that the president was simply concerned about widespread corruption in Ukraine,”

      FWIW: About a month ago I heard Bannon say on POTUS that it was about that.

      Someone I know has been watching the hearings (he’s a GC and has some time). He’s hardly a political guy but he’s pretty perceptive. He told me along the lines his perception was, ‘You know. This seems like the same playbook they did with that Mueller thing. It went from hacking to collusion and then a bunch of other bull shit. Now they went from qui blah to extortion to bribery and so on. They’re spinning a narrative throwing mud around looking to fill a conclusion. It’s not right what these people are doing to their county and President. For what? The stuff they accuse him of Canadian politicians did all the time and I’m sure it’s the same for American ones. Not right. The Democrats are giving too much voice to their enemies. That guy (Trump) was legally elected. He didn’t storm the White House and from the second he won they screamed about impeachment and collusion. It’s not right Rufus. Something stinks.’

      Imagine that.

      /wipes tear. Dr. Evil”: That’s my boy.

      1. “Yes, because the Democrat narrative has never changed.”

        There is a quote in this very roundup that confirms their upcoming narrative change. But of course, orange man bad

        1. It’s pretty amazing really.

          But people are TRUMPISTAS! for being suspicious and skeptical.

          People can ‘feel’ when something is bull shit or if their leader really is nefarious. I’m guessing they know and ‘feel’ the Democrats are grasping at straws.

          But hey. You never know. Maybe they’ll come up with something. We’ll see.

          1. Rufus The Monocled : People can ‘feel’ when something is bull shit or if their leader really is nefarious.

            Presumably this sixth sense works when people claim Trump was “concerned about corruption” ? Because I one-hundred-percent guarantee Donald John Trump has never been concerned about corruption for even one second, unless he saw a profitable business opportunity.

            Also : I prefer the term “Trumpian Bootlicker” myself. It’s more descriptively accurate. The mental image it summons is definitely truer-to-life…..

            1. “People can ‘feel’”

              RESPECT MY FEELZ!!!

            2. “…Also : I prefer the term “Trumpian Bootlicker” myself.”

              This from ‘fucking lefty ignoramus’.

        2. “But of course, orange man bad”

          Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

          We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

          See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
          “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”

          He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

          All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

          Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

          Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

      2. Didn’t take long for a Trump apologist to try to explain it all away huh.

        1. It’s Mueller Time?

        2. A Mueller in the hand is worth two in the Bush?

          1. And don’t forget : With a sleazy turd like Trump, there’s always something waiting in the wings. Consider this : Mueller testified before Congress on 24July, the unofficial “last word” on his investigation whether the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign government to affect a U.S. election.

            The very next day, 25July, Trump tried to force a foreign government into collusion to affect a U.S. election. That’s just how a criminal rolls; it’s how a crook’s mind works. A little brush with the law doesn’t stop the next scam.

            If there was a Futures Market on new Trump scandals, I’d look to the Pentagon’s recent award of $10 billion JEDI contract to Microsoft. It seems the same President Dumpsterfire who thought it was a greatl idea to extort private benefit from United States government favor, also loudly insisted Amazon be blocked from recieving that contract. Did he find enough yes-men to get his way there too? It’s already in the courts; I guess we’ll find out. (Trump seems to be an extraordinary clumsy, stupid criminal….)

            1. Grb’s back with his fan fiction. Took a couple days for the Brockoturf machine to recalibrate.

              1. It’s an RBG sock. She just shuffled her initials around.

        3. What was there to explain away? All we saw this week was presumptions and opinions. Every witness who testified had their opening remarks destroyed under questioning by noon. It was hilarious to watch. We know you didn’t watch it though, preferring to wait for the WaPo and NYT narrative to take in. This despite the fact that NYT/WaPo had to delete a few tweets this week that were blatantly wrong.

          1. JesseAz : What was there to explain away? All we saw this week was presumptions and opinions.

            Two points :

            (1) There’s a new standard of evidence in town, folks, and its name is “anything&everything in the world to excuse Trump’s sleaze”. If this see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, willful blindness was applied to people not-Rich White Republican Cult-Figure Criminals, I wonder what percent of those jailed would go free? But I’m betting this is a very selective standard, not transferable to the average street corner crack dealer.

            (2) Still we could have even better evidence, even more conclusive. How? Testimony from Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Kupperman, McGahn, Eisenberg, Pence. And who’s blocking those people from answering questions under oath? The desperate criminal himself, Donald John Trump….

            1. What’s the alleged wrongdoing?

            2. “”(1) There’s a new standard of evidence in town, “”

              What, hearsay is better than direct evidence?

            3. Irony alert… blame others for a new standard of evidence when yours is all opinion and hearsay of other opinions.

              Stay stupid my friend.

            4. could you imagine what they’d do if the ambassador died? Not only that, but three other people died under his watch? Imagine….

          2. an array of folks with firsthand knowledge of the situation

            Only if you define ‘the situation’ as others’ opinions and one’s inferences. Not one person had any evidence from Trump himself that supported any charge.

            1. Glad somebody pointed that out.

              1. I have a firm grasp of the obvious.

    3. “”I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” Those were Donald Trump’s words this week, ”

      Somebody should tell ENB that those were the words Sondland said Donald Trump used on September 6th, not this week.

      Is it required to only research the Mainstream Media narrative of the hearings and not actually watch the hearings for Reason “editors”?

      1. JesseAz : Somebody should tell ENB that those were the words Sondland said Donald Trump used on September 6th, not this week.

        It was a obvious joke even then. A criminal accused of a crime and denies it “for the record”. Dog-bites-man, stop the presses, news at Eleven. Only Trump’s most dedicated bootlickers ever took that seriously. Yep, it was a joke then and after Sondland’s testimony it’s a stale joke.

        (and never funny to boot….)

        1. “Stop further exposing the corruption of my Faith!”

        2. Is this one of those jokes that Schiff likes? What was his word. Parody?

  2. Back in October, when news of Trump’s July phone call with Zelensky had just broken, Daily Mail politics editor David Martosko asked the president…

    It would have to be the Daily Fail with the smoking gun. (Such as it is.)

  3. Trump may backtrack on his backtrack on a ban on flavored nicotine vaping products, in the face of pressure from public health lobbyists.

    Ha. Called it. The last person to talk to him wins.

    1. FUCK! Give me my mango juul pods orange man!

      1. “…mango juul pods…”

        Would the possessor of Ryan’s man card please burn it.

        1. I’ll trade it for a four pack

  4. Any GoT fans here?

    Remember the scene where Tyrion and Jamie talk about their demented cousin, who spent his days in the courtyard smashing beetles with a rock.

    Why am I reminded of that just now?

    1. Why am I reminded of that just now?

      Probably because you’re an incel nerd.

      1. Cry more.

        1. Oh look who came to your defense, Captain Crybaby xirself.

          1. I love how you can’t stop crying.

            1. That’s better, pace yourself so you don’t run out of steam. Save the screaming tantrums for later in the afternoon.

              1. You want a tissue?

      2. “Probably because you’re an incel nerd.”

        I am mortally wounded.

        No, not really. But if you knew the specifics of my life you’d find that attempted epithet both laughable, and yet strangely attractive to me. If only because i’d be much less broke and have much more peace and quiet.

        1. He was just crying at you. It’s kind of his thing.

        2. (You are simply not the Mountain to my Red Viper.)

          1. He’s not even able to take care of his family. He admitted it. It’s why he’s so aggressively upset at the world, he failed as a man and he knows it.

    2. +10000

      Ka chunk…ka chunk….

  5. “authorize a tax on marijuana sales”

    And there you go – – – – – – – –

    1. On top of the ridiculously high State taxes?? Might as well just roll out the carpet for the cartels.

    2. #OverGrowandShare

  6. “One by one, they portrayed a pretty damning situation for Trump.”

    Precisely. #TrumpUkraine has surpassed #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history.

    We’ve reached the tipping point. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.


    1. This! Every reputable historian agrees that never in the history of the United States has there been any quid pro quo in its diplomatic negotiations. The U.S. had always been a doormat, never requesting any concessions from anyone. This is why, for instance, the U.S. /Canadian border runs through Chicago-Omaha-Salt Lake City-San Francisco.

      1. This glosses over that the accusation is that Trump’s quid pro quo was for his personal political gain.

        1. It turns out it didn’t gain him anything. Does that count?

          1. It doesn’t count that it didn’t gain him anything. If the accusations are true, it was the attempt to profit personally from his office that matters, not whether he actually pulled it off.

            1. Accusations which have yet to be substantiated in any way, so your point is moot.

              1. Moot is a little strong. You are correct that nothing is proven, but the process is at the step where the House has finished the public impeachment hearing (at least hearings about the Ukraine matter). If the House votes to impeach, there will be a Senate trial, and that is where charges would be proven or not.

                So, yes, nothing is proven but this isn’t the point in the process where accusations must be proven.

                1. That you’re still clinging to talking points and praying for “the walls to close in” is both sad and transparent.
                  Give it up, mike.
                  Trump is a better man than you

                  1. There wasn’t one word in what I have written above that has been anything but neutral and dispassionate about the impeachment process.

                    I don’t care how the impeachment turns out, and I’ve said many times I predict there is no chance of the Senate removing Trump from office, so he will win in the end no matter what happens. If I were a Democratic partisan, I wouldn’t want the House to press this matter any farther because I believe it will end up as a net embarrassment to them and the Bidens.

                    1. He fact that you think you are a neutral arbiter just proves you’re blindly partisan instead of just partisan lil mikey.

                  2. “Trump is a better man than you”

                    Not sure Vera Coking would agree.

                    1. Did you and Trump have a dick waving contest in front of old Vera?

                    2. Between me and Donald Trump, only one of us tried to use eminent domain to take an old lady’s home away from her. And one of us donated to the law firm that fought for her to keep it.

