Trump Once Again Falsely Claims That Ukraine's President Has Exonerated Him of Abusing His Powers for Personal Gain

Given Ukraine's dependence on Trump's good will, Volodymyr Zelenskiy's comments about quid pro quos should be viewed as aspirational rather than factual.


President Donald Trump is once again claiming that Ukraine's president has exonerated him of improperly using foreign policy for personal ends, conduct that is at the heart of the impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee will begin to consider on Wednesday. "The President of Ukraine has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls," Trump tweeted this morning. "If the Radical Left Democrats were sane, which they are not, it would be case over!"

Trump seems to have in mind a recent interview in which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said "it just goes without saying" that his country's relationship with the United States is "not about a quid pro quo." Contrary to Trump's spin, Zelenskiy's comments do not show that Trump "has done nothing wrong." In fact, the interview, which was conducted by reporters from Time and three European publications, shows that Zelenskiy is desperate for U.S. support and keen to prevent the impeachment inquiry from threatening it.

Zelenskiy, like anyone else who follows the news, understands that Trump's impeachment in the Democrat-controlled House will almost certainly be followed by his acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate, meaning the Ukrainian government will have to deal with Trump until January 2021 at least and quite possibly for another four years after that. Given that prospect, anything Zelenskiy says about Trump's alleged abuse of power in pressuring Ukraine to conduct investigations that would be politically useful to him has to be taken with a grain of salt.

During the interview, Zelenskiy emphasized the importance of U.S. support in Ukraine's confrontation with Russia over Crimea. "As for the United States," he said, "I would really want—and we feel this, it's true—for them to help us, to understand us, to see that we are a player in our own right, that they cannot make deals about us with anyone behind our backs. Of course they help us, and I'm not just talking about technical help, military aid, financial aid. These are important things, very important things, especially right now, when we are in such a difficult position."

Zelenskiy also said only the U.S. government has the influence to alter plans for a pipeline from Russia to Germany that would bypass Ukraine, depriving its government of some $3 billion in annual income from the transport of natural gas. "We don't have influence over the Europeans' decision," he said. "We don't have it, and that's it. I don't have any leverage. I can only count on the strong support that I see on this question from the United States of America."

Zelenskiy is worried that Ukraine's reputation for corruption, reinforced by Trump's comments on the subject, will deter vital foreign investment. "The United States of America is a signal, for the world, for everyone," he said. "When America says, for instance, that Ukraine is a corrupt country, that is the hardest of signals….Everyone hears that signal. Investments, banks, stakeholders, companies, American, European companies that have international capital in Ukraine, it's a signal to them that says, 'Be careful, don't invest.' Or, 'Get out of there.'…For me, it's very important for the United States, with all they can do for us, for them really to understand that we are a different country, that we are different people. It's not that those things don't exist. They do. All branches of government were corrupted over many years, and we are working to clean that up. But that signal from them is very important."

Given his country's dependence on the United States, Zelenskiy cannot afford to alienate Trump or Democratic supporters of Ukraine by seeming to take sides on the impeachment question. But he did object to the temporary freeze that Trump imposed on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine. "If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us," he said. "I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo."

There is strong circumstantial evidence, of course, that Trump did have in mind a quid pro quo: Ukraine would get the military aid once it publicly committed to investigating former Vice President Joe Biden's alleged interference with a probe of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that employed Biden's son Hunter as a board member, as well as the bizarre theory that Ukrainians hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 presidential campaign and framed Russia for that crime. Several current and former administration officials have testified that the connection between the aid and the investigations was clear.

Trump himself has said that what he was seeking from Zelenskiy during a much-scrutinized July 25 telephone conversation was "very simple": "a major investigation into the Bidens," aimed at digging up dirt on a leading contender to oppose Trump in next year's presidential election. Trump broached that subject immediately after Zelenskiy expressed his gratitude for U.S. military aid and mentioned Ukraine's planned purchase of anti-tank missiles from the United States. "I would like you to do us a favor, though," Trump said at that point, before describing the investigations he wanted. And although Zelenskiy himself did not know about the aid freeze at the time of the call, other Ukrainian officials were already asking about it.

Zelenskiy has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by describing Trump's request as improper. "There was no blackmail" during the phone call, he said in October. "They blocked the military aid before we had our conversation, but we did not discuss it. Later we discussed it with the defense minister, and he said, 'We have a problem. They've blocked this money.'"

By that point, Zelenskiy must have surmised that the otherwise inexplicable aid freeze had something to do with the "favor" Trump wanted. And in case any doubt remained, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, has said he made the connection explicit in a conversation with a senior Zelenskiy adviser on September 1. Sondland also testified that a White House meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump was contingent on the investigations.

Zelenskiy is in an unenviable position, trying to protect the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship while standing at the center of a bitter partisan dispute. In that context, his statements about quid pro quos should be viewed as aspirational rather than factual.

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren’s School Choice Blunder

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. “should be viewed”

    So is this Sulllum guy Reason’s version of Vox?

    1. He’s literally saying that Trump and the Ukrainian president are lying solely because some deep state coup leaders civil servants might have overheard someone’s friend’s, mother’s, uncle’s buddy saying something.

      “They said different, but I desperately want Trump removed because screw elections I mean, given Ukraine’s dependence on Trump’s good will, Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s comments about quid pro quos should be viewed as aspirational rather than factual”

      1. And said civil servants maybe overhearing somebody saying something is evidence, but Biden literally bragging about doing something on video is merely “alleged”.

        Really, it’s sad what Reason has become.

        1. And said civil servants maybe overhearing somebody saying something is evidence, but Biden literally bragging about doing something on video is merely “alleged”.


          Biden did not do so for political gain. (smirk)

          EVERYONE knew THAT DENIAL ,…, OF A TAXPAYER-RISK LOAN GUARANTEE ..was ALREADY place … by both the United States and the European UNION .. unless Ukraine terminated the federal prosecutor KNOWN to be a major course of Ukraine corruptioN. (Other demand had been implemented.)

          Biden scored a victory over corruption … Trump FAILED … and Trump NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED!!

          Trump’s extortion demanded ONLY an announcement that the BIDENS were under investigation … for the type of POLITICAL SMEAR your ilk specializes in …. . NEVER mentioned the SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION that ALL WESTERN ALLIES were pressuring,as a price of …. LOAN GUARANTEES!




          FACT: Trump’s lies keep requiring more lies, which is ALSO why he was FORCED … BY HIMSELF … to say the fired prosecutor was good., and should not be fired.

          So you crazed conspiracy wacko believe the “Deep State” now includes ,… THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN UNION … and YOU would risk taxpayer dollars … for whatever the most corrupt borrower … asks for.!!

        2. “Biden literally bragging about doing something on video is merely “alleged”.

          Actually, here at the OtherVox it is ‘debunked.’

    2. Personally considering the associations this senior journalist is with I think he’s very biased toward Trump and don’t adhere to his CNN logic or accept his analogy of the quid pro quo scenario as envisioned by his opinions!

  2. this was all so November, dude

  3. If the Bidens’ (plural) corruption was “alleged”, then Trump deserves the same. Only a complete hick could think that paying a politician’s son $50,000 per month was not corrupt. It was corrupt when the Saudis paid Bush Jr to drill dry wells, it was corrupt when the Clinton’s foundation got oodles of ca$h, and it’s corrupt when Biden’s son got it.

    Or to put it another way, if Trump renting out expensive rooms was enough $$$ to be corrupt, then so was Biden’s $50K/month. Yet Trump’s hotel rooms apparently weren’t expensive enough for impeachment material.

    1. Hunter Biden’s landing a position on the Burisma board was certainly unethical, but it may not have been brokered by his father and it may not have broken any laws.

      1. >>may not have been brokered by his father

        Joe started brokering deals like this in 1973.

        1. I’ll take your word for it, but did he broker THIS one.

          1. that’s what everyone’s saying.

              1. Exactly. “Biden” = job.

                1. Yes, but if that’s how it went down, neither Joe nor Hunter Biden broke any laws — and there’s nothing to investigate.

                  1. “and there’s nothing to investigate.”

                    And you’re just a neutral observer, right?

                    1. Did you see the word “if”?

                    2. You are the one that claimed, right above, that Hunter Biden got his job solely based on his name. I just linked to a news story where one person, the ex President of Poland, makes that claim.

                      I don’t claim to know how he got the job.

                    3. Hunter Biden made that claim

                    4. Where did I claim anything above?

                    5. That’s right, I didn’t. You just like to lie.

                    6. I linked to an article where the former President of Poland claimed Hunter Biden got the job based solely on his name. Your replied:

                      “Exactly. ‘Biden’ = job.”

                      That’s a statement of your agreement with what the article said.

                    7. No stupid I posted that

                    8. “Dillinger
                      December.2.2019 at 4:48 pm
                      Exactly. “Biden” = job.”

                      Look again you fucking retard.

                    9. Lol at Jeffmike.

                    10. My mistake. Dillinger posted that comment.

                  2. You know this because someone actually investigated it and it turns out they did nothing wrong.

                    Oh wait that didn’t happen because daddy says no aid unless you fire the persecutor who was investigating. And as Joe brags that’s what they did. And the investigation got shelved.

                    1. And it is oversimplification of the story, of course, to omit that there was widespread international support for removing the prosecutor.

                    2. The facts are that Ukraine had asked for loan guarantees, from the EU and the US, because their credit rating was ZILCH.

                      BOTH had refused to risk their taxpayer’s dollars, unless Ukraine took certain actions against the rampant corruption in their government. Ukraine satisfies all the conditions but one — firing the prosecutor. That had been in existence for months. Our FUCKING PRESIDENT FROM KENYA DARED TO DEFEND US TAXPAYERS, IN CONCERT WITH OUR ALLIES.

                      So … BIden achieved where Trump TOTALLY FAILED … at DOING SOMETHING about the corruption in Ukraine.

                      Note that Zelensky never criticized Biden ,,., but KICKED TRUMP’S ASS for treating an ally so shabbily, when that ally faced a serious threat from Russia. Quite ballsy of Zelensky, considering the survival of his country has been threatened by ,… Trump. (and, of course, Putin) .

                      THAT is the key! Biden acted IN CONCERT with our allies.
                      Trump did not, and why would Trump AGAIN support Putin over our allies???.

                      Breaking news: Trump says he’s considering that a China treaty be finalized AFTER the 2020 election … XI KICKED HIS ASS AGAIN! AND HIS INSANE TRADE WAR WILL CONTINUE FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR.

      2. Joe made more trips to Ukraine than to any other foreign nation. The US is a country where you pay to play…let’s not be delusional, that is the reality of the US political system, yet we do not call it corruption. The elections are there simply serve to replace one gang with another gang. Hunter also got an advance of a few millions bucks as a convincer to take the job.
        I really don’t know what all the fuss is. It is very beneficial for the US to have corrupt governments as allies. Honest governments will not bend over and let the US take advantage, as Boris the drunk Yeltsin was doing in Russia. The US does not want honest men in foreign governments, and even in its own government as honest men care more about the well being of their people than to sacrifice their nation’s people, resources and treasure for the pleasures of a foreign super power. In fact, the US has historically replaced all honest leaders, by coup (which they now prefer to call regime change, a sanitized word for coup) and rigged elections. Corrupt people are more pliable, easy to make them to what you want them to do, like dogs who will perform tricks for their master just for that next treat.

        1. Lie (his opening sentence)

      3. But, lets add it to the Biden family trading on Quid Pro Joe’s VP influence that raked in millions in China & Romania also & even before that using his influence as a US senator to get great deals & jobs right here in America…How anyone in their right mind could vote for this Greedy Corrupt Arrogant DC Swamp Critter Piece of Shit is beyond me!!!

      4. Yeah, the Biden kid got that job in spite of:

        Not speaking Ukranian
        Having no executive experience
        Having no experience in the oil and gas industry
        Major drug addiction problems
        Being kicked out of the US nave for cocaine abuse

        And so many more reasons. There was ,internally no other reason to hire him other than an arrangement for his father to exert influence to favor this company. In fact, he even physically rode daddy’s coat tails on Air Force 2 to make the deal. Any assertions to the contrary are absurd on their face.

        Same ting with his business ventures in China.

        1. So, where there is the appearance of impropriety, it is certain there is illegal activity. Where there is smoke there’s fire, right?

      5. “Hunter Biden’s landing a position on the Burisma board was certainly unethical, but it may not have been brokered by his father and it may not have broken any laws.”

