The House GOP Impeachment Report In Brief: Democrats Are Bad, Trump Is Good

The minority report dismisses all witness testimony and maintains that Trump did nothing wrong.


House Republicans on Monday evening released their impeachment report, dismissing allegations against President Donald Trump as unsubstantiated and politically motivated.

"The Democrats' impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system," the report says. "The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump's policy initiatives and processes."

The minority party asserts that Trump pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to announce investigations connected to his political rivals not for partisan gain but because Trump was suspicious of the country's "history of pervasive corruption," although the country had already met its anti-corruption benchmarks to receive foreign aid.

"Understood in this proper context, the President's initial hesitation to meet with President Zelensky or to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent," the House Republicans write.

An impeachment inquiry is underway amid allegations that Trump withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine in exchange for Zelenskiy publicly pursuing probes into Burisma Holdings, where former Vice President Joe Biden's son sat on the board, and into a highly criticized theory that Ukraine executed an election interference scheme that benefited 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The Republicans' overview pushes back against the testimonies of several witnesses who appeared before the House Intelligence Committee, many of whom stated that the president's request contradicted diplomatic goals and equated to a political favor. 

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?'" Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified on November 20. "With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

The Republican impeachment report casts such witnesses as unreliable, without the proper knowledge, and motivated by an animus for Trump's style of governance. "They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats chafed at an elected President's 'outside the beltway' approach to diplomacy," the report says. But those depictions are somewhat puzzling, particularly in regards to Sondland, who was given his position after donating $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, and who described a friendly and direct working relationship with the president. Testimonies from Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, and Bill Taylor, the country's chargé d'affaires, squared with Sondland's account, with the latter telling congressional investigators that it is "crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

The Republican report is also in contention with sworn comments made by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who said that Trump disregarded National Security Council-approved talking points on corruption in his April and July phone conversations with Zelenskiy. White House readouts show that the president never addressed "corruption," but instead asked Zelenskiy to "do us a favor" on the July 25 call. Vindman also testified that the White House readout of that conversation specifically replaced "Burisma" with "the company."

Complaints about the impeachment process are also present in the GOP report, as House Republicans continue to accuse Democrats of stripping Trump of due process. "For the first phase of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry, Chairman Schiff led the inquiry from his Capitol basement bunker, preventing transparency on the process and accountability for his actions," it says. As I've previously noted, such claims are not based in reality: It was House Republicans who set these very rules in 2015 under then-Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio). 

All told, the report cements the likely Republican defense of Trump, should the current inquiry move to an impeachment trial.

NEXT: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Right to Oppose This NYC Mega-Development

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. Look at my shocked face!

    1. Republicans: Orange Man GREAT!

      More news at 11:00!!!

      1. “dismisses all witness testimony”
        Who actually witnessed anything?
        So far everything’s second-hand, twice-removed… except the Ukrainian president’s statements where he said nothing fucking happened… but you can’t believe that because Trump’s the philosemitic Practically Hitler.

    2. Trump has a gamble to make based on the following:

      1. That the Senate won’t convict him. (prob a good bet)
      2. That he’ll win the 2020 election (debatable … I’d say 50/50
      3. That he won’t win the election …. in which case he’ll need to resign beforehand so Pence can grant him, his family, and his associates blanket pardons.

      1. Pardons for what? Beating Hillary?

        1. And Presidents can’t pardon state offenses anyway. The plan, as I understand it, is to make Trump’s life Hell after he leaves office, by endlessly hounding him and his entire family in STATE court.

          1. He moved to FL for a reason. It’d be nice for FL to tell NY to go happily fuck itself with its demands.

  2. I move to dismiss the impeachment inquiry on the basis of its central charges being so boring. Impeach him over something that actually affects the average American. There’s got to be plenty to choose from, just like with every president.

    1. I move to dismiss the impeachment inquiry on the basis of its central charges being so boring.


      1. I move to just kick it over (NOW!!!) to the Senate for a vote, because the Senators are NOT going to pay attention to the gathered data anyway… They are going to vote STRICTLY along party lines anyway!

        1. Heh, amen to that. Just get this ridiculous charade over with.

        2. When did assumptions and opinions become aid data for a trial?

        3. The public outside DC will probably expect an actual trial, like on TV, with rules of evidence and shit. As near as I can tell, all the testimony so far has been a chain of reported assumptions that would never be allowed in a court trial.
          Trump is awful, but running him out of office on that basis alone will do far more damage to the country than he ever could.

    2. but then we’d have to hold up everyone else to the same standard, and that would mean the Dems wouldn’t be able to do whatever they want when they get in office.