            2. You’re a fucking idiot Mike.

        2. As opposed to the Bidens, whose corruption was for their personal financial gain.

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

          Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the “family” of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party.

          Derkach also announced the amount of money transferred to representatives of the Burisma Group, including Hunter Biden. According to documents, in general, in favor of Hunter Biden, Alexander Kwasniewski, Alan Apter and Devon Archer, Burisma paid about $16.5 million.

          According to Derkach, ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin repeatedly appealed to the NABU Director Artem Sytnyk in the framework of criminal proceedings for Burisma, but constantly received formal responses. The activities of Shokin, according to the MP, irritated then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during his fifth visit to Kyiv in two years. The visit on December 7-8, 2015, was devoted to solving the issue of Shokin’s resignation for the affairs of Zlochevsky and Burisma, he said.

          “The subject of pressure was the $1 billion credit guarantee that the United States should have provided to Ukraine: Biden himself acknowledged the pressure in his speech to the U.S. Foreign Relations Council in January 2018,” Derkach said.

          1. That investigation is tied to a US firm that specializes in foreign bonds, of which it is believed billions were laundered through Ukraine. The firm has may ties to prominent Democrats. Wonder why they would be pushing so hard to not allow an investigation into this company… hmm..

          2. I wonder if the Bidens realize that federal sentencing for financial crimes can increase greatly depending on financial losses. Those increases are months, which can add up fast.

            Loss (Apply the Greatest) Increase in Level
            (A) $5,000 or less no increase
            (B) More than $5,000 add 2
            (C) More than $10,000 add 4
            (D) More than $30,000 add 6
            (E) More than $70,000 add 8
            (F) More than $120,000 add 10
            (G) More than $200,000 add 12
            (H) More than $400,000 add 14
            (I) More than $1,000,000 add 16
            (J) More than $2,500,000 add 18
            (K) More than $7,000,000 add 20
            (L) More than $20,000,000 add 22
            (M) More than $50,000,000 add 24
            (N) More than $100,000,000 add 26
            (O) More than $200,000,000 add 28
            (P) More than $400,000,000 add 30.

            1. Sorry. Increases are levels, not months.

          3. I have said many times that I agree Hunter Biden’s cushy position at Burisma looks suspect.

            1. And what about Schiff?

              1. What are you asking about Schiff? How is bringing Schiff up relevant in a discussion about Burisma and Hunter Biden?

                1. Cover up?

          4. Or the Obamas who, as someone pointed out here, made net neutrality an administrative priority then signed a $60 million deal with Netflix immediately upon leaving office

            1. That is not a violation of the Emoluments Clause, YOU RACIST!

              What Trump does though….

        3. Mike, after weeks of being told that no court has ever claimed information as a personal gain… you keep repeating the talking point. Yet you claim to be neutral. Do you wish to retract your claim yet?

          The Biden situation was already known in 2016, nothing new was gained in this regard. You keep claiming something that is based on a twisted version of law simply to commit lawfare. You aren’t neutral.

          1. You did asset that, and then ignored it and used ad hominems when I pointed out the oversimplifications in your assertion.

            1. You never addressed his point.

              1. I did, twice. One more time. Going into much more detail than “no court has ever claimed information as personal gain…”:

                a) The Justice Department decided not to pursue a case against Trump for the Ukraine quid pro quo violating FEC regulations because they didn’t know how to quantify the dolllar amount of gain to his campaign from the free opposition research and weren’t confident they could get a conviction. They did not opine that information is not a gain to a campaign.

                b) The head of the FEC did opine that it is was a violation of FEC regulations. There is still an open lawsuit, so the matter isn’t settled.

                c) There is no precedent of the Justice Department having had a case where a Presidential candidate tried to do something like Trump is alleged to have done.

                d) JesseAz has never answered the question of how he knows, categorically, that there has never been a court case involving a political campaign gaining from being given free information that was extorted. I suspect what he means is (c) above, which isn’t the same thing as there never having been a court case.

              2. Also, besides asking if there ever been a court case where someone was accused of extorting someone for information about a political opponent, or, more specifically, if there been a court case where a Presidential candidate was accused of extorting someone for information about a political opponent, there is the question of whether the FEC has ever fined or otherwise “busted” someone for doing so. There have been thousands of campaigns under the jurisdiction of FEC regulations, so it would be hard to prove there has never been such an incident.

                On the other hand, there is the simpler-to-answer question of whether there are FEC regulations covering it. My understanding is that there is, but I could be wrong. I certainly don’t know FEC regulation well enough to quote it from memory.

                1. “”extorting””

                  How do you extort someone who is willing to do whatever you want?

                  1. That certainly is an interesting defense. I guess it would depend on what has led up to that person being willing to give anything you want, the power balance you have with that person, etc. It would be interesting to see someone try that defense in court; don’t think it would be a slam dunk for the defense.

        4. Schiff lied about knowledge of the whistleblower identity. His staff coordinated with him. Why aren’t you calling fir an independent investigation into Schiff, Mike? In your neutral opinion, of course.

          1. Thought we were talking about the Bidens, then you bring up your personal hobby horse. For one thing, I don’t agree there is much importance to knowing the identity of the whistleblower, so I don’t see the matter as being worth pursuing.

            Second, I said I find the Biden matter suspect. I never called for an investigation into the Bidens. So, I’m not being inconsistent in the sense I’ve never “called for” an investigation of the Bidens, never called for an investigation of Burisma, and, for that matter, never called for any investigations of Trump.

        5. This glosses over that the accusation is that Trump’s quid pro quo was for his personal political gain.

          I keep seeing this and it’s made me think.

          Wouldn’t ANY investigation into corruption that included Democrats collusion with foreign powers to affect the election also help Trump politically?

          It seems that you’re suggesting that an investigation into corruption can’t occur if that investigation includes Democrat funding of the piss dossier or why Biden’s kid was used as a lever to get rid of an inconvenient investigator–because uncovering that corruption would be bad, politically, for the people engaging in that corruption.

          But isn’t that what stopping political corruption is all about?

          1. No, you may be right that any investigation that casts a bad light on Democrats, not just a specific Democrat Presidential candidate, helps Trump politically.

            The important nuance is that it matters *how* an investigation into corruption is pursued, and how it is structured. The problem with the Ukraine is the deep personal involvement of Trump and his personal attorney. In an alternate universe, Trump could have set up an independent investigation then kept himself and his lawyer far away from personal involvement.

            1. “Deep personal involvement”

        6. Unlike, the Iran Deal, or Camp David Accords, or literally any other fcvkin thing ever

      2. 54’40” or Fight!

  7. Increasing the saliency of robots led to increased tolerance toward human outgroups, more equal treatment of human outgroups, and stronger identification with humankind as one’s ingroup…

    If you prick them, do they not short out?

    1. Only if it’s union made.

    2. What, hath not a robot eyes, microphones, gears, chips?

      And if you harm it, shall it not slice and dice you like a vegomatic?

  8. Massachusetts is poised to ban menthol cigarettes

    Ummm.. racists.

    1. Imagine if the line in Trading Places was “Who put out their Marlboro Reds on my floor?” Travesty.

  9. “Now the fashion police are after Tulsi Gabbard too.”

    I wonder if Putin dictates her wardrobe. Perhaps she wears white as a dog whistle to white supremacists.


  10. It’s common knowledge that Ukraine helped the Clinton Campaign

    1. In what way did the govt of Ukraine help Clinton? I’d like to see you put in words.

      The next question would be how in the hell would Clinton allegedly getting help from Ukraine excuse or justify Trump asking Zelensky to investigate his political opponent?

      1. Lol.

        Pod, you’re great at arguing against yourself

      2. I assume Ryan is pointing out how disingenuous this all is. If (insert random democrat) were being accused of using foreign aid to extort another country, you wouldn’t care. That’s why most of us aren’t giving this the time of day. You just hate Trump and want him out and you don’t care how. Even if Trump has no credibility, the dems have even less, and that’s really saying something.

        1. I suspect Pod is the same commenter “OG” that vanished after Mueller Time turned into vapor.

        2. “Hey Trump can’t do that, that’s our power to abuse!”

        3. Let’s all use an ad-hominem to avoid his questioning whether the assertion that “It’s common knowledge that Ukraine helped the Clinton Campaign” is true.

          1. It is common knowledge. I’ve been in threads where I’ve linked the NYT findings from a Ukranian court. You, just like pod, refuse to process this information. Why lil mikey? It’s almost like you’re not a neutral person… weird.


            1. Pretty simple explanation. I didn’t see it. It’s the nature of communicating through comments that not everyone sees every comment posted. Looking at your link now…

              By the way, thanks for actually adressing Pod’s question with a link to information instead of more ad hominems and hostility.

            2. OK, read the article. It does indeed show that the Ukrainian officials who revealed information about Manafort (at least indirectly) helped the Hillary Clinton campaign.

              Why couldn’t phillhamian say that, or link to an article as you did, instead of resorting to personal attack on Pod?

              1. I’m glad the end result was you absorbing the article and catching up. no BS

                I’ll link it myself instead of assuming next time

                1. Thank you. Having real discussions on this website again would be wonderful.

                2. I want credit, by the way, that I went to a lot of trouble to get a copy of the article. I’m not a New York Times subscriber, and someone at the New York Times has figured out how to make their paywall block incognito mode now. That trick doesn’t work anymore. 🙂

                  But the other day I was invited to join a beta for a new pay-per-article micropayment site called Bindle.

          2. I mean, did you even pay attention to Fiona Hill’s testimony yesterday lil mikey? She even stated that the Ukranians were betting on Hillary. Do you even bother learning any of the facts?!?