        Sure. And Joe Biden may not have taken any official action on Burisma’s behalf. But that’s an awful lot of ‘maybes’. So perhaps we should make some effort to find out the answers to those questions. If the word ‘investigation’ is too sensitive, we can always call it a ‘matter’. That one’s still cool, right?

        1. I would welcome an investigation of Burima.

          Trump could have had the Department of Justice conduct a legitimate investigation of Burisma, instead of taking an impulsive cowboyed approach spearheaded by his personal attorney.

    2. Trump gave his children jobs in the White House.

      If you don’t know the Biden thing is deflection then you are stupid. There’s a reason no Republican is defending Trump’s actual actions. And if they think what Trump did was OK, then they have nerve talking about Biden. Especially since Trump did exactly the same thing there too.

      1. And if they think what Trump did was OK, then they have nerve talking about Biden. Especially since Trump did exactly the same thing there too.

        LOL, that awkward moment when you torpedo your own argument.

        1. That awkward moment when you make a total fool of yourself.
          How does it torpedo his argument that Trump and Biden should be judged on the same standards.

          You’ve just displayed the authoritarian streak which is so common among Trumpstets.

      2. Yeah but Trump didn’t personally fire a prosecutor looking into companies that hired his kids. If memory serves Ivanka plays some ceremonial role and Jared is in charge of some communication. They’re on government payrolls.

        Hunter is a navy dropout with a history of substance abuse, and a womanizer to boot. How did he get a job in an energy company, earning thousands of dollars? Burisma is being investigated for something else now.

        What Biden did was classic example of conflict of interest. At the very least, Obama should have sent someone else to demand Shokin to be fired. Shokin wasn’t officially charged with corruption and his investigation into Burisma wasn’t under scrutiny. There are prosecutors in the world who would hang a woman for not wearing headdress, and we don’t threaten to withhold aid unless their government fires them.

        So this “Biden fires corrupt prosecutor” theory doesn’t quite fly.

        1. Then there is the sticky wicket of the EU Affidavit that has Shokin’s testimony, under oath, to the EU that Biden told the Ukrainian Prez that unless they stop looking into Hunter & his company, the US will not release $1 billion in aid!!!

          Bottom line is that Obummy, Biden, HildaBeast & Soros fomented a coup of a duly elected foreign Prez because he was pro-Putin & Biden & Kerry & their sons made out like bandits as the Ukraine was thrown into chaos!….They should all be hung by their won petards or double pants-suit!

          1. Where is your evidence that any investigation of Burisma was active when Joe Biden sought dismissal of the prosecutor?

            1. That Shokin seized evidence from Burisma and Zlochevsky the month before he was sacked?

              Pretty strange to have an inactive investigation with active searches and seizures.

        2. Jared is in charge of Middle East peace. His portfolio is famously, and laughably, incredibly broad. The Biden thing is nepotism. No doubt about it. Is nepotism bad or not? Or is it only bad when Democrats do it?

          I don’t give half a shit if Hunter Biden’s cushy job torpedoes Joe’s presidential prospects. All the better. I think he’d be a bad candidate.

          It’s still a distraction from the impeachment charges against Trump. He solicited a foreign government for his own political gain. Is that bad? Or is it not bad because he’s a Republican?

      3. The RINOs don’t defend the President because they prefer the adoration of the progressives in the Democratic party and the MSM over fighting the deep state.

        1. Yes, we know, all GOOD and TRUE Republicans WILL defend Trump, even if the TV cameras catch Him in broad daylight, murdering someone on 5th Avenue! It is known!

          This is why the impeachment hearings are a giant joke… Even after the TV cameras catch Him in broad daylight, murdering someone on 5th Avenue… Each and every last lousy Republican Senator will look at the “R” on his or her nametag, and vote AGAINST impeachment! Blind party-tribal loyalty knows NO limits!

          1. You know he didn’t really murder anyone on 5th Avenue, right?

            1. If he did, his cousinfucking supporters will think it’s OK.

            2. R Mac
              You know he didn’t really murder anyone on 5th Avenue, right?

              FAR more important ,… why would you defend him if he did?

              And how can you support a politician who tells the entire world that you are human scum, totally devoid of moral values?

      4. Goddamn, you’re a stupid piece of shit. There’s a gigantic difference between hiring family for White House jobs, and using your kids as a proxy to trade influence for money.

        That you can’t see the difference here says what a piece of trash YOU are. Now go drink your Drano you raving faggot.

        1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf,
          The extent of your MASSIVE brainwashing is summarized … here.

          Continung …

          Or to put it another (crazier) way, if Trump renting out expensive rooms was enough $$$ to be corrupt, then so was Biden’s $50K/month

          THAT WAS HIS WAGES. (snort)

  4. First, Sullum leaves out that William Taylor’s testimony where he stated that he had three meeting with Zelenskiy between 7/25 and 9/1. In none of those meetings did Zelenskiy broach the subject of aid withheld. That seems so odd if he knew about it the aid withheld and it was so important.

    Second, Sondland’s statements were mere speculation. He had zero first hand knowledge of the matter. But hey that’s evidence now at Reason.

    Reason used to stand against overzealous prosecutions. But I guess Orange Man Bad.


    1. 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!



        1. I think that’s actually Mary. Same sort of crazy, but different nut.

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

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

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

            Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

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

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

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

            Thank You! -Reason Staff

            1. Nobody reads any of this.

              1. Yet here you are, TRYING to remind the politically correct Trump-fellators to NOT read the writings of me, the SQRLSY One. I wonder why?

                (PSSSSST… Do NOT read what I write! It is HIGHLY subversive!)

                1. “Yet here you are, TRYING to remind the politically correct Trump-fellators to NOT read the writings of me, the SQRLSY One. I wonder why?”

                  Um, because you suck donkey dick?

                  1. So you are strongly attracted, then, to reading the writings of donkey-dick-suckers? Why? Have you gotten any therapy concerning this issue? Have you considered performing yet MORE donkey-dick-sucking, so that you could enjoy your own writings yet MORE than you do already? You could become a self-sufficient island of self-admiring “Stable Genius”, just like your Hero of the Trumptatorship!

                    1. “So you are strongly attracted, then, to reading the writings of donkey-dick-suckers?”

                      I am not, I am repulsed by all of your various Hihncarnations and have stated so on many occasions.

                      I wish you a slow death in a fire.

                      I would pay Reason to ban you and your constant Commentarial defecation.

                      You add nothing to the conversation and everyone hates you.

                      Just ask the nice CNA that changes your diapers at the Home.

                    2. You are hereby fully authorized to NOT read what I write!

                      But I guess that truth has a certain tantalizing, almost forbidden, alure, doesn’t it?

                    3. And just for the record, I did not vote for Trump in the Primary.
                      I did vote for him in the General because there was no other reasonable choice for anyone who has even a smidgen of libertarian in them. He is not my Hero in any way shape or form other than he prevented that felonious lying Crone from ascending. Though I must say I have been pleasantly surprised.

                    4. Come on Entropy, if you don’t like the squirrel, that means you want Trump’s dick. It is known.

                    5. Entropy Drehmaschine Void

                      “And just for the record, I did not vote for Trump in the Primary.”

                      Well OK then, I guess you are a WEE tad less of a douchebag than I thought you were! Hillary the warmonger is actually pretty scary to me as well. And when she whines about her and hubby being broke, then throws a 6 or 7 $million wedding for Chelsea… I have just about zero respect for her!

              2. So R Mac…

                I recall a HIGHLY persuasive recruiting poem for the USMC…

                The sky is blue,
                The grass is green,
                Get off of your ass,
                And join the Marines!

                So you have CLEARLY read or at least noticed my missives from time to time… Not to be TOOOO delicate about it… Butt…

                WHEN are you gonna GET OFF OF YOUR ASS and send a sample of your uber-persuasive writings to ?!?!

                Jesus H. Christ; with you and your writings, ye are sitting on a veritable frickin’ GOLD MINE!!! Get going, get off’n yer ass, and write that email!!!

                1. “So R Mac…blah blah blah.”

                  That about sums it up, right?

                  1. “I can’t or won’t read anything that upsets my ideological blindness apple cart. Or at the VERY least, I willfully REFUSE to think about it honestly!”

                    That about sums it up, right?

                    1. No. You realize you’re just posting gibberish right?

                  2. No. You realize you’re just a Trump-controlled robot, right?

                    1. Seems like he would have made me vote for him if I was under his control.

                      You should try to come up with some new insults for different people here. When you use the same one on everyone it doesn’t have the effect you hope it does.

                    2. Squirrel has delusions of grandeur that Trump controls people to come on a comment section to tell him how unfunny he is.

                    3. Squirrelly, you dimwit Ted, silly bitch. You may worship politicians, but I say them as something like a milking cow. I’m looking to get a type and amount of milk out of their tit that is desirable for me. If the political on question can do this, or at least is a demonstrably better producer than the alternatives, I vote for them. If not, they are useless and receive no vote.

                      But I sure that’s far too confusing for your tiny mind.

            2. do you type this out every time or is it saved for future posts?

              1. Saved on Notepad so he can paste without having to reach for the arthritis cream.

                1. Some of us are advanced enough to keep a Win-Word “doodles” file… Even w/o having had to get a PhD in software!

                  1. I think everyone is probably that advanced.

                    That pathetic and batty, however, is a rare vintage you seem to have all to yourself.

                  2. You’re a drooling idiot.

      2. YAWN…..Can you at least come up with some new anti-Trump material?….This shit be getting stale!

        1. Not as stale as “orange man bad”!
          (With the implied idea being that “anyone who says bad things about Orange Man, no matter HOW long and well-documented the list of Trump evils may be, such bad-things-sayer must be a stupid moron”).

          Albert Einstein delivers a long lecture with 553 equations and tons of evidence. Conservative moron will say that Einstein said “stuff and stuff is relative”, and walk smugly away, thinking that they have “summarized” Einstein!

          Conservative moron will tour Holocaust museums and “summarize” by saying “Mustache Man Bad”!

          Fucking stupid, smart-ass moronic conservatives STOP smugly posting “Orange Man Bad”, and I will stop posting my reply!

          1. Orange Man Bad triggers another one.

  5. What counts as corruption these days? How low do we have to go? How about absolving war criminals in hopes of getting them to campaign for you?
    Trump Tells Allies He Wants Absolved War Criminals to Campaign for Him

    1. Two people tell The Daily Beast they’ve heard Trump talk about how he’d like to have the now-cleared Clint Lorance, Matthew Golsteyn, or Edward Gallagher show up at his 2020 rallies


      Poor Mikey Hihn. Blue balled by the Mueller fiasco, he now has to cling to anonymous sources of third hand rumors to fuel his mindless Trump hysteria.

      1. To Trump fellators, Dear Leader can do NO wrong!
        Trump couldn’t be prosecuted if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, lawyer claims

        Anyone who claims otherwise, is a moron! Highly data-driven argument (by a Stable Genius) to PROVE this, follows immediately below!


        1. Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue.

          Good on you for sticking with your 5th Avenue murder talking point after 3 years though Mikey. It’s nice that you’ve stopped making a pretense that this isn’t one of your sockpuppet accounts.

          1. How’s the Trump-Worshipping coming along? Trump turning your water into wine yet? Or turning your brain into WHINE ABOUT THOSE WHO DON’T SHARE YOUR BLINDNESS?

            (And in the USA as well).
            Cult that defines Trump’s power is just a few scratches away from the surface in Australia
            Mostly what Scott Morrison has adopted from Trump is the arrogance and utter refusal to concede error even in the face of overwhelming evidence

            Reality much? Or is all of reality evil, and conspiring against you and your Chosen One?

            1. Why don’t you just come to terms with the fact that you are an asshole and people vote for Trump primarily to see people like you suffer? I really can’t overstate how much pleasure your pain, misery and unhappiness gives me or how richly you deserve it.

              1. And you are utterly SURE that Trump has revoked what-comes-around, goes around? Other nations will NEVER notice that they are 15th class in the face of “America First”?

                This is YOU, John! Read the below, and go look in the mirror!

                I fundamentally think that a huge percentage of Trump voters (who bothered to study up in the slightest) voted for a Pussy-Grabber in Chief who would pussy-grab for them, on behalf of them and theirs! If PGC (Pussy-Grabber in Chief) could pussy-grab the people whose loans he defaulted on, people who’d been ripped off by his realty “school”, and illegal humans who’d worked on building his buildings, and on and on, then SURELY the PGC can grab some pussy for us selfish, short-sighted voters! We can pussy-grab our international trade partners, and other nations, races, and creeds in general!