    3. I move to dismiss you from the comment section for idiocy.

      1. No, please no. Fist is the most entertaining guy in the commentariat.

        1. OBL has a sad.

      2. Clean the sand out of your whatever, shitlib.

    4. Tune in for season 2 when they prosecute the sob.

      1. We’re on at least season 4

        1. One of these days…

        2. We’re on at least season 4

          Yeah–and the twist at the end is always the same. The screaming rises to a crescendo…and it turns out that there really wasn’t anything to see here after all.

    5. Impeach him over something that actually affects the average American.

      I’d even be more supportive of fundamentally principled impeachment over stuff that doesn’t affect me and stuff that he’s actually rather than abject team scandalizing and/or grasping at straws. Hunter/Joe Biden doesn’t affect the average American over Trump’s support for eminent domain but I find the latter to be much more supportable and objectively guilty on principle.

  3. When #TrumpRussia concluded with Robert Mueller proving our government is under Russian control, I didn’t think any scandal could possibly be worse.

    Well guess what? #TrumpUkraine is even worse. It has surpassed #TrumpRussia and is now the undisputed biggest scandal in world history.


  4. So it’s basically the exact opposite of Reason’s impeachment coverage?

  5. Hey Billy, you got a little brown under your nose. You looking for a job with CNN or something?

    1. “Hey Billy, you got a little brown under your nose. You looking for a job with CNN or something?”

      “A little brown”???

      The man is a walking fertilizer factory, have some respect.

    2. With the penetration he’s achieving, I’d wager the Washington Post.

      He can see it now, sitting at Carl Bernstein’s old desk. Bringing down Trump with a new Deep Throat. Polishing his Pulitzer and placing on the far corner of his desk.

  6. So basically the Republicans dared to demand actual evidence for the accusations and dared not make every possible negative inference from the small amount of evidence presented. Oh, and they didn’t respect the opinions of various “Top Men” who were sure this happened despite having no actual evidence it did.

    In other words, the Republicans acted rationally and reasonably. I am sure Binnion doesn’t understand that at all.

    1. Face it John- there’d never be enough evidence for you or the cultists. You’d follow your dear leader into the abyss because you lack the mental capacity to do any different.

      1. Produce more evidence and we will find that out. In the mean time, all you can say is this paucity of evidence doesn’t convince me. The fact that it convinces you goes further towards proving that you will believe anything than it does proving I won’t believe anything.

        The same fucking morons who spent years convinced that Trump was a Russian agent reading Louisa Mensch tweets waiting for him to be arrested for treason are now calling everyone else a cult. You are a fucking retard but at least you are ironic about it I guess.

        1. Well said, sir.

        2. Trump is an asset for Putin. He is a fucking a traitor and you’re a useful idiot. The Russians are laughing at you.

          1. The Russians spent more time recovering from their hangovers then they ever did “interfering” in the election.

            Completely delusional.

            1. Trump’s own campaign officials have stated that the Russian interference was god sent. If only y’all could listen.

              1. Who said that?

          2. “Trump is an asset for Putin.”

            Do you really believe this?

            1. The Russians believe it.

              1. That’s the genius of Trump. He fucks them over and they like it.

          3. Russians wanted more than anything to cause americans to question our election system. Democrats are the useful idiots who provided this narrative. You literally are doing what Russians wanted you to do idiot.

          4. There is actually zero evidence of that, in fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

            In Fusion Glenn Simpsons new book, he admits being hired by two different Russian oligarchs thru Michael Steele, to among other things dig up dirt on Paul Manafort, before he took Hillary’s money and turned around and hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump from the Russians.

            The Russians spent as much time and money trying to ratfuck Trump as they did screwing with Hillary.

            The assertion that the Russians wanted Trump to win came from Clapper and Brennan with zero evidence, not a lot of credibility there.

            1. If the Democrats could plausibly blame the Martians, instead of the Russians, they would. Their biggest gripe, at the end of the day, is that they are unable to monopolize propaganda or insulate Americans from “interacting” with information originating from sources outside of the United States. That is, only American politicians and pundits should have the privilege of gaslighting Americans.

              It’s absurd, but it is how these degenerates think.

          5. If you think it’s bad now, just wait until after his re-election when he has more flexibility like Obama did!

        3. “The same fucking morons who spent years convinced that Trump was a Russian agent reading Louisa Mensch tweets waiting for him to be arrested for treason are now calling everyone else a cult.”


      2. Who is guilty of cultish behavior? Were you living under a rock when Obama was president for 8 years? When he caged kids (his admin was sued by families who alleged torture) the media didn’t say one damn word. Funding an entire healthcare program and forming treaties with a terrorist nation with no congressional approval – again, not one damn word.

        Did you hear that fun story about a Newsweek reporter “reporting” on Trump playing golf and tweeting on Thanksgiving? Lunatics attacking people who wear red hats? The entirety of the media and the ruling class falling for Smollett’s hoax? The Greta “world ends in 12 years” disciples?