            1. Mike’s commentary is the definition of “running interference”
              What a scumbag

          3. It would help if you understood what ad hominem means…

            1. Philhammian’s remarks “… you wouldn’t care” and “You just hate Trump and want him out and you don’t care how.”, both clearly attempts to deflect the debate to discussion of Pod rather than the matter being debated.

          4. Standard Mike blather at 11:26–

            Let’s all use an ad-hominem to avoid his questioning whether the assertion that “It’s common knowledge that Ukraine helped the Clinton Campaign” is true.

            Jesse responds at 12:21–with links to proof from the Old Grey Lady–a bastion of idiot leftism to the entirety of the brainless left and…. and?


            Not a peep from Mike

            1. Dude, I was doing other things, away from this website.

      3. The next question would be how in the hell would Clinton allegedly getting help from Ukraine excuse or justify Trump asking Zelensky to investigate his political opponent?

        Nice to see you’re finally on board that the piss dossier is a hoax.

      4. Linked for the 4th time for Pod… are none of the liberals here capable of learning?

        1. Since pod is a troll sock, no, it’s not capable of learning.

    2. Could you provide an authoritative source for your claim?

      1. Could you drink bleach?

      2. Jeff… I know for a fact you responded to me when I last linked this. Why are all of you so dishonest?

        Are you going to run away again after I linked it here? Move the goalposts?

        1. The pigeon has never argued once in good faith.

        2. What link are you referring to, Jesse?

  11. …it also has been introduced in seven other House committees, any or all of which could alter the debate.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: democracy simply doesn’t work.

    1. You may be onto something, although I have come to the conclusion that Federal democracy is not working because the United States is much, much, much bigger than the optimal size of a democratic nation-state.

    2. Good thing we don’t live in one then

  12. Meanwhile, an array of folks with firsthand knowledge of the situation have testified that Trump’s primary (or sole) corruption concerns involved his political rival Joe Biden

    Actually, lying cunt, not a single person with firsthand knowledge has said that. Several people with second and third hand knowledge have said that, in complete contravention of everyone who did have first hand knowledge and in contravention of the FUCKING TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL.

    1. Sondland said it. Trump said. Mulvaney said it. Hill said it. Holmes said it. Vindman said it. Everyone understood Trump’s only concern in Ukraine was getting Biden investigated.

      1. Sondland said that was his opinion. He had no factual basis for it and admitted that Trump when he talked to him said the exact opposite. Mulvany and Hill neither one ever talked to the President or had any factual basis for their claim.

        Stop lying. Give it up. This whole thing has been a disaster for the Democrats.

        1. Trump made the “no quid pro quo” statement to Sondland after the whistleblower had exposed the conspiracy so that denial is hardly exculpatory.

          “Mulvaney never talked to the president”

          Laughable John and pathetic really. You need to accept thar you’re defending the indefensible and debasing yourself in the process.

          1. Trump denied it. No one has any evidence that it was. They all have opinions that they then shared with each other and then used as justification for their opinions. This is a wonderful hill to die on. Look at the polls. This thing is killing the Democrats.

          2. Pod told me he was a moron, well actually he never said that but that was my opinion of what he said so he must have meant it.
            Proof that Pod is a moron since opinions are facts now

            1. Pod being a moron isn’t really opinion these days. It has kinda become fact.

              1. I’ve seen the evidence first hand.

                1. I heard it from a someone, who heard it from someone so it’s totally accurate.

                2. ???? I heard it from a friend, who…heard it from a friend, who….

          3. Sondland said it was his opinion. That was clear. If you disagree, take it up with Sondland.

            I understand that partisans want opinions to be facts when it agrees with them. But they are not.

        2. I disagree, John. Pod and the Democrats should NOT give it up. This shampeachment is improving Trump’s approval rating and he is starting to pull ahead of the Dems in the swing states.

          Please, Pod, keep going at it.

      2. Vindman fucking admitted that he pulled a Schiff and made up what he thought Trump should have said in the call, effectively falsifying documentation.

        Sondland created a soundbite in his opening statement for the media to run with, and then went on to completely contradict himself in his testimony.

        All Hill did was grandstand and offer nothing of substance.

        You fuckers have nothing. Absolutely nothing. That’s why that little hicklib turd grb has pulled a vanishing act, and DOL was reduced yesterday to dredging up long-debunked DNC talking points. You all really should have just necked yourselves after Mueller Claus left you that stocking of coal.

        1. Vindeman up there whining that the President didn’t follow his talking points was straight out of Office Space. If it wasn’t so serious it would be high comedy.

          1. Why should Trump take the ideas of a guy thrice offered the position of UKRAINIAN Minister of Defense seriously?

            Wouldn’t that be doing what a foreign country insisted we do?

        2. I for one am grateful for the Lefties assuring Trump’s reelection.

      3. From Sondland:

        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.”

    2. Are you talking about the real transcript, or that document that everyone referred to as a transcript but clearly wasnt?

      1. I’m talking about the actual transcript that was released and comports with exactly what everyone who was on the call has said. Are you talking about your deranged conspiracy theories?

      2. You mean the document that people listening to the call transcribed and that everyone on the call agrees is accurate? That document?

        1. Right the document that shows Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate Biden as a favor after Zelensky asked about military assistance.

          1. Trump asks for a favor for him to look into Crowd Strike. And Trump has every right to ask foreign governments to assist in investigating corruption involving Americans on their soil.

            We are back to the old talking point, “it is a crime for a Republican President to investigate a Democrat.” No it is not.

            1. Trump has no right to use the power of his office to frame his political opponent. It’s called corruption, bribery and solicitation of foreign assistance in a domestic campaign.

              1. The President is the only one with the authority to request this from a different world leader. Random yahoo “X” wouldn’t have much of a position.

                ….and the Dems, mind you, did insist on Zelensky working with Mueller for their own partisan gain…

              2. Frame? Who said anything about framing? Oh, you did. You pulled it right out of your ass.

              3. Calling Joe Biden and Hunter Biden Donald Trump’s “political opponent” is being very liberal with reality, don’t you think?

              4. “”Trump has no right to use the power of his office to frame his political opponent.””

                Does someone have a right to use the power of their office (within US government) to frame any political opponent?

            2. And Trump has every right to ask foreign governments to assist in investigating corruption involving Americans on their soil.

              This isn’t some general request involving “corruption”. It was a specific request to investigate the Bidens specifically.


              Q Mr. President, what exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly.

              THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.

              They should investigate the Bidens, because how does a company that’s newly formed — and all these companies, if you look at —

              And, by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with — with Ukraine.

              So, I would say that President Zelensky — if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens. Because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked. That was a crooked deal — 100 percent. He had no knowledge of energy; didn’t know the first thing about it. All of a sudden, he is getting $50,000 a month, plus a lot of other things. Nobody has any doubt.

              1. Joe Biden admitted on video what he did.

                Why WOULDN’T Trump start the investigation with the moron who confessed on video to the World?

                1. And Hunter got MILLIONS out of China for his firm…while traveling there on Air Force Two. Selling influence isn’t legal, no matter what the Clintons got away with.

                  …I mention them because they had a damned racket in influence peddling

                  1. Burisma has various government leaders on its board and obviously Hunter Biden was the proxy for Joe Biden/Obama since they already had jobs.

                    This was back from 2014 when the Propaganda cover piece was issued and promptly forgotten.
                    Ukrainian energy firm hires Biden son as lawyer

                2. Why single out just Biden? Hmm?
                  Do you think he’s the only potentially corrupt person around?

                  Or maybe, Trump singled out Biden because Trump wants to use any potential investigation for his own political cause?

                  1. I support a plan by Trump to get revenge on Democrats who tried to destroy the USA preceding, on, and after election 2016.

          2. If I was a Democrat, I wouldn’t want the Bidens investigated, either.

            1. Investigate him all you’d like but do it the legal way by gathering evidence and submitting it to the FBI. Criminal investigations purchased with bribes are worthless.

              1. The FBI’s ability to investigate influence peddling in Ukraine is virtually nil. If Ukraine says “No”, they cannot investigate anything.

              2. “”Investigate him all you’d like””

                Yet you are calling foul on this very thing.

              3. “Investigate him all you like, just don’t do it in a manner where something might actually get done.”

      3. Funny how your skepticism is so selective.

    3. with firsthand knowledge of the situation

      The “situation” extended beyond just the infamous phone call. There was the “irregular” diplomatic channel with Giuliani, the quid pro quo for a meeting between Trump and Zelensky, etc.

      Regardless of who actually heard what firsthand on that phone call, it was part of a series of events that many other people DID participate in, some directly.

      1. The “irregular” channel is no different than the back channels that every administration has used. But orange man bad and that’s different. Some situation.

        1. At least we’ve established that whining about “no first hand knowledge!!!” doesn’t apply when it comes to the people actually participating in the various quid pro quo schemes.

          Which other “irregular” channels involved the president’s own personal lawyer, who even bTragged in public that he was serving as the president’s personal agent?

          This was not some delicate matter of US national interest, this was a personal matter of Trump’s.

      2. The situation being:
        Corrupt career apparatchiks, loyal to Ukraine rather than the American people, asserting that they should be the ones to decide US foreign policy (instead of the elected President vested with such responsibility in the Constitution) and covering for the rampant corruption of US officials involved with Ukraine.

        Fuck off, slave

        1. Oh so everyone else are the corrupt ones. But not Trump. Got it.

        2. Your response just reveals various levels of paranoia.

          asserting that they should be the ones to decide US foreign policy (instead of the elected President vested with such responsibility in the Constitution)

          That’s actually not true. Foreign policy is set both by the president and by Congress.