                These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

                1. Other nations will NEVER notice that they are 15th class in the face of “America First”?

                  Hopefully, they do. Hopefully, they’ll grow some balls and take care of their own problems instead of demanding handouts from US tax payers.

                  1. They’re not looking for handouts… They are looking for free trade, or at least free-ER trade. But the protectionist Trumptatorship regime won’t let it happen! Trump SAYS he wants free trade, but he is lying!

           Why Xi Jinping reneged on the trade deal with Trump … From there, “Both Liu He and the official voice of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), People’s Daily, cited three issues to explain Xi’s rejection of the deal: first, the U.S. wanted to keep some tariffs in place, and refused to abolish all of them…”

                    So the Donald is FIBBING when he claims he wants zero tariffs, and all! Also, The Donald’s record on (now formerly) having wanting to keep steel and aluminum tariffs in place, NAFTA-wise, contra the spirit of the agreement awaiting Congressional approval… This and his profligate trade wars against all and sundry, not just China… All this clearly shows that The Donald is flat-out, a protectionist. He SAYS he wants free trade, but doesn’t really.

                    1. They’re not looking for handouts… They are looking for free trade, or at least free-ER trade.

                      European governments, China, and Japan are not looking for “free trade” or “freer trade”; they are looking for trade deals that benefit themselves politically, nothing more. They are deliberately creating trade barriers to imports from the US and hurting US companies. They are also wanting the US to protect them at next to no cost to themselves.

                      So the Donald is FIBBING when he claims he wants zero tariffs, and all!

                      Democrats and Reason are lying when they claim they want “free trade” and “open borders”. What they really want is zero import tariffs and unrestricted migration into the US, while saddling productive US tax payers with the bill.

                    2. Please explain to me WHY I get a tax bill for freely choosing for myself, whether I want to buy goods made in China? Government Almighty doesn’t even track how many goods I buy from China v/s from Vietnam v/s from Mars… Not yet, at least, they don’t, not on my planet, do they do that yet on your planet? So how do they tax me for making my own choices on whose products I shall buy?

                    3. “Please explain to me WHY I get a tax bill”

                      You didn’t get a tax bill liar.

                    4. Because Orange Man Bad.

                    5. Please explain to me WHY I get a tax bill for freely choosing for myself, whether I want to buy goods made in China?

                      I have no idea what you’re asking or how it relates to what I wrote.

        2. Obama murdered an American citizen extrajudicially and he wasn’t charged for it….

    2. What counts as corruption these days? How low do we have to go? How about absolving war criminals in hopes of getting them to campaign for you?

      How about using hundreds of billions in tax payer dollars to buy votes? Cuz’ that’s what Democrats and Obama have been doing.

      In contrast, “absolving war criminals in hopes of getting them to campaign for you” is not corruption, and, of course, didn’t even happen.

  6. //Given his country’s dependence on the United States, Zelenskiy cannot afford to alienate Trump or Democratic supporters of Ukraine by seeming to take sides on the impeachment question.//

    So, the proof of the shakedown is that the person allegedly subjected to it, has denied being subjected to it, which is what we would expect in the case of a shakedown and, therefore, the denial is actually a confession.

    A lack of evidence, is actually the strongest evidence there is.

    Welcome to Reason.

    1. Sullum’s use of logic to get to the answer he wants is incredible.

      1. It is scary how these people are willing to sell out their integrity so easily. You don’t have to be some giant mind to see through this bullshit. But you have to have the integrity and will to do it. That is what Sullumn lacks here. And if he will repeat this lie, what lie won’t he repeat?

        The lesson of all this is that if you are unpopular with the beltway media, reason will repeat any lie no matter how absurd against you. So much for standing up for reason and fairness and all that.

        1. If she floats, she’s a witch…

    2. That overstates the actual argument that was put forth:

      a) Zelensky has incentives to not be totally forthright in his public statements.

      b) There is other, circumstantial evidence that Trump did demand a quid pro quo.

      1. Unless and until Zelensky says otherwise, his statement that it didn’t happen is persuasive. Is it possible he is lying? Sure but there is no reason to think that he is and no way to tell if he is anyway.

        As far as the other circumstantial evidence, you might want to explain that because I don’t see any such thing. What I see is people making claims that it happened despite having no evidence that it did or factual basis for the claim.

        1. You are seeing only what you want to see.

          1. No. I am asking you to give this circumstantial evidence you claim to exist. And I am saying that Zalensky is to be taken at his word absent some compelling reason to think he is lying.

            So, either explain what this circumstantial evidence you claim exists is and explain what reason there is to not take Zalensky at his word shut you, you fucking lunkhead.

            1. “You fucking lunkhead”

              I’d appreciate it if you could get though a conversation without resorting to insulting me. I never engage in this type of behavior, and I would appreciate reciprocation.

              The circumstantial evidence is the entirety of the all the testimony in the House public and private hearings; public statements by Trump, Giuliani, and others; released phone call transcripts; timelines. I’m not going to summarize all that since you know it all well.

              1. So your evidence boils down to “I assume…” got any evidence beyond OMB?

              2. I know all of it and none of it is circumstantial evidence of anything except Trump’s innocence.

                You are a fucking lunkhead. You are incapable of making a reasoned or honest response to anything.

                1. Yes! Trump is innocent because He is The Chosen One!

                  PROOF positive that Trump ***IS*** Thje Chosen One!!!

              3. It really isn’t, and you can’t because it doesn’t prove a goddamn thing. You just hate Trump and you’re generally full of shit anyway, so why not make up stupid shit like this?

                You’ve got nothing, because there is nothing. Wishing won’t make it happen either. No matter how hard you wish.

            2. John, can you name names as to who has been turned into a pod person in the RP since all of the Republicans on the Senate Intel Comte agreed it was Russia who tried to influence the 2016 election? Ridiculous, John, it was Ukraine and CROWDSTRIKE!.

              Who has been turned into a fascist Obama-supporting alien insect from the Planet Mongo, John? Who?

              1. They hired some facebook trolls. Everyone knows that dumb ass. Repeating it like it matters isn’t going to make them care or convince anyone to think you are not a fucking lunatic.

                Can you give me the name of the pod person who took your brain?

              2. “it was Ukraine and CROWDSTRIKE!.”
                Fuck you.
                It was BOTH Russia AND Ukraine, you lying asshole.

                And the crux of the whole “Crowdstrike” debacle is why wouldn’t the DNC let the EBI examine the server? Nothing suspicious at all about having your own service on retainer prevent the Feds from seeing the suspect data …

                1. Except for the fact that breaking in to a private electronic mail server is illegal, what is the big deal about Podesta and the DNC’s e-mails being revealed?
                  How was exposing the game being rigged against Bernie, which was all that came from those e-mails, in any way helpful to Donald Trump?
                  Just because the DNC was exposed as not being particularly honest, which most of the country knows, anyway, doesn’t tip the election in Trump’s favor.
                  IOW; The Russian “hack” was meaningless.

                  1. I consider the hacking of the DNC servers to have been an act of journalism that informed the American public.

                    1. That incident is the lynchpin used by the Dems for their years-long vendetta against Trump.

                    2. I have always thought their Russia probe was a dumb move on their part. For one thing, it kept the corruption of the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campain front and center in the news, instead of letting it go down the memory hole (which would have been the smart thing for Democratic leadership to do).

            3. John : “No. I am asking you to give this circumstantial evidence you claim to exist. And I am saying that Zalensky is to be taken at his word absent some compelling reason to think he is lying”

              I guess you can take John’s statement as simple ignorance, though it’s hard to believe someone relentlessly posting on this issue could be that dumbass stupid on the facts. It’s far easier to assume bad faith, but that’s between John and his conscience.

              (1) On 10July (weeks before the phone call shakedown) one of Zelensky’s major aides, Andriy Yermak, was in Washington, accompanied by Oleksandr Danyliuk, the head of Ukraine’s national security and defense council. In a White House meeting before a roomful of witnesses, the Ukrainians were told any summit between Trump & Zelensky depended on a public announcement of an investigation focused on Biden. “Public” was the key factor here; Gordon Sondland actually demanded a written commitment from Zelensky to publicly announce this “investigation” as a summit prerequisite. This drove Bolton from the meeting saying “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” So, sure, Zelensky now spins to keep his besieged country clear of Trump’s cesspit mess, but he couldn’t be unaware of the pressure to make a Trump reelection campaign ad.

              (2) Another Yermak-related bit of testimony : Kurt Volker (former U.S. special envoy), was at a Ukrainian political function in September. He was talking with Zelensky’s aide, trying to discourage the new government from prosecuting Ukraine’s previous president. Volker warned this would sow deep societal divisions. He testified that Yermak responded, “You mean like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden?” Kurt claims he was “puzzled” by this statement. Of course Volker’s strategy to pull himself out of Trump’s cesspit mess is to own an extremely implausible cluelessness.

              (3) Trump told everyone to go to Rudy Giuliani to learn his demands – including President Zelensky himself. “He just kept saying: Talk to Rudy, talk to Rudy,” testified Sondland. In a Wall Street Journal interview, Rick Perry said President Trump directed him to discuss Ukrainian concerns with Giuliani in early spring, .

              Meanwhile, Giuliani and his two low-grade crook bagmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, had trampling the ground in Ukraine well back into 2018, looking for manufactured dirt on the Bidens. Some of their contacts include disgraced prosecutor Viktor Shokin, Nazar Kholodnitsky, the head of Ukraine’s Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (himself forced to resign after wiretaps exposed his corruption), Shokin’s replacement as top prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, exiled oligarch Dmytro Firtash, billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.

              What are the odds Zelensky was unaware of DJT’s demands, given Trump’s chosen mouthpiece & fixer had been bigfoot-blundering around Zelensky’s country for well over a year, loudly demanding dirt on Biden?

              (4) Ukrainian news media reports Zelensky was prepared to give the Trump campaign exactly the public “investigation” announcement extorted by Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, Perry, Volker, etc…

              Zelensky scheduled a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria on 13Sept to provide the payoff. But then came an outcry from senators over the frozen aid, and the first word of an investigation by House Democrats. Trump released $400 million. Zelensky immediately canceled the interview….

              1. Fan fiction boy is back.

                1. I don’t even read his shit. It’s homogeneously dishonest bullshit. The sick thing is, he probably convinced himself most of it is true.

      2. b) There is other, circumstantial evidence that Trump did demand a quid pro quo.

        Stop lying.

    3. Only a fucking idiot— and you fit the bill— couldn’t see the logic in how Ukraine is handling this. They aren’t fools. You are, apparently.

    4. Because if the witch denies being a witch it’s the surest sign she IS a witch. Plus if she weighs the same as a duck. Let’s get Trump on the scales and get it over with.

    5. Impeachment logic:

      V: So, why do witches burn?
      (long pause)
      P2: Cuz they’re made of… wood?
      V: Gooood.
      (crowd congratulates P2)
      V: So, how do we tell if she is made of wood?
      P1: Build a bridge out of her!
      V: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
      P1: Oh yeah…
      V: Does wood sink in water?
      P1: No
      P3: No. It floats!
      P1: Let’s throw her into the bog! (yeah yeah ya!)
      V: What also floats in water?
      P1: Bread
      P3: Apples
      P2: Very small rocks
      (V looks annoyed)
      P1: Cider
      P3: Grape gravy
      P1: Cherries
      P3: Mud
      King: A Duck!
      (all look and stare at king)
      V: Exactly! So, logically…

      1. If anyone deserves to be yoked to Monty Python’s theater of the absurd, it’s our orange-fried, man-child, dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks, serial-liar, reality-TV-style buffoon of a president.

        You don’t seem the grasp the essential connection tho. Trump’s clownishness is something on the level of one of those M-Python cartoon interludes. Trump’s oblivious moronic stupidity is the stuff of dozens of skits by Chapman, Idle, GilliamJones, Cleese, and Palin

        (not Sarah. You’re quite a bit oblivious yourself, so I thought I’d better make that clear…..)

        1. That awkward moment when the shitlib admits his side got beat by a clown.

    6. The greatest evidence of all is no evidence at all. Just ask religious hucksters from the beginning of human history. You can’t debunk what doesn’t exist.

  7. Given that prospect, anything Zelenskiy says about Trump’s alleged abuse of power in pressuring Ukraine to conduct investigations that would be politically useful to him has to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Keep in mind that if Zelenskiy were to testify under oath that Trump definitively delivered a quid pro quo, Trump could be impeached and the Democrats would be so grateful for the help in getting rid of the OMB that they would shower Ukraine with as much as they could ask for. Zelenskiy holds a trump card and given that prospect, anything he says about Trump’s alleged abuse of power in pressuring Ukraine to conduct investigations that would be politically useful to him has to be taken with a grain of salt.