        It takes more courage to stand up for someone who’s unpopular and despised by the establishment. Trump is a blowhard with a haphazard style of governance. He just says what and does what’s on his mind. We can have a discussion about his shortcomings. If you want to impeach him or accuse him of colluding with foreign powers, you have something more than a game of “connect the dots”

        It’s so ridiculous. Imagine the FBI going to a judge and receiving approval for wiretapping over something like a Steele Dossier. Say, why don’t we just wiretap Ilhan Omar because one guy at a deposition said she’s a Qatari agent? The whole thing is a farce. The pro impeachment crowd basically want to remove a duly elected president over their personal animosity towards Trump. And they accuse the other side of being cultists.

        1. “”Did you hear that fun story about a Newsweek reporter “reporting” on Trump playing golf and tweeting on Thanksgiving?””

          That was funny. The reporter was fired for that.

        2. It’s so ridiculous. Imagine the FBI going to a judge and receiving approval for wiretapping over something like a Steele Dossier. Say, why don’t we just wiretap Ilhan Omar because one guy at a deposition said she’s a Qatari agent?

          If the FBI did that, reason would have a stroke. The irony of them doing that at the same time saying that it happening to Omar would be totally lost on them.

        3. How dare you!!!

      3. Aww how cute. You’re using the cult word the media told you to use.

    2. And while we are complaining about how little firsthand testimony there is linking everything to the President, let’s gloss over the fact that most of the witnesses who could provide that testimony refused to testify.

      1. So I am supposed to assume that they would say what the voices in your head wants them to say? You just admitted there is no evidence of this. So, other than those people who want to believe, there is no reason for anyone else to care. And indeed, if the polls are to be believed, no one else does.

        1. No. It’s fine that at this point you are not convinced that Trump is not guilty of having committed a quid pro quo, or whatever the impeachment articles are going to accuse him of. No trial has been held yet.

          I don’t *want* the witnesses to say anything. I don’t have a side in this matter.

          I have not admitted there is no evidence. I, like many, think there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. That much evidence, not enough evidence to convict Trump as one might have at the end of a trial.

          1. //I don’t *want* the witnesses to say anything. I don’t have a side in this matter.//

            Are you done lying to yourself yet? Because the only person that believes the above bullshit is you.

            1. Lauren doesn’t have the balls to just admit being a deranged partisan and make his case.
              Frauds are the most pathetic of “people”

              1. It’s cytotoxic/chemjeff’s 4th sock.

          2. If you admit there isn’t enough evidence to convict, you are admitting there is not enough evidence for a trial. You don’t conduct trials unless you honestly believe there is enough evidence to convict.

            1. It’s always a fucking word salad of constant inanity with this freshman year philosophy dropout. Then, after spewing bullshit like a lawn sprinkler in a heatwave, he has the balls to claim he is “neutral” and “isn’t picking sides.”

              1. Hes the OBL of neutral observer. It has to be a fucking joke at this point. He literally said he wont believe trump until trump proves a negative. Trump released the fucking transcript if his interactions with Ukraine.

            2. That argument would make sense if the House had had the power to compel testimony from White House staff.

              1. Just like prosecutors have the power to compel an accused to testify against himself. Clown.

                1. Trump cannot be compelled to testify against himself in a court of law. It is the same in the Senate.

                  In general, people other than Trump can be compelled to testify in a Senate trial. It is the same in the Senate.

                  Fairly analogous.

                  1. Yet you ignore executive privilege. Why?

                    1. How did I ignore it?

                    2. Executive privilege can only be exerted for “deliberative process” Not for anything else. And it can’t be used to cover up any communications or actions involving unlawful activities or conspiracy to unlawful activity that might otherwise be covered under “deliberative process.” The courts have ruled on this. Nixon tried it and failed. Further … “executive privilege” is mentioned exactly nowhere in the Constitution. There’s some question among legal scholars that it is even applicable or can even be invoked at all in impeachment proceedings before the Congress.

                  2. People other than Trump that are *not* part of the executive branch may be compelled. Members of the executive branch cannot be compelled. Who is going to compel them? If Trump doesn’t permit a member of the executive branch to testify before Congress, that witness may be held in contempt but there is absolutely no way for that contempt to be enforced.

                    See Eric Holder.


          3. //I, like many, think there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.//

            You don’t understand how trials work, do you? If there is not enough evidence to convict *before* a trial, assuming everything adduced at the pre-trial phase is true, you don’t go to trial just to test the waters. The point of a trial is to the determine facts. If the facts are clear before a trial, or do not add up to a crime (or impeachable conduct), you don’t get to trial.

            1. The House, because of the separation of powers, has not been able to compel the testimony of key witnesses in the hearings. In this way, the hearings are not like any day-to-day judicial process. Because the witnesses closest to Trump could not be compelled to testify, it is disingenuous to complain that there is lack of firsthand witnesses.