        3. Nobody believes Chemjeffey’s nonsense. Its why hes so desperate.

    4. I think ENB and Binion are trolling the Trump defenders a bit at this point.

      1. By parroting the same stuff they heard on NPR?

        1. My suspicion is they’re going beyond parroting NPR to purposely working things to troll some of the commentariat. (In reality, they probably don’t even read the comments.)

          1. Insider knowledge, Im sure.

            Funny that reason staff dont even realize that they have been trolled since Trump took office.

      2. Poor Mikey gets trolled by Trump every day so he really believes that any reason staff can properly troll Libertarians effectively.

        Mikey also says that reason articles are not the garbage that they are.

      3. I think ENB and Binion live in a political bubble based on where they live. I’m actually right about this though.

        You’re just an ignorant partisan.

  13. “Nobody is happy with the way Title IX enforcement has been playing out on college campuses.”

    Women complain. Women create policy. Women hate policy. Women complain more. More at 11.

    1. All the women hired to fill Title IX required positions on campus are pretty jazzed about it. 6 figure salaries with little to no oversight or responsibility for actions? The feminist dream…

  14. More bad economic news.

    In 2008, middle-class workers spent about 7.8% of household income on premiums and deductibles. By 2018, that figure had climbed to 11.5%.

    You know what happened between 2008 and 2018? Republicans sabotaged Obamacare, that’s what.


    1. ” Republicans sabotaged Obamacare”

      LOL Obamacare was always intended to be a huge cost shift onto the backs of the middle class in order to increase freebies to the welfare class. That increase was baked into the cake. So was the ‘then blame the Republicans’ rhetoric.

      Your single payer wet dreams suck. So fuck off slaver.

      1. It’s funny that you seem to be ripping on Open Borders, who always lays out the facts and says the opposite of what he means. And you act as if Obama wanted the middle class to get screwed, which isn’t really how the Democrats think. They see health care as a universal right, and so if the middle class wind up getting fu#$kd paying extra high premiums, it is a regrettable outcome. Of course, the fact that I am paying $800+, for a family plan, a month towards my healthcare out of a not all that large salary is a direct outcome of this policy. So yes, Obama care gave a lot of poor non working people free healthcare at the expense of the middle class, but notice that the Republicans failed to repeal it when they controlled both houses and the Presidency. Why not? Follow the money.

        1. I totally failed to note that was OBL.


    2. LOL, subtle.

      In 2012, just before Obamacare took effect, I was paying $2,400 per year for a catastrophic coverage plan that met my needs very well.

      In 2020, I will be paying $10,320 per year for a catastrophic coverage plan. And the deductibles and coverage are worse.


  15. Trump has signed the CR and there will be no shutdown!

    Mickey D’s takeout hardest hit.

  16. “Killed backpacker Grace Millane was into choking, BDSM: court evidence.”

    These sex links have taken a dark turn.

    1. As dark as the Kamala Harris Mike Brown Affair?

  17. “”

    More of this please. Darwin’s Law cannot wipe out progressives fast enough.

  18. Elizabeth Warren’s anti-tech crusade has come so far that she apparently considers it “corruption, plain and simple” for Trump to meet with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg without publicizing it.

    She’s laying grounds for appeal if she loses next November.

  19. Nobody is happy with the way Title IX enforcement has been playing out on college campuses.

    Can’t thread the needle between not being a witch hunt and being a total witch hunt.

  20. “The governor of Pennsylvania vetoed a bill that would have banned abortions motivated by a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome.”

    It’s always a good reminder that eugenics is a main goal of the progressive movement.

    1. Amen. I try to always bring that up in arguments or discussions with progressives. The planned parenthood/abortion movement started with eugenics and the Nazis learned it from the U.S.! It pisses off the progressives, but they can’t refute history.

    2. Progressives are mainly motivated by eugenics.

      Conservatives are poorly educated, superstitious, gullible, stale-thinking bigots.

      Where is the hope for America?

      1. Where is Rev. Arthur I Kuckland when you need him….?

        1. Have you tried shining the Kuck signal?

      2. Hi, gecko!

  21. During yesterday’s impeachment inquiry proceedings, former White House advisor Fiona Hill accused House Republicans of spreading misinformation about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves,” Hill told the House Intelligence Committee.

    It was good enough to fool Politico right up until that narrative blew up in your face though, lying cunt.

    1. These were just isolated incidents. There was no Ukrainian interference. Except that there was but it was just isolated incidents. No need to turn that rock over. That is just what Putin wants.

      Literally, that was her testimony. That and the obligatory 45 minutes of her describing her resume going back to kindergarten and another 30 minutes of her praising the wonderful nation of Ukraine and the American taxpayers’ sacred duty to send it billions of dollars in aid.

      1. You’re just not an honest person.

        1. Yes I am. That is exactly what she said. She admitted there was interference but then said it was just isolated incidents, as if that means anything or she was in any position to know that. And then she went on to talk about the evil Russians and how they interfered and even looking into this plays into their hands.

          It is what she said.

          1. What interference John? Spell it out if you can. Ukranian officials making comments on Twitter is not interference. It’s their opinions of candidate Trump and they’re entitled to give their opinions. Putin made complementary comments about candidate Trump sp it’s no wonder the Ukrainians didn’t like Trump.

            1. I love coming here to watch you kick and scream. Your impotence, combined with your blind stupidity, are a real treat.

              You seem like a paid troll at this point but hookers gonna hook and I’ll keep coming back to watch you wallow in exchange for clicks

            2. I am using her words. She said there were “isolated instances” of Ukrainian interference with the election. If you disagree with her, take it up with her. The point is she admitted something happened but then pretended that we can all be assured that it wasn’t worth investigating.

            3. //Ukranian officials making comments on Twitter is not interference.//

              Ah. I see. But *Russians* making comments on Facebook is totally interference.


          2. “Ukranian officials making comments on Twitter is not interference.”

            Russians buying FB ads is, though?

        2. What, Pod, did John lie about in his post?

      2. “30 minutes of her praising the wonderful nation of Ukraine and the American taxpayers’ sacred duty to send it billions of dollars in aid.”

        It’s pretty clear why they resented the presence of Giuliani – he was someone who might actually represent the interests of their employer.


    The first leak of the Waiting for Guffman Horowitz report is out.

    Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI’s secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser — enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.

    I guess ENB hasn’t gotten the journolist approved talking points on this yet. I don’t see it in the list of links. Expect the talking points to be that this was a “low level’ FBI employee whose actions are a symptom of endemic problems with the FBI and not a larger conspiracy against Trump. Just a low level employee doing one bad thing because the culture in the FBI is so bad. Nothing to see here.

    1. And besides, it didn’t effect the outcome anyway!

    2. I wonder who leaked it and committed a crime by doing so? I wonder who in the DOJ or the WH has been leaking to Sean Hannity? I suppose the next IG can investigate that.

      1. There is no crime in leaking the report. it is not grand jury testimony. Beyond that even if it were a crime, who cares? That doesn’t change the truth of this. I wonder how many other things the FBI faked in all of this. People don’t do the wrong thing just once.

        1. I welcome the oversight. You better believe the next administration will
          be examining the actions of Trump’s administration.

          1. Sure you do. You welcome it so much you are support trying to impeach Trump for even mentioning investigating whatever Biden was up to in Ukraine.

          2. Poor pod.

            Ask Harry Reid about the nuclear option and that thing called reciprocity.

            1. I personally don’t think a Democrat will ever be President again. The Party of slavery is just losing its national political power.

              Even if a Democrat does manage to be elected President after 2024, it will be fun watching Republicans impeach that Democrat out of office in 30 days or less.

        2. John…I disagree. The report should not be leaked, period.

          I personally think it will be the most damning report ever produced on the level of political and personal corruption in our government. It should shock the conscience of every American.

      2. The story was broken by CNN, probably in an attempt to get ahead of the news.

        By the way, Lisa Paige already admitted to altering Strozk’s Flynn interview documents.
        Good chance it’s her

        1. If that’s true then she has problems.

          1. She has an enormous problem. So does whoever this is talking about, if it is not her. The only way they could have found this out is by computer forensic evidence showing the edits. It is amazing someone could have been so stupid and arrogant to think they could get away with that. But if it wasn’t for stupid people cops would never catch any criminals. Someone is going to be indicted and plead guilty over this.

            1. I will be very unsatisfied if less than a dozen people are indicted, and if Comey, Brennan, Clapper, or McCabe escape

              1. Don’t really give a shit about Lisa Paige.
                She deserves to go to prison, but if she takes others down I’d be fine with a deal

                1. That will be the juicy FBI clean out.

                  Piling charges on Lisa Page and Strozk so they flip and implicate as many corrupt FBI and DOJ officials as possible.

                  If Trump can even partly clean up the FBI and DOJ of these traitors to their oath and the US Constitution, it will be another feather in his cap as best President in ~100 years.

              2. I will be very unsatisfied if less than a dozen people are indicted, and if Comey, Brennan, Clapper, or McCabe escape

                I’m keeping my expectations low.

                1. The Democrats and their Lefty bureaucrat allies seem to be scared of pending indictments, so I have a tiny bit of hope they get the justice good and hard.

                2. #MeToo, Ray.
                  I have no confidence in professional government policing professional government.
                  I’ve long believed that violence is the only solution, otherwise liberty will be lost

                  1. As more and more attempts by Americans to stop corruption in government get swatted down, more and more Americans will agree with your plan of action.

                    Tree of Liberty and all that.

      3. “”I wonder who leaked it and committed a crime by doing so?””

        Wait, now you give a shit about leaking?

    3. Seems like it could be Strzok.

  23. As the Republicans embrace white supremacy, the Democrats are making racial justice a central campaign theme. Here’s Elizabeth Warren on reparations:

    It’s time for our government to face this truth. Time for America to have a full-blown national conversation about reparations. Time to adopt H.R. 40, @JacksonLeeTX18’s reparations plan. Time to do what’s right, so our nation can begin to heal.