    1. Yeah I don’t think the Repubs would forget and would hold up any money in the Senate. Just like how the Dems didn’t forget Donald Trumps’ birther shit, which I believe first and foremost is why they are grasping at any shit to throw his way.

      Politicians forget friends but never forgive enemies.

      1. A lot of Republicans in Congress would like to get rid of Trump too. Moreover, no matter what they thought, if Zelensky ever did that, it would more likely make aid to Ukraine politically untouchable. What Republican is going to stand up and try and punish Ukraine out of what would clearly be just a desire for revenge.

    2. The part about Zelensky testifying under oath in a Congressional hearing — is that a realistic possibility?

      1. No. But his people certainly could. Moreover, if Zelensky is lying and he did feel this, why didn’t anyone in his government complain about it to their numerous allies in the State Department. The Democrats have yet to produce a single witness who says the Ukrainians expressed any concern or thought this is what is occurring.

        1. We all know that the Ukrainians didn’t initiate this inpeachment inquiry. The Democratically-controlled house did, with all kinds of political motivations.

          That being said, it doesn’t mean Trump didn’t do what they accuse him of doing.

          1. You miss the point. this all happened before the impeachment inquiry. If the Ukrainian government felt that they were being extorted, why didn’t anyone in that government say so to any one of the numerous allies they had in the State Department. How could they not have? The fact that they didn’t is the dog that didn’t bark here and about as conclusive proof of a negative as you could ever get.

            1. Ukrainians were starting to inquire about what had happened to expected aid. I don’t have the exact time line in front of me to refer to.

              1. “Ukrainians were starting to inquire about what had happened to expected aid. ”

                Yes, the glass beads and blankets from the Obama Administration were running out.

                And not nearly as effective as Javelins.

              2. Laura Cooper testified about emails dated July 25 — the day of the Trump-Zelensky phone call — inquiring about the military aid.

                1. Thanks for getting back to us with that JeffMike.

              3. I heard the Ukrainians where starting to inquire as to why US law enforcement had no interest in the evidence they had on Hillary. They actually tried to send some people to the US to hand deliver it to the FBI, but one of the fired ambassadors personally intervened to deny them visas.

                1. That’s interesting, and they shouldn’t have oughta done that, and if Hillary broke laws it should be looked into.

                  Having said that: it’s going off on a whataboutist tangent.

            2. Why didn’t they lodge a complaint with the state department?

              The Ukrainians were ready to announce the investigation because the pressure was working. If facts even mattered to you you’d have known this already.

              1. The Ukrainians were ready to announce the investigation because the pressure was working.

                Pod must have consulted his tried-and-true chicken bones for this prognostication.

                  1. CNN! The arbiters of truth who never lie to hurt our president!

                    1. Nowhere near as bad as Fox, just on the ratio of news v commentary.

                      Did Chris Wallace lie, when he exposed Trump’s bankruptcies for what they actually were?

                      Did Judge Nap lie when he said Trump had committed several impeachable offenses?

            3. “You miss the point.“

              Yeah that’s kinda his thing.

              1. Yeah, kind of like the kid watching the Emperor parade buy in his underwear missed the point in “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. I just keep failing to see how Trump is an innocent victim crusading against corruption, being persecuted by the Deep State because they don’t want the swamp to be drained.

        2. Why would I want the orchestrators of meddling in the 2016 election anywhere near Washington DC, John? Sometimes I think you don’t fully understand the Ukrainian threat, man.

          1. Are you denying the INFINITELY greater meddling by Russia>

  8. Yes, Jacob. Let us not be deceived by the words of the individuals who were party to the conversation, but let us be enlightened by the truth of your divination.

    Do you fucking retards have any idea how much of a fucked up cult you look like?

    1. When your entire case for impeachment is premised upon reading people’s minds, then reading people’s minds is what you’ve got to do to prove your case. Take it as an article of faith that reading people’s minds is possible, and the possibilities are endless. Suspend your disbelief, for reason is unnecessary in an extra-legal, quasi-political proceeding. Standards are for evidence; knowing is for truth. And we are only interested in the truth, sir.

      1. The entire case is based on what amounts to a charge of extortion. The claim is that Trump tried to extort Ukraine into investigating Biden by withholding aid money.

        The problem is they are trying to make a case for extortion when the people who are alleged to have been extorted deny it happened. How can you make a case for a crime that the victim claims didn’t occur and you have no direct evidence like a confession or smoking gun from the defendant that says he did it? You can’t, not a reasonable one anyway.

        But Sullumn is a lying hack who lacks the integrity and moral courage to tell that truth. So, he just repeats one absurd talking point after another.

        1. Yet conditions are placed on aid all the time and it’s not called extortion.

          1. We all know the accusations, so let’s not pretend we do not. The accusation is that Trump attached conditions to the aid that would benefit his Presidential campaign.

            1. How exactly would hurting Joe Biden help his Presidential campaign during a period when the Dems had over 20 candidates and primary/caucus season hasn’t even started yet?

              1. The larger criminal conspiracy involved using Russian mob money to jumpstart DOJ investigations hence “announce the investigations and get with Barr”. Mob money has been buying off Republican lawyers and Republican politicians and feeding this pathetic collection of traitors and useful idiots disinformation straight from the Russian govt. Underneath it all are hateful idiots like John willing to excuse, obfuscate, lie, distort virtually anything that threatens this temporary hold on political power.

                1. Lol
                  Do the Ds even realize how badly people who buy all their bs make them look?
                  Sqrlsy, Mike Laursen, grb, John, pod…
                  Yep, great marketing!

                  1. *”John” should read “hihn”.
                    Damn you autocorrect!
                    And apologies to John

                2. Lol. So much nonsense in such a short post.

                3. HAHAHA, yes, Republicans are Russian puppets.

                  The 80’s called and want their foreign policy back. Who said that?

                  Was it Romney?

                  1. It was Oliver North! Trump is wanting to pardon Oliver, in the hopes that Oliver will then campaign for Trump!

                    1. Pretty sure it was Obama that said it, and also pretty sure it was Obama’s State department under Hillary Clinton that was trying to ‘reset’ relations with Russia.

                      Curious, for such stanch anti-Putin types that want to defend the nation from Russian encroachment via the Republican party.

                      I’d roll my eyes, but I think I might sever my optic nerve with how much it would have to roll to communicate my level of disbelief.

                    2. This joke is…you guessed it, not funny.

                    3. Yes, R Mac, all of the readers are rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off at your witty, humorous critique! Now go out on the street and brag to all passers-by about it, and amuse them, as well!

                    4. Orange Man Bad gets another one.

                    5. Nah, watching you cry is reward enough.

                4. Pod, YOU are a traitor. All progressives are. Treason is the exclusive province of the left. You’re not real Americans.

                  And the ones doing the bidding of the Russians are Democrats. Obama got caught on a hit mic admitting to it, and the Clintons got paid off after Bill’s private visit to Putin for Hillary to sell them our uranium.

                  If you want to see a traitor, go look in the mirror. Your kind always root for America to fail anyway.

              2. Biden is a leader in the polls for winning the Democratic nomination, but even if he weren’t any dirt dug up on any opponent’s campaign helps the Trump campaign. Not to mention there’s plain old spitefulness as a possible motivation.

                1. Simply replace the names and your statement becomes hilarious.

                  Trump is a leader in the polls for winning the Republican nomination, but even if he weren’t any dirt dug up on any opponent’s campaign helps the Clinton campaign.

                  And that was totes legal and even involved Federal agencies and secret courts!

                  1. I thought we were taking about Trump and the Ukraine matter. When did I ever state my support for Hillary Clinton or claim her campaign hasn’t done anything unethical or illegal?

                    1. I was making a joke in that the case you lay out already happened and was already determined to be totally legal even while it involved secret courts and unattributed campaign opposition research being the basis for investigating a Presidential contender.

                      In fact, Trump would seem to be well within his rights to use his personal campaign opposition research to apply for a FISA warrant on Biden and any other Democrat he cares to investigate.

                      Right? I mean, why not? Obama literally did that with no repercussions whatsoever, and he still draws a government paycheck to boot. Hell, it’s even considered bad form to look into it at all. Curious.

                    2. Oh, and for the record, it would appear that Trump could use foreign sources and pay for them even knowing them to be false and that is still totally legitimate and fine for purposes of obtaining a FISA warrant to investigate Biden.

                      He even has essentially the same fig leaf of legitimacy the prior administration had in ordering an investigation of Trump.

                      Irony, thy name is Trump.

                2. even if he weren’t any dirt dug up on any opponent’s campaign helps the Trump campaign.

                  What a fantastic post hoc argument.

            2. But he’s allowed to do that, so long as he’s got a legitimate reason for the conditions, too. When political interest and the cause of justice align, we’re supposed to be happy, not tell justice to take a hike.

              The whole idea of democracy is to make people do the right thing by making doing the right thing politically beneficial!

              1. No, he’s not allowed to do that. Thus the current impeachment hearings. Trump could have established a legitimate investigation of Burisma within the Department of Justice, but he cowboyed his way through it impulsively.

                1. …by having Zelensky talk to the Attorney General?

                  1. The Department of Justice could have reached out to Ukraine for the parts of the investigation that need Ukrainian cooperation. In addition, they could investigate parts of the case that happened domestically, or in China, if the evidence led to looking into Biden’s activities there.

        2. It is not uncommon for the victim of a crime to be reluctant to talk about it for fear of retribution.

          1. Come on, Jacob.
            This isn’t the clerk at the Circle K, it’s the President of the Ukraine.
            If it was Obama instead of Trump you be laughing your ass off at that kind of innuendo.

            1. You presumably read the transcript and saw how Zelensky kissed Trump’s ass.

              Oh you’re so great Trump. I copied your brilliance and that’s why I won my election. Oh Trump I even stayed in your hotel when I visited America but I’m sure knew that already. Oh you (falsely) assert that the Europeans have never helped us? Of course that’s true. Everything you say is perfect. Can we buy missiles from your defense contractors campaign contributors? Oh you want investigations? That question is completely within my control now now that I’m the president of Ukraine.

              1. Pod is Adam Schiff.

              2. You presumably read the transcript and saw how Zelensky kissed Trump’s ass

                More recently, yesterday or the day before …HE KICKED TRUMP’S ASS.

                To HIM a quid pro quo is NOT the issue … the issue is how Trump treated an ALLY … an ally facing a severe threat from Russia.

                NAILED HIS LYIN’ ASS.

          2. Right. Pretty much the whole reason Title IX kangaroo courts are now policy on campus. They don’t care even if the alleged victim doesn’t want to press charges, because there “might” be some coercion. They change the rules so evidence doesn’t matter because, hey, they’re often isn’t any. But Justice!

  9. this is so Orwellian. not admitting is admitting, no QPQ is QPQ. lots of people are hearing dog whistles that no one is blowing. facts are no longer facts but fake news is truth.

  10. Trump is a thuggish bully. Who knew?

    1. Hihn is sockpuppeting welfare leeching obsolete old piece of subhuman shit. who knew!

      1. Wow (adoring eyes)
        How adult!!!


      2. “Hihn is sockpuppeting welfare leeching obsolete old piece of subhuman shit. who knew!”

        Um … everybody.

    2. ^ Hihn, on meds, hence no bold face.

      1. He appears to cycle up and down. I suspect he has to sneak out of his room to use a computer. He belongs in hospice.

  11. Shame that there are people dumber than Trump who keep him in power.

    1. Who else would even want to?

  12. Sigh….Hard to follow all the gyrations here.

    One, POTUS Trump said there was no quid pro quo. He was on the call.
    Two, Zelensky said there was no pressure to do anything. He was on the call.
    Three, the call transcript was released (incredibly). There is nothing there.
    Four, the aid to Ukraine was released prior to the end of the FY.

    I mean, the bureacrats testifying the policy POTUS Trump was pursuing wasn’t inter-agency policy is what we are arguing over now.

    Legally, there is nothing. It is all politics. Mr. Sullum should at least be honest about it.

    1. Trump’s own transcript shows a quid pro quo. FAKE NEWS
      5 witnesses have confirmed one, under oath. FAKE NEWS
      Severe denial is a mental disorder. FAKE NEWS

      1. What happened? Forgot the bold tags? Or did they administer your daily meds and this is your calmer self?

        1. “Trump’s own transcript shows a quid pro quo.” FAKE NEWS
          “5 witnesses have confirmed one, under oath.” FAKE NEWS
          “Severe denial is a mental disorder”. FAKE NEWS

          1. I see it’s wearing off.

            Thanks for admitting:
            “Trump’s own transcript shows a quid pro quo.” [<- THIS IS] FAKE NEWS
            “5 witnesses have confirmed one, under oath.” [<- THIS IS] FAKE NEWS
            “Severe denial is a mental disorder”. FAKE NEWS [=Hihn is in denial]

            1. He’s so fucking crazy it’s funny

            2. (LOL) Fake news is your dumbfuck response.


              1. “Trump’s own transcript shows a quid pro quo.” FAKE NEWS
                “5 witnesses have confirmed one, under oath.” FAKE NEWS
                “Severe denial is a mental disorder”. FAKE NEWS

                Here is where Hihn admits it’s fake news, then says he didn’t say this, lol.

                1. NOT WHAT I REPLIED, ASSHOLE.

    2. Let’s just start with the first claim: Trump made his “no quid pro quo” denial to Sondland after the story went public. In fact, he made it on the same day the House hearings started. Recently, it has come out that the White House has no record of a phone call between Trump and Sondland that day.

      1. So you’re saying that Sondland is lying? Or what?

        The last Democratic talking point was that Sondland put the final nail in Trump’s coffin.

        Can you at least get your story straight?

        1. I don’t know if Sondland is lying or telling the truth. I was just restating what has been reported in the news.

        2. I’m not a Democrat, so I don’t repeat Democrat’s talking points.

          Some of their talking points are obvious spin: for example, “Biden didn’t do anything wrong.” Now, it’s possible Biden didn’t do anything illegal, but his not objecting to his son holding the position on the Burisma board was unethical.

          1. “I’m not a Democrat

            I guess you aren’t technically, but wasn’t Johnson essentially one?

            Jacob Sullum
            Who did you vote for in 2012?

            Gary Johnson.
            What will you miss most about the Obama years?
            Obama has a sincere interest in criminal justice reform


            1. Not sure how we jumped to the subject of Gary Johnson, but he was a Libertarian candidate.

              1. And Bill Weld was his running mate

                1. Any idea why Fancylad ridicules anyone who puts a higher priority on individual liberty?

                  Or the extreme bigotry of assuming ONLY a Democrat would recognize Obama’s genuine leadership in criminal justice reform.

                  Gary Johnson also supports a balanced budget, greatly reduced spending repeal of the corporate income tax .. FAR more Republican positions than Democrat ones. Would knowing that EXPLODE Fanylad’s brain? Since he tanks personality higher than positions,?

                  Bill Weld supports all the positions. Does that explode YOUR brain?

          2. I’m not a Democrat, so I don’t repeat Democrat’s talking points.

            You don’t repeat Democrat talking points because you identify as a Democrat, you repeat Democrat talking points because you’re gullible and ignorant.

          3. I’m not a Democrat, so I don’t repeat Democrat’s talking points.

            Don’t you give people shit below for posting poor logic? Well, this is a pretty obvious example of it if anyone is keeping score.

            In fact, this is a perfect example of a formal logical fallacy. “I’m not a fish, therefore I don’t fly.” Uh huh. Tell me more.

            I agree with your second point, but I suspect you throw that out as a red herring more than any real belief in that point of view.

            1. It’s not a red herring. It’s my personal opinion.

      2. Sondland testified that his statement of call it quid pro quo was just his presumption.

        Trump’s denial doesn’t really matter much. He need not prove innocence. We need solid proof that it was. Not opinions.

        1. At least some commenters have said that Trump’s “no quid pro quo” denial settled everything.

          1. Most commenters seem skeptical of hearsay evidence and points out inconsistencies between people’s statements and testimony.

            I’m not aware of anyone saying Trump said it and that’s good enough.


              1. Fantasy land is calling Hihn.

              2. I don’t think that’s true.

            2. They have. I’ll try to remember to provide links to examples tomorrow.

        2. I’m kind of tired of this whole “quid pro quo” thing. It just means “this for that”; You’re engaging in a “quid pro quo” every time you buy a Big Mac and pay the cashier instead of dashing out the door. Our entire economy is based on quid pro quos!

          Whether a “quid pro quo” is admirable, neutral, or criminal depends entirely on the quid, and the quo, and whether you were legally entitled to trade one for the other.

          Trump’s foes keep skipping over that part: They have to establish that Trump wasn’t actually legally allowed to hold up the funding, hard to do when holding up funding is routine. And they have to establish that there was something wrong about demanding the investigation, also hard to do when we have an actual treaty with Ukraine on the topic of cooperation in investigating corruption.

  13. Did this author used to work for MSNBC? Why did Reason hire this clown?

    1. To offset assholes in the commentariat.

      1. Yet, here you are.

        1. To offset assholes in the commentariat.

          Yet, here you are.

          YESS! KICKING YOUR ASS, Geraje!!



          AND MORE!

          1. Also kicking your ass
            HERE, Geraje!

            AND MORE

            1. Yet again HERE, Geraje!

              AND MORE

              1. And HERE,Geraje … where you say you “cannot decipher” a 10th grade reading level comment! … and don’t know what an “unsecured mortgage” means

                AND MORE!

                1. FINALLY! (sigh)
                  … You create a NEW excuse. Geraje, when the original one (reading grade level) EXPLODES … so you post a Reading Grade Level of … 18.8 .. claiming it equivalent to my 10,0 comment … as you falsely equate a 10th grader with a …. COLLEGE GRADUATE!.

                  “To offset assholes in the commentariat”

                  Geraje Guzba
                  Yet, here you are

                  YES! … STILL defending libertarian values after many decades … .from the threats and abuses of authoritarian mentalities/i>

    2. Short answer: Sullum is a libertarian drug enthusiast and has written on Drug War issues for Reason for decades.

  14. I mean…
    Explicit, direct refutation = false claim
    This is really what you’re going with?

    1. He didn’t say “false claim”. He said claim that must be taken with a grain of salt. That means possibly false claim.

      1. Look at the title of the article.
        Have someone read it to you and explain what the meaning of words are.
        Then, get your keys, go to your car, close the garage door, start the car, and ponder what words mean for a few hours

  15. So it’s implied that Zelenskiy fears being punished by Trump for saying the wrong thing, while Trump’s political enemies in the US represent a party that actually punishes people for saying the ‘wrong’ things. This publication is still called “Reason,” right?

    1. Both your claims can be true at the same time, following the rules of logic and reasoning.

      1. How exactly could Trump punish him? Withhold aid? Really? You think Trump could get away with that in such circumstances?

        Both statements could be true but you need to provide an explanation for how they could be.

        1. The point is that either or both party could withhold future aid to Ukraine. Not personal “punishment” of Zelensky, but a falling out of favor between one or both major American political and Ukraine, as a long-term consequence of Zelensky’s saying the wrong thing publicly.

          1. And if it were the case that a Republican President were impeached for withholding aid to Ukraine, it defies all credulity to think that the Republicans would then think they could get away with trying to take revenge on Ukraine.

            1. Sullum addresses that the most likely result of all this is an attempted, and failed, impeachment. That would embolden the Republicans.

              1. Sullum addresses that the most likely result of all this is an attempted, and failed, impeachment. That would embolden the Republicans.

                I sure hope so: Republicans need to take bold action against the Democrats if we want to have any sort of free country left in the long term.

              2. And is claim is absurd. Sorry but Sollumn says Nuh huh, is not an argument.

      2. Which logic and which reasoning? Last I checked there are multiple formal systems of both with wildly different assumptions.

  16. Just out of curiosity, has any one determined where the order to suspend the aid to Ukraine came from?

    That would seem to be an important bit of information to establish or refute Trump’s culpability in conditioning the aid with compliance to his wants. Unless I missed it, the order comes from nowhere and is rescinded from nowhere as well.

    1. ”Sandy also explained how OMB communicated with the White House on the matter. The key line of communication was between the Robert Blair — an aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — and Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB. (Duffey was previously the executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin.)“

    2. No. At no time in this have the Democrats ever established that Trump even knew the aid was held up much less that he ordered it and did so for the reasons they claim.

      You would think that proving that Trump ordered the aid to be stopped for the reasons claimed would be an essential element of the Democrats’ proof. Sollumn doesn’t seem to think so, however.

      1. And let’s reiterate: even if Trump had made the aid conditional on an investigation of the Bidens and Ukraine’s interference in US elections, that still would have been OK.

        1. No, it would not. He would be using his office and he aid package to pursue an investigation to dig up dirt on his opponent in the 2020 Presidential race. If he wanted to seriously set up an investigation of Burisma, he would have had the Department of Justice conduct a legitimate investigation.

      2. To trace the holdup of aid any closer to Trump than his chief of staff might well reasonably require the testimony of said chief of staff and others within the White House. This is the problem with the “it’s all hearsay” argument.

        1. It’s not a problem with the “it’s all hearsay” argument, it’s a problem with the case you’re trying to make

      3. It is essential, but the time for proof is the Senate trial. The Senate can, for one thing, compel witnesses to testify that have refused to testify in the hearings.

    3. In general, the answer to your questions are in the recently-released Mark Sandy testimony.

      1. No they are not. Sandy thought that but he he never heard Trump say that and admits it was his speculation.

        1. Slow down. I didn’t say that Sandy’s testimony proved a link to Trump. I just quoted an accurate summary of his testimony — that it traces the hold back to Mulvaney’s staff and no further.

          1. Which is just hearsay and speculation.

            1. Not in the case of Sandy’s testimony. It is dry, first-hand testimony from a boring career accountant with no reason to lie about anything. And he doesn’t claim anything extraordinary or shocking — just says that his boss, Duffy [I think?], communicated with some guy on Mulvaney’s staff.

              1. Which is second hand information and speculation on his part. Giving an example of how it is second hand and speculation just proves me point. How can you not understand that?

                1. His testimony (I’ve read the entire transcript) is scrupulously firsthand and doesn’t make any big claims. He just talks about the timeline do what happened in his office, and communications with other agencies and the White House. Sandy made no claims tracing anything back to Trump; he only traces back to Mulvaney’s staff, which isn’t even a controversial claim.

  17. So I take it the Ukranian government has gotten past the stunning loss of their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton and have fully embraced Trump.

    1. We all know you’re a typical Trumptard.
      Here, you seem to have swallowed the BLATANT bullshit that CrowdStike is owned by a rich Ukrainian … so you’ve been MONUMENTALLY suckered … AGAIN

      1) It’s a publicly traded corporation, based in Sunnyvale California

      2) There is not a shred of evidence that Hillary’s server is in Ukraine. Umm, WHY WOULD IT HAVE TO BE? Have you never formatted (erased) a hard drive?

      3) The DNC was hacked … less than 24 hours after Trump publicly invited Russia (npt Ukraine) to find Hillary’s missing emails. .

      How cm you possibly trust a President who
      1) LIED to deny neo-nazis and white supremacists initiated the mass assaults in Charlottesville. And accused “the MSM” of LYING about who started it.

      2) Is the worst President EVER on federal debt — having ALREADY added more 8-year debt than Obama did AFTER 9 years (CBO 2024 forecast) ,,, when Obama had inherited the worst recession since the 1930s … but handed Trump the longest recovery EVER for an incoming PresiDent … WHEN TRUMP HAD CAMPAIGNED ON PAYING OFF THE ENTIRE DEBT IN 8 YEARS … would YOU pay off all YOUR debt by … BORROWING MORE THAN YOU EVER HAD?

      3) Ran on a 60% tax cut … for himself and just a few of the 1%. He’d have been a billionaire paying a maximum personal income tax of … 15% … ON TOP OF HIS LOOPHOLE EXEMPTION FOR 100% OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX …. ummmm … what’s YOUR marginal tax rate?

      On short, how much abuse are you willing to accept and defend, by maintaining loyalty to the power elites … over loyalty to America? And to individual liberty.?

      No better than the tribal left.

      1. Batshit crazy.



          IS THE SKY FALLING???

          TO BE FAIR (TO YOU) Diane’s fuckup is far worse than yours.


            Lol. No, I’m definitely not saying anything like that. It doesn’t even make sense.

        1. OMFG …
          OMFG ….
          OMFG …

          So I take it the Ukranian government has gotten past the stunning loss of their preferred candidate, Hillary


          Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don’t think we’ve ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we’ve seen in this case.”

          There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.


          1. Cool story.
            There’s better fictional plots out there, but if you create some compelling characters maybe you can pull off a Jack Ryan type novel

              SEE IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES!

              Click her link.
              Do page search for the first three or four words I cited.
              That will take you to the paragraphs I quote,


              And, remember, it was DIANE who linked to something SHE never read.