    When Democrats retake the Presidency, I want them to devote at least $10,000,000,000,000 to reparations for slavery in the first year.


    1. “Time for America to ban the expression ‘national conversation’. “

      1. At the very least, we need to have a national conversation about it.

    2. You are right. This is super toxic cryptonite for the Democrats, but they love it. I hate Trump, but that issue is a deal breaker for me.

    3. My only concern is that Warren believes it’s time for both a national conversation about reparations and a time to adopt Lee’s plan without forcefully specifying we should have the sentence first and the trial after – not sufficiently woke for my tastes.

  24. Elizabeth Warren’s anti-tech crusade has come so far that she apparently considers it “corruption, plain and simple” for Trump to meet with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg without publicizing it.

    Facebook literally putting hundreds of its full time employees to work directly on the Obama campaign in contravention of federal election law regarding in-kind payments was jolly good though.

  25. The governor of Pennsylvania vetoed a bill that would have banned abortions motivated by a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

    Too many Down people is not good for the commonwealth.

    1. It will become a System of a Down

      1. I like the cut of your humor.

      2. I’m down with that.

  26. Ohio is once again trying to make teen texting its own criminal offense.


    1. Have to have something to do when it’s not deer season.

      1. When you are rural cop every day is deer season.

  27. Now the fashion police are after Tulsi Gabbard too.

    The Hawai’i Army National Guard taught her the value of a uniform.

    1. She should have came in her uniform. It would have been perfect. They could not have stopped her. And I was informed for an entire week that to question anyone wearing a uniform was treason.

      1. this John would have been great

      2. Wouldn’t that be technically illegal?

        1. Not just technically.

          Although, she’d make an awesome Generalissima in an over festooned uniform and mirrored shades.

        2. 10 U.S. Code § 772. When wearing by persons not on active duty authorized
          (a) A member of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard may wear the uniform prescribed for the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be.
          (b) A member of the Naval Militia may wear the uniform prescribed for the Naval Militia.
          (c) A retired officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title and wear the uniform of his retired grade.
          (d) A person who is discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may wear his uniform while going from the place of discharge to his home, within three months after his discharge.
          (e) A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war.
          (f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
          (g) An officer or resident of a veterans’ home administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs may wear such uniform as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe.
          (h) While attending a course of military instruction conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
          (i) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, a citizen of a foreign country who graduates from an Air Force school may wear the appropriate aviation badges of the Air Force.
          (j) A person in any of the following categories may wear the uniform prescribed for that category:
          (1) Members of the Boy Scouts of America.
          (2) Members of any other organization designated by the Secretary of a military department.

          1. It’s not that she can’t wear her uniform. It’s what she cannot do while wearing that uniform. Making a public political endorsement (of herself) being one of those things.

            1. I meant to cover both non-active duty and active duty but got distracted.

              1. DOD Directive 1344.10 evidently covers active duty being prohibited from political activities while in uniform.
                DoD Directives

          2. Uh – why is Title 10 governing the Boy Scout uniform?

            1. Because the Boy Scouts are a well-regulated militia, obviously.

              1. Closer to the truth than you might think.

                Paramilitaries are the underlying issue.

      3. Are not there restrictions on the kind of openly partisan political activity someone can do when representing themselves as members of the military?

        I do not think the military would look kindly on her doing that if she has some kind of reserve status.

  28. Uh-oh: Economists are learning to love the deficit.

    Economics is more social than science.

  29. “Meanwhile, an array of folks with firsthand knowledge of the situation have testified that Trump’s primary (or sole) corruption concerns involved his political rival Joe Biden, that Rudy Giuliani and others had been working behind the scenes to make this happen, and that everyone involved understood this was not merely a stray request.


    They have firsthand knowledge of what everyone understood?

    Not buyin’ it.

    1. In the words of Judge Judy: “Don’t tell me what you think he knew!”

      1. I saw a segment where she went around NYC just asking friendly questions to passersby.
        And by asking, I meant screaming. And by friendly, I meant screaming compliments and well wishes.
        She’s awesome

        1. Hers is the only TV judge show that I can stand for more than 15 seconds.

  30. Us vs. Them: Increasing the saliency of robots led to increased tolerance toward human outgroups, more equal treatment of human outgroups, and stronger identification with humankind as one’s ingroup:

    Switching to a new Them has never really been a problem for humanity.

    1. Quit your bawling crybaby.

      1. Ooh, Captain Crybaby gonna be my stalker today. Word of advice for you, if you start off with the full blown tantrum like this you’re going to be all worn out by lunch.

        1. Look at that wallotext you just cried out.

        2. And here we see a grown ass man cry “internet stalker” like an SJW bitch.

          1. He can’t stop crying since I reminded everyone that he admitted that he can’t take care of his family.

            1. I guess I spoke too soon. If you keep up the rage tantrum you’re going to be all tuckered out in no time. Bring some moral support wasn’t a bad idea though, glibs need to stick together.

              1. No one blames you for crying because your wife is going to leave you for someone more successful.

                She’ll make the kids call him daddy.

              2. “Bring some moral support wasn’t a bad idea though,”

                The SJW bitch can’t even speak English.

                1. Anyway, it’s interesting to have SugarFree and Warty back for a bit even is to play the part of ragebabies .

                  1. ” even is to play”

                    The SJW bitch still can’t even speak English.

                    1. Or stop crying about other people lololol

                    2. Hey listen, who could blame you really? Your other house is kind of a dump. It’s alright if you guys want to hang out here when you need to let the tears flow. Nobody will judge you.

                    3. Cry more.

                    4. “hang out here when you need to let the tears flow”

                      The cuck tells us why he comes here.

                  2. I have no idea how you can think you’re getting the better of this, sparky, or why on earth you’d think it a good idea to continue

                    1. “I’m not a loser deadbeat cuck. Tulpa, buy things for my wife while you fuck her, haha got you”

                      That happened.

                    2. Who’s getting the better of anything? It’s just a bunch of random back and forth garbage. It only takes a couple seconds to reply.

  31. The early 2000s GOP was so much better than today’s alt-right white nationalist party. Here’s former Bush official Paul Wolfowitz criticizing Drumpf’s disastrous foreign policy:

    Undoing Trump’s Syria Blunder

    People like Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum really need to take back the party. The US — in fact, the entire planet — would be much better off.


    1. One thing I appreciate about OBL is his dry sense of humor. His jokes don’t always hit the mark, but when they do they’re pretty darn good.

  32. A couple of days ago I observed that Reason’s coverage of the impeachment hearings bore a striking resemblance to their coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings: In both cases, they ignored the obvious contradictions in the witnesses’ testimony and continued to peddle the official Beltway Narrative even as it fell apart.

    So this morning instead of noting the how Sondland’s testimony has been shot full of holes, or how Hill’s testimony about the lack of Ukrainian election meddling has been contradicted by media reports from 2017, ENB instead serves up the 3,124th version of a “OMG THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON TRUMP!1!1!” story.

    What’s even more remarkable is how Reason is ignoring the seismic shift in public opinion, with recent polls showing impeachment is now underwater with independents and Trump leading Dems in swing states like Wisconsin.

    The Beltway Bubble is real.

    1. No one is buying it. They either don’t care or think it is a farce or both. I don’t understand why Reason is choosing to follow the other lemmings in the media off this cliff.

      1. Because Reason is a lemming

      2. “Cocktail parties. Always the fuckin’ cocktail parties.”

      3. Because the only people paying attention hate Trump. To get the clicks the only option is to play along. It’s completely disgusting.

    2. On the one hand, journalists shouldn’t report based on public opinion. On the other hand, Reason doesn’t feature any actual journalists (tho Stossel comes close).

      1. Close? He’s better than most of the MSM crowd.

        He actually challenges the people he interviews, including the ones he agrees with.

        1. Harvard minds explode.

    3. I think they get less clicks when they report with integrity

    4. ENB instead serves up the 3,124th version of a “OMG THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON TRUMP!1!1!” story.

      Holiday bonus time is fast approaching.

    5. “Why doesn’t Reason cover the news with a right-wing slant, just like all of the other websites that I visit?”

      1. There’s a difference between reporting with a bias, and completely ignoring facts because they don’t fit the Narrative.

        For example, Dr. Hill’s testimony was easily refuted by an article from 2017 published by that notorious conservative website, Politico, and available all over the interwebz. Yet in ENB’s world, it simply doesn’t exist and she glibly accepts Hill’s assertion that it’s just Russian propaganda.

        See, the advantage that I, John, Ken, and other impeachment skeptics here have over you is that we are exposed to both sides of the story, while you get your impeachment news from a narrowly biased echo chamber. You’re going to shocked when this clown show doesn’t turn out the way you expect.

      2. Deliberately leaving out critical segments of witness testimony that undercut the impeachment narrative and, instead, squarely focusing on those that support it without bothering to report on any of the inconsistencies is balanced reporting, in your mind?

        Apparently, “right-wing” bias these days includes actually telling the truth.

        1. Anything that doesn’t support the psychotic fantasies of progressivism is “right wing”

        2. “”Apparently, “right-wing” bias these days includes actually telling the truth.””

          Truth, lies, whatever. If it’s contra the party line it’s a right-wing bias.

  33. A Utah woman faces criminal charges and a possible place on the sex offender registry for going topless in her own home.

    If adult entertainment has taught me anything, it’s that stepmoms are almost as nymphomaniacal as stepdaughters.

    1. Based on the cops’ version of events she sounds like she fits the stereotype.

      1. and we all know cops and ex wives never lie

        1. The key here is what the kids told the stepmom, because that’s how she found out. If their version of events supports the charges, then she goes from being a Heroic Martyr for Equality to being a Creepy Drunk Perv Stepmother.

          I’d like to believe the cops carefully and objectively interviewed the kids and confirmed the story before filing charges, but history has shown that you can’t make that assumption in these type of cases.

          1. Correction: what the kids told their mom — the ex-wife — about their stepmom.

            I always wondered why most of the Media were not providing many details about the case. Now I know.

            1. The kids are 3 and 4 iirc. I’m not really convinced that anything they claimed to have said happened bears a resemblance to reality.

        2. kids don’t make shit up either

  34. New Jersey is trying to follow California’s lead in killing its independent contracting, freelancer, and gig worker industries.

    I assume in Jerksey however the push is coming from a different kind of mob.

    1. Are they really that different?

  35. Tesla revealed their electric truck yesterday:

    It’s the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen in my life.

    I’m not even talking about Musk’s failed “bulletproof” glass breaking when something was thrown at it either. It’s the design. It looks like it was drawn up by a fifth grader in the 1980s.

    You want to charge me to drive around in that ugly piece of shit–are you kidding?

    Ford must be thrilled. Their Rivian project is way out ahead of that Tesla thing.

    1. I always thought the Aztek was the ugliest vehicle I’d ever seen. It had steps in the back of it like an Aztec pyramid. The stupidest SUV ever made.

      The Aztek makes Tesla’s electric truck look like a dream come true.

      It’s so ugly and stupid, you can’t even love it for being ugly and stupid–like an AMC Pacer. Not even a mother could love that Tesla piece of shit.

      1. HEY I like AMC Pacers.

        1. That’s what I was trying to say. You can love an AMC Pacer because it’s ugly and stupid in a fun way.

          Telsa’s truck isn’t like that.

          1. Miss understood and re read your right. A friend had one in college and it went through the snow like a tank. But i also like the pinto and the gremlin

        2. “”HEY I like AMC Pacers.””

          You could fit a six foot sandwich sideways in that thing.

          1. I remember that ad.

        3. hell yeah. purple gremlins too.

      2. The Aztek was hideous. But I actually like the Tesla truck. It’s fucking weird, and Elon Musk is fucking weird. Most people don’t buy Teslas because they want to buy a car. They buy Teslas because they want to buy a spaceship and this is definitely a spaceship. The only thing that would make this thing more perfect (for a Tesla) is to add a flux capacitor.

        1. “Most people don’t buy Teslas because they want to buy a car. They buy Teslas because they want to buy a spaceship”

          That is not what he’s trying to do.

          What Tesla was supposed to be doing with this truck is show that electric cars are going to the norm.

          They want electric cars for average people. That’s why Tesla’s market capitalization was about twice as big as Ford’s, and I suspect that’s why Tesla’s stock is down 6% on the day–even as I type. You’re not about to sell enough trucks in the future to justify a market capitalization twice the size of Ford’s with a design like that’s intended for a specialized market.

          1. i have smart friends who can’t see Elon Musk is a total fraud

            1. I think that Tesla is way overvalued. But I think calling him a fraud is unreasonable – he’s an excellent engineer, a diligent manager, and completely out of his depth as the CEO of a publicly traded company. SpaceX does exactly what it purports to, and I think its early business case is entirely accurate (though I’m not persuaded it’s going all the way to Mars anytime soon). I think his business case for Tesla as a major company rather than a niche one is looking pretty weak now that oil prices have come down from their highs in the aughts, and a lot of what he intends doesn’t work without economies of scale.

              That said, I like the truck’s design, but I doubt I’d buy one – because I don’t need a truck. I think it’s poorly designed because the people who do need trucks are probably not going to like it, or at least not enough of them to make the case for producing it.

      3. “The Aztek makes Tesla’s electric truck look like a dream come true.”

        What is funny is that when you compare the Aztek today to a lot of the CUVs out there, they are very similar looking.

        I think the Tesla Truck is FUGLY, which is a damn shame. The idea itself is actually pretty cool- instead of trying to save wait by building a light body to go on the frame (c.f. F150 Aluminum truck bed), integrate the body and the frame. This is similar to what they are doing with the Starship.

        If they had just backed off the crazy styling of the truck by a little bit, I think they would have had a winner here- tough as nails, run your 220v tools off of the batteries, great tow rating. But it looks like shit.

        1. And the bed is useless

        2. The Rivian is way out ahead of Telsa on an electric truck, and Ford has made a huge investment in that company.

          Everything that powers the Rivian is in the undercarriage. Where the hood is in front is actually an empty space–it’s a trunk.

          Point being, you can slap any body you want on top of that Rivian platform, and Rivian is taking more of the “Intel Inside” approach rather than trying to build everything themselves. That’s presumably why they took a significant investment from Ford.

          As the Rivian proves itself, Ford will almost certainly slap an F-150 body on top of that Rivian platform–and if I could power an electric F-150 that will tow 10,000 lbs, have a 400 mile range, and I can power it at any 30 amp plug at any RV park in America? Then that’s a cool fuckin’ truck.

          Certainly, if you put an electric F-150 like that up against Telsa’s monster brick, I’ll take the electric F-150, please.

          It seems to me that Musk is making the same mistake Jobs did in the early days of Apple. Microsoft was always willing to make a platform that other people could develop their own products for. It was jobs that insisted that not only did their chips need to be proprietary (rather than Intel), most or all of the software for the Mac needed to be built in-house at Apple as well.

          The problem isn’t just the fact that there were all these software developers making industry defining products that Microsoft couldn’t have had the expertise to create, e.g. AutoCad. It’s also that when the success of your whole platform depends on getting the software in-house just right, you increase the level of difficulty and the risk of failure.

          The chances of Musk designing a prettier, better truck than Ford were always really long. That’s what Ford does, and they’ve been building trucks people love for a really long time. Rivian doesn’t have to do that better than Ford just like Microsoft didn’t need to design hardware better than IBM and software better than companies that specialize in their own industries. Apple had to design both hardware better than IBM and software better than the people in those industries–which is why they failed initially. I remember when Gates invested a bunch of personal money into Apple just to keep them afloat so that he could say he had a competitor to the antitrust regulators.

          Musk is put himself in the same position with Tesla. I still hope he’s wildly successful, but if he’d just made Tesla more like Intel and built power plants for the big three, the Japanese, and whomever else wants to put them in their cars, he’s have lowered the level of difficulty and lowered the chances of failure dramatically.

          1. Everything We Think We Know About the 2020 Ford Bronco

            Ford is bringing back the Bronco too.

            I would not keep a Ford, even if free, but this Bronco looks cool.

            1. Lots of miles on my Ford no problems

              1. I like the V-8 on the F-150.

                I like to go way out in the wilderness off road, and I just don’t trust those ecoboost engines to last much longer than their warranty or my loan. Those turbos put too much pressure . . .

                The V-8s will last for a long time if you treat ’em right.

                If war or President Warren threatens our fuel supply ten years from now, I might go to an electric truck before I’d go ecoboost. If I can’t camp 20 miles from the nearest road because I’m too worried about my five year old truck breaking down, then I’m not willing to pay much up front if I can’t take it where I really want to go.

                1. My F-150 has the V-8 as well low end torque for trailering and off roading and the weight to push through feet of snow. The diesel might be good a good alternative. I heard that Jeep may come out with an electric jeep but it needs to go a at least 300 miles before i’d venture into the woods with it

            2. i have loved every Ford i have owned but i won’t say they’ve been mechanically sound nor the repair guys at my local dealership competent in any fashion

              my 2013 mustang gt starts like an idiot 5 days a week … but no reason is ever found

      4. “At which point another of Musk’s assistants gently threw a similar metal ball at the Cybertruck parked on stage. The driver’s side window promptly broke.

        “Oh my fucking God,” Musk nervously said, live on the stream, after the front window shattered into a million pieces. ”

        1. “Musk then, assuming it was just a one-off and an aberration, implored his assistant to try again and throw at the back window. You can probably guess what happened next: the second window also broke.

          So Musk nervously joked his way through the rest of the skit, claiming maybe his assistant had thrown at the truck “too hard”. In other words, Musk’s presentation of the indestructable Cybertruck had been bested by a skinny Silicon Valley beta male lofting a small object at it.”

    2. Remember that time Homer got to design his own car?

      This is like that.

      1. At least Homer’s car had the horn play “La Cucaracha”.

    3. Yea, that is horrid

    4. It looks like the Mass Effect rover if your graphics settings are at low running off an integrated GPU.

      1. It’s like a kid during the ’80s drawing a picture of what a GI Joe assault vehicle should look like–with a fifth grade drawing talent sans the missile launcher on top.

        1. Will they be encouraging mod kits?

        2. The missile launcher will be in next years design.

    5. The Aztec was a fucking joke. It killed an entire car company (not that Pontiac was firing on all cylinders).

      1. I mean, the Aztec was more like the thing that made the company that had already run off a cliff look down.

  36. The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats and their media allies don’t want America to see

    Here is a detailed timeline of key events in the Ukraine scandal, complete with the corroborating evidence. You make your own judgement as to what happened.

    Pretty long, but pretty interesting.

    1. Pure trash straight from the Kremlin.

      1. Pod has devolved into parody.

        1. “developed”?

          I argue it was parody from Day 1.

          1. “Devolved”. It was always bad. It’s just gotten worse and worse. Now, it seems more of a parody then even OBL.

            1. Haha. I cant read today.

      2. Liberals in 1954: “How dare you accuse someone of being a Russian agent? Have you no decency, sir?!”

        Liberals in 2019: “OMG THE RUSSIANS ARE EVERYWHERE!!!”

        1. John McCarthy 2024!

      3. But enough about the women in your family.

  37. Great about news about Mass. banning menthols-remind me to stock up on cartons of Newpies before my next trip up there- I might even be able to quit my day job.