              THAT says all you need to know about the “integrity” of a Trumptard

              1. Incoherent.

          1. It’s funny when you link to your own comments as proof.

            1. It’s funny when you link to your own comments as proof.

              It’s funnier that you’re too stupid to know the proof is AT that link.

              Anyone who clicks the link will see PROOF that R Mac fucked up AGAIN.

              Even crazier … click the link .. then see the same R Mac’s reply to DOCUMENTED PROOF …. as I said, “whining like a pussy.”

              Is he THAT big a phony. Click the link (snort)

              1. Lol. Thanks Hihn, a good laugh to start the day.

  18. I think one of the most interesting things to come about from the Trump presidency is the all-to-common political analysis involving the concept of “I know this is what he/she said, but here’s what they really meant.”

    1. The have the narrative right, they just got the facts wrong. That is all that is going on here. Sollumn has a narrative to push and he is going to claim every bit of evidence no matter how contrary supports it.

    2. Sorry, accidentally hit the button that flags your comment for review. Not sure Reason ever pays attention to those flags anyway.

      1. Reason ignores those flags … FRAUDULENTLY … unless they recently changed their practices. Here’s how to check.

        1) Do you see am insert (or a replacement banner) saying the comment is under review?

        2) You may still be the ONLY one who sees that … everyone else has seen the complete, unmarked comment.

        3) It’s YOUR cookies being racked, which is HOW the fraud is committed.

        4) To see if he fraud still exists (I have proof of several dozen), load the same page in a different BRAND browser — if the “review” notice is still visible (unlikely), then delete all THAT browser’s cookies and clear its cache. (Using a different browser preserves all your cookies.

        (I shall now take a screenshot of this page, as proof, in case this is deleted … and have made official notice that I am gathering such evidence of fraud (and other things). This is no longer the Reason I’ve been reading for 50 years.

        1. Did your tinfoil hat tell you this cute story?

          1. Did you try the PROOF? (snort)

            1. What proof?

              1. He snorted it

              2. What proof?


                Here’s how to check.

                1) Do you see am insert (or a replacement banner) saying the comment is under review?

                2) You may still be the ONLY one who sees that … everyone else has seen the complete, unmarked comment.

                3) It’s YOUR cookies being racked, which is HOW the fraud is committed.

                4) To see if he fraud still exists (I have proof of several dozen), load the same page in a different BRAND browser — if the “review” notice is still visible (unlikely), then delete all THAT browser’s cookies and clear its cache. (Using a different browser preserves all your cookies.

                Anything else you fucked up?

        2. “This is no longer the Reason I’ve been reading for 50 years.”


          So when do you go away?

          1. Authoritarian Right CHEERS the silencing of individual liberty.

            “This is no longer the Reason I’ve been reading for 50 years.”


            As we hear singing in the background
            “Trumpland, Trumpland, ub-er al-les, über alles in der Welt …”
            And barely audible, Bernie Sanders singing, “My country ’tis of me …”

  19. It’s totally a false claim. That’s why Zelenskiy states that he doesn’t understand the accusations being made in the impeachment proceedings.
    Journalism in 2019.

    1. Bullshit

  20. Trump Once Again Falsely Claims That Ukraine’s President Has Exonerated Him of Abusing His Powers for Personal Gain

    The transcript shows no quid-pro-quo or personal gain.

    The timing shows no quid-pro-quo or personal gain.

    Zelensky doesn’t know of any quid-pro-quo or personal gain.

    A dozen hand-selected, witnesses hostile to Trump were unable to provide any evidence of a quid-pro-quo or personal gain.

    But Sullum and other people with TDS still insist that Trump needs to be “exonerated”, because they believe Trump is guilty no matter what.

    1. A dozen hand-selected, witnesses hostile to Trump were unable to provide any evidence of a quid-pro-quo or personal gain

      Do you have no conscience at all? Or just eagerly brainwashed?

      1. Unlike you, I have both a conscience and the ability to reason. They make a good combination. You lack both, of course, which leads to you not only behaving like a crazy person, but also adopting totalitarian political positions.

        1. but also adopting totalitarian political positions.

          (snort) Name just one.

    2. Some may have been hostile. Certainly some, such as Sondland were Trump appointees and friendly, while others, such as Sandy, were disinterested parties. Those closest to Trump have not testified.

      1. The fact that somebody is a Trump appointee doesn’t establish that they were friendly; It’s clear that the GOP establishment was feeding Trump moles early on, who’d be working for them and not Trump.

        That’s the problem coming in as an outsider: You have no list of people who know the jobs you have to hire for, so you have to trust the very people you were elected to fight to help you with your staffing decisions.

        1. He’s an outsider … and a repeated FAILURE at basic management skills …. with EVERY actual business having failed … and the ONLY President EVER forced to pay a $25 million settlement, for FRAUD …. while in office.

          REAL leaders recruit people SMARTER than themselves, for the position being filled … not the best french-kisser of their own ass …which is WHY all Trump’s best people are now gone.

          The again, with Trump’s ship sinking, one can almost understand his compulsive need for blind loyalists.

  21. Over Thanksgiving I got to judge the success of the differing impeachment narratives using my personal weather-vane for all things Democrat – my in-laws. They are white, retired, blue-collar, Kennedy democrats who favor Joe Biden (and maybe Bloomburg) and who watched all the hearings. They are an almost perfect representation of the non-twitterati democratic base who needs to be persuaded for impeachment to not hurt swing-district dems.

    The two main takeaways I got from them was:

    1. They [the democrats] are trying to draw a very thin line between what is/is not acceptable political behavior. Trump may have done something shady, but not so shady it’s different from what they expect from other politicians.

    2. They [my in-laws] had no idea what Hunter Biden was doing holding down a job like that.

    Make of that what you will.

    1. Initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking with clubs, against peaceful protesters
      1) “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
      2) Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
      3) Alt-right fascists wearing nazi helmets (President asshole said the alt-left had black helmes. FIND EVEN ONE)
      4) Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

      Next, THE SMOKING GUN … PROOF Trump is a lying sack of shit .. a DISGRACE to the Presidency, and to American values … from his own DOJ!



        4 men charged in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’

        Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization “Rise Above Movement.”

        A fourth defendant, Cole Evan White, will be sentenced at a later date, the attorney’s office said.

        “These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California,” U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

        “They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies.”

        Watch this thread. Trump’s not the only psycho on the alt-right.

        1. So much crazy it’s hard to keep straight.

          1. Watch this thread. Trump’s not the only psycho on the alt-right.

            Or the only one to deny .. absolute proof

            1. What proof?

              1. Watch this thread. Trump’s not the only psycho on the alt-right.

                R Mac
                What proof

                Um the text I quoted, and the video I described …. Each with a link.

                HONEST people provide a link to a quoted sources, so that ANYONE can confirm that the cited words or video are accurate.

                However this assumes the reader KNOWS WHAT A LINK IS … and this is the third time, on this page, that you don’t know what a link is!!!

                I shall TRY to educate you.

                On this comments platform, links atre … UNDERLINED!!!
                Underlining looks like THIS:
                4 men charged in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’

                Now,are you also ignorant of the fundamental facts on this issue?
                Are you REALLY ignorant that

                1) Trump said it was the “alt-left” which initiated the mass assaults and murder in Charlottesville?

                2) Trump said it was the ALT-LEFT that were wearing “black helmets” (nazi helmets) and the ALT-LEFT that charged his nazi and racists base, swinging clubs.

                NOW YOU’D KNOW … if you knew what a link is .. that Trump is PROVEN a fuckjing liar on that … BY HIS OWN DOJ … and ACTUAL VIDEO.

                AND Trump’s IMPEACHABLE LIE falsely defended neo-nazis and white supremacists.

                ***ARE YOU ALSO CLUELESS THAT …

                PLUS, VIDEO PROOF that Trump is a fucking liar, ALSO linked (lol) in my comment immediately above the comment you could not grasp. The video link and description are at this time line. December.2.2019 at 6:48 pm (if you also need help finding that)

                So …. click those links for UNDENIABLE PROOF of an impeachable offense by Trump.

                And know that severe denial — of undeniable proof — is a mental affliction. But common among loyal puppets on both the left and right … (who would otherwise have to admit they were shamefully manipulated by the political elites. Thus, worthy of the ridicule I have now completed.

                1. P.S. Completing the INDENIABLE prroof … a video of the full press conference, where Trump uttered his now proven bullshit

                  The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating PROVEN lies at press conference… as the snotty punk he is.

                  “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

                  Trump lied … shamelessly — to defend Nazi and racist assaults. SHOUTS DOWN news media – as he always does when guilty. Calls them LIARS. “I watched it all on television … SO DID YOU.”

                  BULLSHIT. Nobody watched it. NO news cameras at the assault. News reports broadcast what they called “personal videos” (cell phone videos??). NONE recorded the actual assault. Personal videos of the actual assault surfaced later . .. like the one I linked to. (smirk)

                  That’s WHY the President’s “worst” act was saying “… good people on both sides.” At the time, proof of his fascist/racist lies had not yet been found.

                  Again, all this proof is being submitted to all major media outlets … and the appropriate House committees dealing with impeachment.

                  You cas piss and moan, whine, snarl and deny all you like. But in 10-15 minutes, REAL Americans will KNOW Trump is a disgrace to his office, to the country, and to NON-fascists/racists. He must go … followed by at least four criminal charges when he becomes indictable.

                  (laughing at you and your pathetic bullshit)

                  1. P.S. R Mac

                    THE UNDERLINED WORDS ARE A LINK.

                    A source is what you people have NONE of.

  22. When the alleged victim of a crime insists that the alleged crime did not happen, that’s generally cause to drop the prosecution.

    1. The American people are the victim of the crime, and they think he did it.

      1. Huh, so Americans are victims of a crime when we spend less money oversea’s or investigate Democrats.

        Interesting point of view.

        I note that nowhere has anyone said that Trump pressured the Ukrainians to come to a preferred conclusion in their investigation.

        Weird, right, since usually if you’re going to blackmail someone you’d want to blackmail them for what you actually want instead of something open ended that might not help you at all.

        1. When we spend less money overseas propping up a neo-fascist nationalist regime that flagrantly compromised our second-highest elected official. The horror.

          1. I don’t know about any of that, but it’s interesting that Trump would blackmail the Ukraine into investigating Biden but not put any conditions on what finding they should come to.

            Seems like a pretty shitty job of quid pro quo if the Ukraine didn’t find Biden guilty by Trump’s request. And to date, no one has indicated that such a requirement was attached which is pretty mind boggling if any of their claims are true.

            I await a transcript or recording of Trump hinging the Ukraine aid on finding Biden guilty in an investigation created for that purpose, but I suspect I’ll be waiting quite some time for that.

            I don’t see how asking a foreign nation to investigate the son of a Democrat with no strings attached to the finding is a quid pro quo of any impeachable merit on it’s own.

            Maybe if Hunter was obviously qualified for the job he landed I’d be more inclined to believe their narrative, but he’s such an obvious idiot son that it stretches belief that he was hired for anything other than his direct connection to the Vice President of the United States. What they intended to do (at this point, what they did) with that connection is of some public interest.

            All that said, it’s probable there isn’t anything there that’s more actionable than what they’ve said about Trump. I don’t even know how’d you prove that Joe Biden was ‘influenced’ one way or another by his son having direct economic ties to the Ukraine. The boat loads of cash he made obviously don’t meet the standard, so I’m not sure what would. And, to be clear, that the boat loads of cash don’t meet the standard of quid pro quo means I’m not sure how a Trump transcript meets it.

            1. “I don’t know about any of that, but it’s interesting that Trump would blackmail the Ukraine into investigating Biden but not put any conditions on what finding they should come to.”

              Which may be why, by some accounts, Trump cared about getting an *announcement* of an investigation. Embarrassing to Biden, with no downside of waiting for the results of the investigation or that it might clear Biden.

              1. Unfortunately, there is nothing credible about those claims, so referencing them is pointless.

          2. When we spend less money overseas propping up a neo-fascist nationalist regime that flagrantly compromised our second-highest elected official.

            Two problems
            1) There was a major regime change while you were in a coma.
            2) You lie.

            The horror

            The shamelessness (yours)


          1. You shouldn’t watch Fox News you alt-right goober!

        3. Huh, so Americans are victims of a crime when we spend less money oversea’s

          a) Approved by Congress
          b) IN A BILL HE SIGNED,

          or investigate Democrats.

          blah blah blah … lame

      2. The American people are the victim of [Obama’s, Clinton’s, and Biden’s] crimes.

        There, FTFY

  23. I’m so disappointed at the lack of reason shown by so many of the commenters. I really had hopes that Reason would inspire more reason and less shouted hatred for the president.