    1. It is a good day to be in the menthol business in New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

      1. RI will probably ban them soon too-they basically copy whatever progtard BS Mass does. Not so fast with NH-they do seem to take “Live Free or Die” seriously, though less than they used to.

        1. They like getting their money from people in Massachusetts escaping the state to shop.

        2. The NH tourism people just use the slogan “Live Free.” I’m not saying that’s surprising, them leaving out the “die” part for the tourists, but it does remind me of when they were total dicks to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who taped over the slogan on their license plates. The JWs won in the Supreme Court but they had to fight it all the way up there. Now it seems the state govt thinks the slogan is a bit much, at least for would-be tourists.

  38. Economists are learning to love the deficit.

    What’s the problem? It’s not like we’re actually ever going to pay it off – might as well blow our wad.

    1. “Ewwwww!”

      /Teenage girl economist

  39. an array of folks with firsthand knowledge of the situation have testified that Trump’s primary (or sole) corruption concerns involved his political rival Joe Biden”

    None of them had first hand knowledge and they admit that why lie ENB?

    1. um because fractions?

      1. I blame the Communists…I’m going to call President Eisenhower, he’ll sort it out.

        1. i’ll be under my desk.

  40. EXPLAINER-California faces decade of ‘unique’ wildfire blackouts

    Notice the MSM is not heavily discussing that these power outages also mean closed schools. Kids are already pretty dumb and then add in days and days of closed school. Oh wait, maybe this will have the opposite effect. Kids will get smarter because the Lefty indoctrination has gaps of days and days.


      Don’t read this unless you want nightmares and for your blood pressure to go dangerously high because of your desire to start shooting people.

      I think it is long past time to end this whole public school thing.

  41. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗

    1. Lefties just dont realize that Trump is getting more popular every day.

      I for one look forward to the death throws of the Democrat Party. It’s about time the Party of slavery ends being a national political force.

  42. Man Slashed, Teens Stabbed, Conductor Slapped: Rash Of Violent Subway Crimes Leaves Riders On Edge

    Interesting how Democrat controlled areas are dragging the national violent crimes stats up.

    1. Violent crime in Democrat-controlled areas is always the fault of Republicans.

      For example, Chicago’s murder rate should be blamed entirely on neighboring red states and their terrible gun laws.

  43. What really struck me most about the impeachment hearings so far is the vast difference between what’s being reported about testimony and what is actually being said.

    What the headlines said Sondland said and what he actually said.

    Sondland’s description of the quid pro quo was all about his own speculation–which he made abundantly clear. Sondland was under the impression that there was a quid pro quo, and that was the assumption, he claims, everyone else was making.

    He also made it abundantly clear that President Trump never said any such thing. He just thought it was generally assumed–but to assume is to make an ass of yourself. When he went and asked the president if there was a quid pro quo, President Trump directly specified that there was none.

    The news media keeps reporting what Sondland says was initial impression–as if that were a statement of fact. However, there is no evidence that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo, and a ton of evidence that there wasn’t one.

    Exhibit 1: Sondland texted that he spoke with Trump, and Trump told him there was no quid pro quo.

    Exhibit 2: The aid was released to Ukraine without Ukraine launching an investigation.

    Regardless, Sondland testifying that he mistakenly assumed there was a quid pro quo and believed there was one at one time is not evidence that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo. Certainly, the mistaken assumptions of a witness don’t weigh more heavily than the fact that no one ever heard or saw Trump say there was a quid pro quo nor does it weigh more heavily than the fact that the aid was released to the Ukraine without any investigation by the Ukrainians.

    1. To me the most striking thing about this was these people each spent a half hour or more going on about their resumes and none of them ever listed any actual service to the country. In fact if you didn’t know better, you could be forgiven for thinking they were all Ukraine government officials. They all love Ukraine and feel a sacred duty to serve it using American tax dollars. America? Not so much except as a cash register.

      And as remarkable is their total lack of shame about it. They all seem to have no idea that the public could see this as a problem. For me the moment of the hearings was Vindeman volunteering that he had been offered the job of Ukrainian Defense Minister three times. The thought that the American public might wonder just what he did to warrant such an offer and how that has anything to do with what he is being paid to do never crossed his mind. I didn’t think it was possible to find a witness so shady and loathsome that wearing a uniform didn’t help him. But in Vindeman the Democrats found such a witness. The guy came across as so crooked he must screw his socks on in the morning.

      It is astounding to think how out of touch the Democrats and the Deep State are for them to have thought this parade of crooks, cronies, and mediocrities was going to turn the public against the President

      1. I think it’s all about signaling to them.

        The news media thinks their job is drive public opinion, and they’re driving it alright–straight back into the arms of Donald Trump like in 2016.

        They’ll piss on you and tell you it’s raining.

        I wish someone would make a video of one journalist reporting every single horrifying allegation that’s been made against Donald Trump in sequence. It should start with the Michelle Fields bullshit and run straight through all the allegations of sexual assault, Pissgate, Russia, etc., etc., right up through the suggestion from the other day that Trump is holding 14,000 people in prison for no reason after they were granted asylum. There must be hundreds of horrifying allegations that have been made against Trump at this point–all of which have turned out to be false.

        I’d like to see one reporter staring into the camera and repeating them all–one after the other–and just watch that journalist’s lack of credibility go from laughingstock to pity to weird to insane over the course of dozens and dozens of false accusations.

        Joseph McCarthy’s got nothin’ on the journalists of today.

        No wonder Trump doesn’t want to release his tax returns. They’d impeach him over whatever they find–for sure–even if they find nothing.

        1. They all seem to live in a bubble completely isolated from not just the rest of the country but reality. I see these people like David French and the rest of the Never Trump right media genuflecting about the grave moral choice presented by what has been revealed in these hearings and I think that Trump really has broken these people. Are they really that nuts that they believe that or are they so compromised they have to say it or a bit of both?

          1. They’re neocons, leftists who genuflect to crony capitalism

            1. We should never forget that one of the central points of Leo Strauss was about noble lies.

              Religion and philosophy are two mutually unassailable fortresses. Within philosophy, Nietzsche, as interpreted through Heidegger, built an edifice that seemed to be unassailable–built on the implications of subjectivity. If everything we think we know to be true is really just a function of the limitations of our own perspective, then how can we presume to share that truth with other people from other perspectives and expect them to share in whatever task needs to be done? Philosophy seemed to have come to a standstill trying to answer that question.

              Strauss proposed that we needn’t find a new answer, that the answer to that question is already buried within Plato’s observations regarding the noble lie. It only matters if what you’re telling people is true so long as that’s also in support of whatever should be done. People need to believe in good leadership and their policies regardless of whether what’s being said in support of good leadership and those policies is true.

              Is it any wonder that the followers of Leo Strauss orchestrated the following outcome–six months after we invaded Iraq?


              Journalists have enlisted themselves in this game, and, yes, it lends itself to elitism. They believe that their purpose is to guide the American people to either supporting or opposing certain leaders–and those of us quibble about the veracity of their claims are missing thee point, in their estimation. A lot of this thinking rhymes with Marxism–but then the neocons all graduated from Marxism school, too, so you’d expect their favorite poems to be set to the same tune.

              1. A lot of what the Neocons believe is straight up philosophical Marxism. Their belief in open borders and the unimportance of culture is just a variation on Marx’s belief that everyone should shed their culture and melt into the world proletariat. Substitute “world labor force” or “become interchangeable unit of labor” and you have the open borders position.

                Their belief in what amounts to a world government and loyalty to a larger international order rather than nationalism is just a variation of Marx’s belief in a world socialist order. Their economics are not Marxist but their philosophy that underpins their economic beliefs is straight up Marxist. When you understand Marx’s philosophy as opposed to his economics, you can see how it is that the NEOCONs came over from the left.

                Also, there is a real divide among the first and second generation NEOCONS. The original NEOCONs, people like Norman Podhoretz or Roger Simon, all like Trump. They understand what it is to be an outsider and don’t trust the establishment. The second generation NEOCONs, like Jonah Goldberg, Jon Podhoretz, and Bill Kristol all hate Trump. Those guys all cashed in on the reputations of their fathers and are now insiders more than they are anything else. They don’t have any real objection to Trump beyond he is a threat to the establishment which they are a part of.

            2. That is the only form of Capitalism that they will tolerate because government is directly involved.

    2. Sondland’s opening statement was meant to give the press a soundbite to set the narrative. It wasn’t meant to actually establish any facts.

      1. And it was repeatedly refuted!

        This is what I believed at the time. Turned out I was wrong.

        The press then reports what he believed when he was wrong as if it were a fact?

        This is a kangaroo court, and the press is in on it.

        I don’t want to vote for Trump, but it’s like everything in the world is pushing me in that direction.

        If the Democrats nominate Warren and she’s promising to ban fracking the first day, institute the Green New Deal, give us Medicare for All at some point during her first term, give us free school, and pay for it all by soaking the rich with taxes . . .

        If the press is complicit in trying to railroad the president out of office before the next election, and they’re willing to distort the facts, etc. . . .

        How am I supposed to not want to vote for Trump amid that?

        Under normal circumstances, I would oppose Trump on immigration and trade, I would support him on foreign policy, tax cuts, and deregulation, and I’d either refuse to vote for anybody or maybe vote for the Libertarian.

        They’re making that impossible.

        1. protest, don’t vote. feels great to not have the burden of defending stupidity of power hungry clowns, which is ultimately what anyone who votes has to do.

          When Trump starts firing all these paper pushing leeches I’ll reconsider. When one party breaks from the war economy I’ll reconsider. When Libertarians stop apologizing and fighting alongside socialists, I’ll reconsider.

          1. But Trump is breaking from the war economy.

            He’s negotiating with the Taliban to get us out of Afghanistan, and the necons in both parties just threw temper tantrums because he’s backing us out of Syria rather than doubling down and going in.

            And I have a problem with refusing to back someone for being less than an ideal capitalist, when the opposition is promising to institute socialism.

            On the issue of socialism, if it were Bill Clinton vs. Trump, I’d favor Trump because of his stance on taxes and deregulation, and I’d credit Trump for being better than Clinton on the issue of trade.

            If it’s Joseph Stalin against Trump, I’m voting for Trump. If it’s Lenin against Trump, I’ve voting for Trump. Somewhere on that continuum between Bill Clinton and Joseph Stalin, there’s a point at which I’l break against socialism–if for no other reason. I’m not sure exactly where that point is, but the Green New Deal and Medicare for All put both Sanders and Warren across that inflection point.

            1. “I’d credit Trump [Clinton] for being better than Clinton [Trump] on the issue of trade.”

              —-Ken Shultz


            2. “But Trump is breaking from the war economy.”

              He does appear at times to be trying but most often it’s shuffling people around rather than bringing them home. We also feed Saudis arms like candy, except candy takes a lot longer to murder kids in Yemen.

              “And I have a problem with refusing to back someone for being less than an ideal capitalist, when the opposition is promising to institute socialism.”

              He isn’t stopping any of our bad spending habits. It’s gotten worse. and it only paves the way for future socialists to say “see, even Trump did it”

    3. I haven’t watched the hearings much, but every time I do turn them on I hear a witness saying “I have no direct knowledge of that”.

    4. “… the vast difference between what’s being reported about testimony and what is actually being said.”

      I have to admit, I see a lot of that, too.

      “When he went and asked the president if there was a quid pro quo, President Trump directly specified that there was none.”

      I keep hearing that talking point repeated, but it’s not much of an argument considering that Trump made this denial on the same day the House hearings were starting, after the Ukraine accusations became public.

    5. “”What the headlines said Sondland said and what he actually said.””

      I did see a clip where I think it was Jefferies pointing that out in real time. CNN was running a banner and he was having Sondland disagree with what the banner showed, and it was being showed.

  44. CNN downplays its own FISA bombshell report, receives minimal on-air coverage

    How can anyone tell about coverage? Nobody watches CNN, even when its the only thing on at airports.

    1. “CNN has been on a bizarre streak of downplaying or completely ignoring major headlines, including ABC News’ coverup of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, the Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer scandals that have plagued NBC News, and the allegations of inappropriate relationship with staffers made against Democratic congresswoman Katie Hill, which led to her resignation from Congress earlier this month.”

      Why can’t we get more coverage on the blatant agenda from major news outlets? Is it because Trump would agree with said coverage?

  45. Trump believes Obama knew of forged document related to Carter Page surveillance

    Trump is already one of the best Presidents. His ranking would saddle up next to some of the Founding Fathers if he had an unbiased DOJ and FBI find enough evidence to a Grand Jury to indict Obama, Hillary, Brennan, Comey, McCabe,Bidens….

    Nothing like turning that ham sandwich indicting Ray of Justice on Lefties.

    1. “Trump believes” nuff said.

      1. Remember when Trump believed that Obama tapped his wires?
        Was right

        1. Lol. That never happened but it should have. Trump is a crook many times over. Whatever he says about other people, deep state this, Clinton that, will never change the fact that Trump is under criminal investigation in the state of New York for fraud and tax evasion. Barr is protecting Trump from federal charges for the moment but that wouldn’t last forever. Tick tock mfer.

          1. You are just too hilarious

            1. did pod go satire?

              1. pod has always been a parody account.

                1. guess it’s improving

              2. I don’t think so.
                I think, like Tony, he is super sincere.
                They are perfect embodiments of progressivism, except Tony has some personality and wit

      2. Oh, I see. Suddenly you admit that believing something doesn’t establish anything as a matter of fact; except when it comes to the impeachment witnesses – in that case, their beliefs and opinions are facts.

        Got it.

      3. “”“Trump believes” nuff said.””

        But you are ok with the so and so believes when it fits your narrative. That’s been pretty much the summary of the witnesses. You are not calling them on it.

  46. ‘Their house is on fire’: the pension crisis sweeping the world

    Another scam the Democrats have pulled. Underfunding state pensions and acting like their budgets are balanced.

    I for one cant wait for California to go bankrupt and seek federal help in a bailout. Then Congress turns all of California into 100% federal land. Then Commifornians can seek help from the Bundys on how to properly graze on federal land for decades.

  47. Personal loans are ‘growing like a weed,’ a potential warning sign for the US economy

    It can also be a sign that people are seeking out capital to create jobs with small business ventures that do not qualify for small business loans.

    It can also be a sign that people are restructuring their debt after 8 years of a horrible Obama Administration stifling economy.

    1. The absolute idiocy of that comment “stagnant Obama economy.” The trajectory is near matched from his terms. What a buffoon you are.

    2. Poor wearingit troll.

  48. Boehm
    DOW Jones: 27,825.46

    Markets imploding!

    1. Irrelevant.

      Charles Koch current net worth: $61.3 billion

      That’s the number we Koch / Reason libertarians care about. And it’s not nearly as high as it should be.

  49. Inside Home Depot’s efforts to stop a growing theft problem at its stores

    Maybe those self-check outs were not a good idea after all?

    These people are just “self-checking” themselves out, alright.

    1. tornado ripped the face off a Home Depot here in Dallas a couple weeks ago and some Sheriff Deputies are in hot water for looting

  50. As Impeachment Moves Forward, Trump’s Story Changes

    We’ve always been at war with Eastasia!

  51. “I don’t think anyone ever thought that colleges and universities would be adjudicating and holding court regarding sexual crimes in America,” says Mark Hathaway, a partner at the firm.

    Seems pretty silly to discount that possibility. Colleges and college students love them some kangaroo court.

    1. Wow you even cry about that.

      1. Would it kill you to put some decent furniture in the space in your head you’ve set aside for me?

        1. And you’re still crying.

          1. A couch? Maybe a TV? Something nice?

            1. “STALKER!!!” you cried.

              1. A nice rug wouldn’t be bad either. Maybe a recliner rather than a couch though.

                1. “STALKER!!!” you cried.

                  1. A bed too. Since my wife has been on your mind so much lately.

                    1. Ahahahah he’s thinking about me fucking his wife ahahahah I win so hard ahahahahaaj

                    2. “$park¥ is a Cuck”

                    3. “Oh Tulpa, I need a man who can keep the lights on, not like that deadbeat loser in the corner watching you plow me” – Mrs. Dollar park Yen

                    4. No windows please, I don’t want to have to see the other random nonsense you keep in your head.

                    5. I love that he doesn’t realize he’s asking me to provide for his wife.

                    6. Are his kids even his?

                    7. Since you mentioned lights, I prefer a chandelier.

  52. >an array of folks with firsthand knowledge of the situation … understood this was not merely a stray request.

    your Christmas list is cute.

  53. Hard to keep your story straight when you lie all the time.

    1. You would know.

  54. “I would say that President Zelensky—if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens. Because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked. That was a crooked deal” Trump in Tweet.


    When it comes to Trump, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, like Billy Binion, is just a stenographer for the IC and its Capitol Hill enablers. It is natural for an organization whose headquarters is in Washington, the center of evil in the world, to be infiltrated by the IC.

    I didn’t vote for Trump because of his eminent domain seizures and attempted seizures (e.g., Vera Coking). Eminent domain is a libertarian issue. Exposing corruption in the US foreign policy establishment, is NOT.

  55. Last time, it was campaign finance violations.

    Now, it is bribery and extortion.

    Remember, these same people defended Bill Clinton’s perjury to defeat and sexual harassment lawsuit- and succeeded.

    They set the precedent; we will make them live by it.

    1. +1000

    2. Let’s not forget the precedent of non-impeaching Clapper.

      Let Trump benefit from the same benefit of the doubt they gave the Deep State operatives – it’s only fair if the Deep State is pimping this impeachment.

      1. And not impeaching Holder who was held in contempt of Congress. Holder like Clapper admitted to lying to Congress.

  56. outgroup / ingroup?

  57. DC is defending 295 speed camera that reportedly issues $800 tickets
    The government gets defensive when asked why the highest revenue speed camera is on an interstate in a work zone that is poorly signed and has no work.

  58. But it most probably also has to do with the fact that Ms. Gabbard herself doesn’t seem particularly interested in connecting with the suffragists, but rather is using her white suits to tap into another tradition, latent in the public memory: the mythical white knight, riding in to save us all from yet another “regime change war.”

    Or it’s hot in Hawaii, and lots of people wear white.

    1. See my link below, the author of the NYT article is a piece of shit. And she’s ground zero for why the media has no credibility.

      1. Okay, but before everyone flips out about how ridiculous it is, it’s from the Style section, and those people are not to be taken seriously regardless of their political inclinations.

  59. Now the fashion police are after Tulsi Gabbard too.

    Oooh yeah, abooouuut thaaaat….

  60. The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Department of Homeland Security for allegedly tracking several journalists.

    Note to self: Get journalism degree and then launch an undercover investigation of how easy it is to rob banks by robbing banks. If caught, flash “Get Out Of Jail Free” card Press pass and remind cops that working journalists are above the law. Do not, however, be Andy Ngo or James O’Keefe, as these are not real journalists.

  61. What hearing were you watching because every “witness” clearly said they had no firsthand knowledge?

  62. Kamubet adalah Bandar judi online terpercaya yang menyediakan permainan sportbook, casino, slots, togel, sabung ayam, dan poker juga banyak bonus-bonus menariknya..

    mau tau bonus apa saja yang kita sediakan?

    berikut promo kamubet :

    Jangan lupa daftar sekarang juga di

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.