    1. “Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.”
      Is THAT hateful?

      The assholes are Trump’s puppets … the ONLY ones limited to shouting hatred and personal assaults against provable facts.

      1. ““Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.”
        Is THAT hateful?”


        1. Forget about it, Mac, it’s Hihntown.

          RETARD ALERT!!!

          Goober said:
          “I really had hopes that Reason would inspire more reason and less shouted hatred for the president.

          Which BEGS the question.
          “Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Is THAT hateful?

          1. It doesn’t beg anything like that. At least not in the real world.

            1. Sorry, you hated-spewing goober, but hatred is NOT the sole reason that MOST people disagree politically. Only true the wacko extremes, left and right.

              More relevant here .. it is NOT hatred to assess proven evidence and conclude someone is guilty

              It IS hatred to claim that is why a political opponent disagrees with you … which DERIVES from hatred, both yours and his, for any and all opposing views … which derives from the Authoritarian Mentality (not just yours; also on the extreme right.)

  24. OMG what is this publication coming to?

    Zelensky said he did not know the aid was being withheld at the time of the call. He said he felt no pressure. In a court of law, that’s effectively evidence that help prove his innocence. Who cares if Trump used the term “exonerated”, he’s not a prosecutor.

    “But he had incentive to lie” without facts is pure speculation and the notion that Ukraine was beholden to America’s interest was true even before Trump. Joe Biden threatened to withhold money if their prosecutor wasn’t fired! Are there many nations lining up to give that country money and weapons?

    But impeachment is a political process? OK, but the inquiry is supposed to find impeachable offenses. So far people only testified they thought the aid was withheld for QPQ purposes. Many of them had no connection to the call or even to Trump. Hey, at least one whistleblower failed to disclose earlier collaboration with Schiff prior to approaching the IG, so maybe they’re ALL lying too!

    If Trump was a drug dealer, this is not the position Reason would have taken. Seriously. Trump is an American citizen before he’s president, and the government cannot conduct themselves in this way in the name of fighting corruption.

    1. See Trump’s own REDACTED “transcript”of the call.
      The dumbass cannot even redact well!

      It’s like when Donald Jr, ARROGANTLY posted to his Twitter feed .. emails PROVING that he KNOWINGLY CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT … to help his dad get elected.

      I mean … is the entire family a tribe of retards?

      1. Almost none of what you said above is true. I flag every one of your comments because a ranting of a senile man has no place in a serious discussion.

        I know it’s you Hihn.

        1. (sneer)
          PROOF: XM LOSES
          PROOF: Don Jr. KNOWINGLY conspired with an agent of the Russian government, to help his father’s campaign (Trump Tower)… because Retard Jr. ADMITTED iit!!!

          Trump totally misled the American people on the purpose of the meeting and, when he got caught, claimed he had no advance knowledge of it.

          If he did, that makes him a co-conspirator in treasonous activity.

          “Conspiring” means PLANNING together. Junior released the emails PLANNING the meeting, KNOWING it was on behalf of the Russian government, to help elect his father,

          Wait for it ….

          Donald Junior KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government, KNOWING the Russian government wanted to help his dad win … PROOF as released to the public by ….. wait for it …. DONALD JUNIOR! … dumb as any other Trumptard.

          BWAAAA HAAAA

          Russian invitation to Donald Jr.
          “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

          “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin”.

          (((Source: Donald Trump Jr’s own Twitter feed!!! BWAA HAAA))

          LOCK THEM UP!

          Junior is undeniably guilty. Will his father allow his son to spend the rest of his life in prison. Is Trump THAT evil?

          i know it’s you Hihn.

          I’ve never denied it, chump, and ALWAYS say it myself, if relevant
          I often post links to my published writing.

          I flag every one of your comments because a ranting of a senile man has no place in a serious discussion.


          1. Yeah, but Who killed JFK you crazy SOB?


              1. What proof?

                1. How can you ASSHOLES … deny … for all the world to see … LINKS TO PROOF … because your precious feelings were hurt. Snowflakes are NOT just on the left!

                  R Mac has done so FOUR TIMES on this page. Apparently, he’s not the ONLY one IGNORANT that UNDERLINED WORDS are …. A LINK (that means clicking it leads you to another web page, in this case …. A SOURCE)

                  Unlike you Bellowing Blowhards, who piss, moan, and DENY LINKS TO …. INCON-VEEN-YENT PROOF … ADULTS provide text ot summary to support a position .,. PLUS A LINK TO CONFIRM THE ACCURACY.

                  Youy? Sneer … whiny pussies.


                  BECAUSE R Mac is SO totally ignorant of links, sources and supported arguments … I have posted a more detailed education here … that you all should learn from.


                  Or … just ask any internet-savvy 12-year-old!

                  Or … just keep whining.

              2. That you’re crazy? Case made my man.

                1. Lol. He really is.

          2. I’ve never denied it, chump

            This from the same guy who posted “what’s a Hihn?” whenever someone laughed at him for responding to his own sockpuppets.

            BWAAAA HAAAAAA.

            That was my reaction when I saw that you declared bankruptcy.

            1. Why would anyone care what he thinks when he can’t even remain coherent enough to avoid financial ruin. Get your own house in order buddy.

            2. You forgot to call me a pedophile … with soiled diapers.

              Why do you assume readers are too fucking stupid to see what you do??? EVERYONE you disagree with is
              a) a pedophile
              b) eating shit from their own soiled diapers

              It’s so OBVIOUS how hard you work at being .,.. the nastiest asshole on the page …. ALWAYS evading the actual topic.

              ANYONE who clicks the link will CONFIRM
              1) Donald Jr KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russians, KNOWING they wanted to defeat Hillary.
              2) Which then confirms you are a fucking psycho, punishing even the slightest deviation from your diktats

              (For those who came here on a link from my blog … in my online course on recognizing cyber-bullies … this falls under the fact that cyber-thugs don’t care how crazy they look … they’re online to unleash “zingers” … and the nastier the zinger, the more pride they enjoy … which is WHY they’re also STALKERS … for maximum “revenge zingers” on the people who drive their psycho hatred … which is EVERYONE who DARES to express ANYTHING outside the stalker’s diktats. This one is the authoritarian right, defending even nazis and racists. The authoritarian left defends anti-capitalism and forced equality.

              THIS IS IMPORTANT: They both seek expanded government power, but for different purposes, Libertarians defined them, accurately over 50 years ago.

              The Authoritarian Right wants government out of your wallet … but INTO your bedroom.

              The Authoritarian Left wants government out of your bedroom … but INTO your wallet.

              Gummint first. YOU last, The proof is all down this page, for those with the balls to see it.

              1. ACtually he just pointed out that you were bankrupt and that’s public record be less crazy crazy guy

                that other stuff man you really need to keep that in the bedroom

                1. Public records have links ,.. NOT WHINY ASSHOLES … WHO ASS-UME A PUBLIC RECORD, PURELY FROM TRIBAL BIGOTRY.

                  THIS is how LOS punishes me for reporting TRUMP’S many bankruptcies … and the ONLY President forced to pay a $25 million settlement for FRAUD ,… while in office.

                  that other stuff man you really need to keep that in the bedroom

                  That’s HIS stuff, psycho.


                  (my italics)
                  “I have never gone bankrupt, by the way,” Trump said. “I have never.”

                  Moderator Chris Wallace questioned whether Trump could be trusted to handle the American economy in light of the fact Trump-related businesses have filed for corporate bankruptcy four times since 1991. ….

                  “In 2011, you told Forbes Magazine this: ‘I’ve used the laws of the country to my advantage.’ But at the same time, financial experts involved in those bankruptcies say that lenders to your companies lost billions of dollars,” …. ”Question sir: With that record, why should we trust you to run the nation’s business?”

                  Trump, who stressed that he had never personally gone bankrupt, suggested he merely used legal procedures to his advantage. ((HIS advantage means SCREWING EVERYONR ELSE! Keep reading))

                  “I have used the laws of this country — just like the greatest people that you read about every day in business have used the laws of this country, the chapter laws ((bankruptcy laws)), to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family, et cetera,” Trump said. (((Is going bankrupt best for his company, its investors and vendors … OR HIMSELF?))

                  Wallace dismissed this as Trump’s “line.”

                  Wallace, like his father, and all GREAT journalists, extracts truth for your eyes and ears, and for YOUR judgment,

                  (Here’s what Wallace COULD have said: “Anyone can use the law to their advantage … but that can NEVER include screwing the people who trust you most … your own investors, suppliers and non-family employees. Trump uses the law to EVADE yes … but, by using the law to HIS advantage Trump ESCAPES the damage his failures have inflicted on so many others. That is called gaming the system.“

                  He’s never gone bankrupt personally, only the businesses he managed!! (lol).

                  1) Trump Organization is an LLC. LLCs enjoy the limited liability of a corporation (not personally responsible for debts and damages), but loopholed out of the corporate income tax. (Not always a loophole. Amazon has LLC subsidiaries, because Amazon pays the corporate tax … the tax Trump never pays. THAT is the loophole )

                  2) Every penny of Trump Organization’s revenues and profits are reported as personal income on his personal return, AND he campaigned on a 60% tax cut for himself! … on top of his 100% corporate loophole! He’d have been a billionaire paying a marginal (top) tax rate of 15%. What’s your top tax rate, sucker?

                  Yes, he’s quite good as using the law to his best advantage. But when he says “all the greatest people do it every day” … No ACTUAL great person fucks those who trust them most!

                  His LLC structure protects him from personal liability — like corporate bankruptcies — but still allows him to pay only a personal income tax .. on corporate profits. (Deep weeds: a shareholder in Amazon pays the corporate income tax– reduces her share of corporate assets —
                  then a personal income tax when the same profits are distributed to owners as dividends. We are the only major economy that taxes dividends.) (What Wallace missed, a Trump bankruptcy, Chapter 7, wipes out all his investors)

                  So ….Donald J Trump is a Welfare Mooch … corporate welfare and crony capitalism. “The swamp” includes corporate welfare and crony capitalism, as we libertarians have been saying for decades. Any questions, Fangible and Last of the Shitheads, and all other LOSERS?

              2. “eating shit from their own soiled diapers”

                Nobody wants to hear about your disturbing eating habits.

              3. Is that online course why you went bankrupt? You and Trump have a lot more in common than you want to admit.

                1. Here’s MY proof, LOSER.


                  FUCKING COWARDLY THUG.

                  WHO IS FANGIBLE?
                  *ONE OF YOUR SOCKS


                  *PROVE i screwed the people who trusted me most — investors, suppliers and non-family employees.

                  *PROVE I enjoy CORPORATE WELFARE, like Trump, or EVER sought it.

                  *PROVE I ever gamed the system

                  *PROVE I campaigned on a 60% tax cut for myself and just a few of the 1%.


                  *****Why do YOU support

                  *Corporate welfare and crony capitalism for Trump?


                  * A few favored billionaires paying a top personal tax rate of 15 .. on top of a a 100% LOOPHOLE EXEMPTION FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX.?

                  *PROVE … anything … Screeching cyber-terrorist of the Authoritarian Right.

                  1. RED ROCKS — CALLED OUT AS A PSYCHO …. RUNS AWAY

      2. Haha, yes they are simultaneously a family of retards while also managing to evade any proven wrongdoing after three years of the most expansive and in depth anal probe any politician has ever been subjected to in American history.

        States are literally trying to rewrite the law to make him guilty of things in retrospect. Truly amazing. Not even Clinton or Nixon got this level of treatment. And over what, exactly?

        1. The Dem platform calls for making electric power if not illegal, then unreliable and expensive to the point of impossibility. The GOP are no less idiotic in wanting to coerce doctors and force involuntary labor on women–but the sheer number of victims is smaller. The Don is an actor who won the audition and is pushing the bad and ugly with the good. I voted against his and the other looter party, but am appalled by Dems’ cheap and clumsy reaction to having been beaten in an election.

          1. HYSTERIA ALERT

            The Dem platform calls for making electric power if not illegal, then unreliable and expensive to the point of impossibility.

            Hydro power is CHEAP. I’ve had 100% hydro for 17 years (Seattle) and now about 75% hydro (Boise)
            So is wind power.

            You cannot hide your right-wing bias.

            1. Shouldn’t you be working to pay off all the creditors you field bankruptcy over?

        2. The Mueller Report DOES prove you’re full of shit.

          1. Nope. Sorry Hihn.

    2. Not really. If Zelensky’s testimony were actually in a court he would be under penalty of perjury,
      and the court would consider any evidence of witness intimidation. Making a public statement on YouTube is not testimony.

      1. Of course, what court would he be in and what penalty would be leveled against a leader of a sovereign nation by said extra-national court?

        I’m curious, what court could legally compel testimony by the leader of a nation? Would the answer be a Ukrainian court? Isn’t it illegal for Trump to ask foreign courts to investigate people, though? Especially since such a court might exonerate him, which could then benefit his campaign?

        *crosses his eyes* EMOLUMENTS!?!?

        1. I’m curious, what court could legally compel testimony by the leader of a nation?

          SCOTUS, FOOL.


          *crosses eyes* YOU LOSE

          1. Lol, crazy ass Hihn thinks SCOTUS can order the President of Ukraine to testify.

            1. Crazy ass Hihn gonna crazy ass Hihn.

              1. YOUR fuckup is revealed alaong with T Mac’s fuckup here:

                Plus, if T Mac wants to expand his bat-shit craziness with a sock (your name,) he should not be so STUPID as to use your name to comment immediately after his name .. and just as infantile.

                1. No he didn’t fuck up, you’re definitely crazy.

                2. It’s R Mac, and he’s not my sock.


                  1. Who cares what some bankrupt irrelevant old loser who envies Trump thinks anyway.

            2. As R Mac stalks me down the page …, making fuckup after fuckup.

              Here’s exactly what I posted … for retards who cannot go back two comments.

              I’m curious, what court could legally compel testimony by the leader of a nation?

              SCOTUS, FOOL.


              Also this!


              THAT squashes Ukraine as relevant.

              1. That’s no less stupid, they can’t compel Trump to testify either, now go get a job and pay back your creditors.

              2. The whole sub thread is about Zelensky testifying.

                Man, what a fuck up. You should feel stupid Hihn.


        2. I’m not saying that Zelensky should be brought into a court. I was responding to the assertion: “ In a court of law, that’s effectively evidence that help prove his innocence.“

  25. It’s like a homeless dude with a shopping cart full of crap wandered into the thread, shat all over the place and is now shouting at passing cars. I come here to get away from that in my daily life, not get more of it.

  26. Hearsay and speculation aren’t actually circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be something like DNA or fingerprint, It’s evidence that infers a conclusion. A eyewitness testimony or video footage would be direct evidence.

    I think it’s entirely accurate to say there is NO evidence of wrongful QPQ.

    1. I’m sure you are correct that Sullum (and I) have been using the term, circumstantial, incorrectly.

      There is not conclusive evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing at this point, but then again this is only the impeachment hearings with limited powers to compel testimony from firsthand witnesses.

      Personally, I think the Democrat’s best move would be censure, but I think there is enough evidence to justify an impeachment trial. The Senate will never actually remove Trump, of course.

      1. Impeachment would be assured ,.. within 15 minutes

        1) VIDEO (PRESSER) — Trump lying that the “alt-left” initiated the mass assaults and murder in Charlottesville … the FUCKING PSYCHO LIED TO DEFEND VIOLENCE AND MURDER INITIATED BY HIS LOYAL BASE OF … NEO-NAZIES AND RACISTS. Also LYING that he saw ir all on TV, as he BULLIED the reporters who knew he was a sack of shit … LIED that the alt-left attacked, swinging clubs and wearing black helmets.

        2) VIDEO -initial assault.
        *Alt-left standing peaceably, unarmed, arms locked (like the 60s)
        * Alt-right FASCISTS wearing black (NAZI) helmets.
        *Alt-rught TRUMP SUPPORTERS carrying clubs
        *Alt-right TRUMP SUPPORTERS carrying police-style riot shields .. the fuckers CAME for violence.

        Four white nationalists were the ONLY criminal convictions from the Charlottesville .. and California …, described as “serial rioters? by the ,,,, FEDERAL PROSECUTOR

        Parts 2 & 3 linked here

        1. It’s funny because you’re having a completely different conversation than everyone else.


        2. My God you are a fucking embarrassment to anyone responsible for allowing you to post here.

          Does Reason get some kind of grant for allowing you to spew your mindless drivel?

          1. It’s part of the Make A Wish program.

      2. I’m sure you are correct that Sullum (and I) have been using the term, circumstantial, incorrectly.

        And yet, only one of you has claimed to be a lawyer.

        Sullum can be excused from knowing as his education was in economics and psychology.

        What is your excuse, having supposedly attended law school?

        1. He likes to lie?

        2. I’m afraid you’re confusing me with someone else. I’m not a lawyer and have never claimed to be.

          1. It was probably Little Jeffy.

  27. I’m not really sure what the point is here. Obviously Trump can accurately claim “The President of Ukraine has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls,” Since both Zelensky and his representatives have done so on multiple occasions. It’s also obvious to anyone that Zelensky has nothing to gain by wading into any of this shit. Not exactly a deep insight. But doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. He knows he’s better off with Trump on military aid compared to Obama. I’m pretty sure that the ethnic Russians in Crimea liked Obama better and I’m not convinced he was wrong. And so once again TDS joins the new cold war with Russia and Reason goes along for the ride. Really getting tedious.

  28. Reason is eroding Sullum’s reputation in aid of a witchhunt against a Capo who “likes” libertarianism, supported by a libertarian elected prez in a friendly nation bullied by KGB holdovers who in recent elections kept libertarian candidates off Moscow municipal ballots and brutalized pro-libertarian demonstrators. To assist Biden? Biden was co-author of the wheelbarrow-loads of pseudoscientific prohibitionist fanaticism that crash ed the economy in 1987 and 2008. Is this a fool’s errand or simply an exercise in creative reinterpretation to please the Dems with our unbiasedness?

    1. When you’ve lost Hank Phillips…

  29. Just so I’m clear, we’re now accusing the president of a foreign nation, who ran on fighting corruption and restoring public trust in government, of publicly lying about being bullied by an allegedly corrupt US president, because he is weak, politically and morally?

    1. Well, if you put it like that…yes, that’s what he’s doing.

    2. You are overstating it. He may have incentives to have lied publicly for the sake of staying out of American partisan politics and continuing the flow of badly needed aid to his country. If he did lie, it is not driven by weakness or immorality but by concern for his country’s future.

      1. Why are you running around here changing your name from pod to not guilty to Mike Laursen? The writing is all the same, it’s totally the same in all of your posts.

        1. Because he can’t get anyone to agree with anything he says otherwise. He’s a known alt user and you should just flag him then ignore him. He also goes by “Chemjeff” if you see that name

          1. Save it liar

    3. Opinion: New GOP report: Yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

      The report’s new argument is that, yes, Trump might have made requests of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce “investigations” that would validate Trump’s (invented) theory of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and his (fabricated) narrative of corruption on the part of Joe Biden and his son in Ukraine.

      But, Republicans say, Trump was right to do this, because his concerns about these things were legitimate and were subsumed into a much broader — and, again, legitimate — set of concerns about corruption.

      Wait two days. They’ll have a new excuse!
      Increasingly, Justin Amash looks to be correct, that both parties are in a death spiral, which means … so is America. (for now)
      Their lust for power now outranks any and all concerns for the people, or for governing. Both parties have backed us into a corner, with no clue how to get us out of the mess they created, which is WHY Attack Mode is all they have left. “We have nothing, but we’re better than them other bastards, because feelz.”
      2020 could well see a near fascist against a near socialist (their terms, not mine) … with some libertarian again offering catchy slogans, but no policy solutions (for anything. Thank you, Rothbardians, Miseans, An-Caps and Paulistas). As
      America’s Voiceless Majority … waits
      Amidst a shouting match, between two tribes of bellowing blowhards, and their dancing puppets on a string.

      Be very afraid fo liberty

  30. Trump supporters literally do not care Trump lies nonstop. Trump is “savin’ Murkuh!,” and if that takes lying nonstop to do it, so be it. Trump can lie to the American people as much as he wants, golf too.

    Only their guy can do this of course, a Dem president must be honest at all time or these same people will be outraged beyond words, “How dare that Dem lie!!!!!!!,” and most definitely no golfing.

    Something is wrong with RW brains.

    1. Some lies matter, others don’t.

      I voted for Obama. Obama promised to restore constitutionality, get us out of dangerous foreign wars, end domestic spying, and a lot of other things; once in office, Obama turned out to be a war mongering racist beholden to executive overreach. Obama lied on things that mattered.

      I didn’t vote for Trump. Trump is incoherent, often doesn’t know what he is talking about, and constantly engages in hyperbole (“lies”). But you know what? He is largely trying to deliver on what he promised, he has scaled back regulations, appointed more constitutionalist judges, and largely avoided executive overreach.

      So, that’s why I am angry about Obama’s lies, but really don’t care about what Trump says. What matters is policy, not talk.

      1. Has Trump gotten us out of those wars or stopped domestic spying?

        Trump is objectively the president who has most abused executive power in modern times. If you don’t get that, why, it’s probably because you’re a FOX News or alt-right internet junkie who doesn’t know what the fuck is going on in front of his face.

        Trump can’t tell the truth even when it would benefit him. He’s a low-rent gangster. You’re an asshole partisan pretending to be something else. Or worse–too stupid to realize what a dupe for the GOP you are.

  31. FactChecking Trump’s NATO Remarks

    FAR worse than I imagined. A new record?

  32. Ooops. Highlights Lowlights

    *Although about half of the territory once held by the Islamic State was regained under President Barack Obama, Trump again wrongly claimed that, “When I came in, it was virtually 100%. And I knocked it down to zero.”

    ***The U.S. trade deficit with the European Union has gone up under Trump, contrary to his suggestion that he had reduced it “fairly rapidly.” And as he has done many times, he inflated the amount of that trade deficit.

    *The president wrongly claimed that other NATO member countries’ spending on defense was “heading down” three years ago. That spending went up in 2015 and 2016. And he claimed countries that spent a low percentage of their GDP on defense were “delinquent.” They don’t owe NATO, or other countries, any money.

    * Trump said the U.S. “never used to win” World Trade Organization cases “before me,” which is not so. The U.S. has historically won most of the cases it has brought to the WTO against other nations.

    *He falsely claimed that South Korea was only paying “$500 million a year” under a cost-sharing deal that helps fund U.S. military forces stationed there. South Korea was already paying over $800 million a year when it agreed earlier this year to increase its contribution by 8.2%.

    *A June 2018 joint statement from Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un didn’t say Kim “will denuclearize,” as Trump claimed.

    *Japan pays $1.7 billion to $2.1 billion per year toward the cost of having U.S. troops stationed in the country, while the U.S. spends $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion. But Trump falsely implied that Japan isn’t sharing the cost of the U.S. military presence.
    Every falsehood is a conspiracy of sorts, by President Blowhard.
    Just as big a failure as President, as when he was a businessman.



    YUGE pies now dripping off the faces of
    Bill Barr,
    Kevin Nunes,
    Jim Jordan,
    Sean Hannity (who promised a bombshell – smirk),
    Laura Ingraham,
    Tucker Carlson,
    Judge Jeanine,
    Donald J Trump

    Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup

    The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence …

  34. AGAIN?

    Macron Humiliates Trump In Front Of The World On ISIS

    Trump tried to threaten Macron with releasing ISIS fighters in France, and the French president humiliated him.
    Trump said, “I have spoken to the president today, we have a tremendous amount of captured size fighters in Syria and they’re all under lock and key, but many are from France, Germany, and the UK. Some are from Europe, and some of the countries are agreeing, would you like some nice ISIS fighters, I could give them to you, you could take every one you want.

    Trump’s big lie in the US has been that ISIS is defeated, so US troops could leave Northern Syria. Macron responded to Trump threatening to release ISIS fighters in France by blowing up Trump’s big lie and telling the world that Trump made the situation worse in the Middle East through his actions.

    One world leader understands the ISIS threat and the risks of destabilizing the region. The other man in the conversation was Donald Trump,

  35. NATO Laughingstock: Trump Says He’s A Climate Change Expert Because He Likes Crystal Clear Water

    Donald Trump wasted no time in making himself the laughingstock of the NATO Summit in London on Tuesday by claiming that climate change is something he thinks about “all the time.”

    In an attempt to prove the laughable idea that he’s concerned about environmental issues, Trump said, “I believe very strongly in very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air.”

    He added, “That’s a big part of climate change.”

    (Video of Trump’s climate change ignorance onsite)

    Is this even wackier than when the entire UN General Assembly laughed at him, publicly?

  36. A real man will be honest no matter how painful the truth is. A coward hides behind lies and deceit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.