              1. Why should they testify? The executive is not subservient. would you be okay with Barr compelling Schiff and pelosi to testify on their impeachment strategy?

                1. I didn’t say they should. I said it is disingenuous to complain about lack of firsthand testimony in the House hearings when the witnesses who could have provided firsthand testimony refused to testify.

                  1. Fuck you and your cheerleading of this Soviet show trial. There is zero evidence to even think there is evidence beyond your preconceived determination of guilt.

                  2. You have the transcript and the public statements of both the parties who were ACTUALLY SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER. No amount of evidence will ever be enough to exonerate Trump in your delusional pea sized mind.

                  3. It is not disingenuous at all. Your complaint is no different than prosecutors criticizing a defendant for poking holes in their case because the only person who knows the truth, that being the defendant, is refusing to testify. If you have to rely on the people you are charging with misconduct to prove the charges against them, you don’t have a case. It is that simple. Everything else is just bullshit.

                2. Well you do have to concede that the speech and debate clause precludes Barr from questioning Pelosi and Schiff.

          4. What’s the threshold for evidence before you subject someone to a trial? IMO, it’s gotta be better than hearsay and opinions.

            1. The threshold, in legal practice, requires genuine disputes with respect to material facts. Not all evidence is equal. Unsupported, third-hand hearsay doesn’t stand on equal footing with firsthand observations and direct denials.

              “Well, I think, but I have no proof” gets you bounced out of court before you can even put your tie on.

          5. Mike, how does one prove a negative? How do you prove innocence. You claim to be neutral still… lol.

            1. First of all, you have an actual trial in the Senate. The hearing isn’t a trial.

              1. The purpose of a trial is for the defendant to prove his innocence?

                Jesus fucking Christ you’re stupid, cytotoxic. I know you’re Canadian and the law works a little differently up there, but let me clue you in: even where you live, the burden is on the prosecution. Innocence is presumed.

              2. Trial are for genuine disputes with respect to material issues of fact. Not a single witness testified that Trump instructed them to participate in any misconduct, or that they observed Trump participate in misconduct, or that they have any proof of any misconduct apart from their own suppositions. These are not genuine issues of fact and, therefore, a trial is not warranted. There are no competing facts to be decided. From an evidentiary standpoint, the evidence is entirely one-sided.

                If someone is being charged with having run a red light, but there is no video evidence, and no direct witnesses, and the only testimony is from a guy down the block who thinks the driver “probably” ran the red light, there is no need for a trial. Such a case would never go to trial. There are no competing facts. There is nothing to decide.

                Again, it does not seem like you understand the purpose of a trial at all.

          6. A trial for what? They haven’t even asserted a crime.

            Let’s say it was Pompeo that made the phone call and talked to all the ambassadors, and the whistleblower made the referral to the IG on him. Do you think a career DOJ attorney would make a charging decision on this mess?

            First, what statute was violated?

            Second, what witness heard Pompeo/Trump say the aid was dependent on the investigation?

            Third, both of the men on the phone call publicly and repeatedly say no quid pro quo was discussed or even implied.

            Fourth, with no violation of law, and no evidence, just a theory, then really it’s just political. So if it’s all political anyway, then I’m on Trump’s side.

      2. That’s a prosecutor’s problem.

        “”And while we are complaining about how little firsthand testimony there is linking everything to the President, “”

        Is that just complaining, or is it true?

        1. //That’s a prosecutor’s problem.//

          Indeed it is. Mike Laursen and others of his particular “neutral” persuasions (i.e. rank and file lefties without the courage or honesty to match their partisan convictions) are convinced that the burden is on Trump to affirmatively exonerate himself otherwise he should be presumed to be guilty of all the conduct with which he is being charged.

          They admit the evidence sucks, and imagine that Trump and his inner circle are salivating for the opportunity to flip.

          Pure delusion.

          1. I do not believe what you claim I believe. I believe the House impeachment hearings have made as strong a case that can be made without the testimony of key witnesses from the White House staff. I believe (which is true) that the rules of impeachment are political and different from any normal courtroom, so analogies don’t apply.

            I believe Trump is innocent until proven guilty — which would have to be proven in the Senate trial.

            I do not believe what Trump’s inner circle is waiting to flip. I don’t know what will happen if it makes it to a Senate trial. It is a safe assumption that no matter what evidence came out in the trial, the Republican majority will not remove Trump from office.

            1. You believe a case made on hearsay, assumptions, and testimony is a strong case? You’re a fucking idiot. That isnt even an opinion at this point. They dont even have anyone claiming to be a victim here.

              You’re not neutral you partisan shithead.

              1. I would not characterize it as a “strong case” without qualification that I’m just talking about it’s being strong enough to merit a Senate trial.

                1. The plural of anecdote will become data in the senate!

                  Fucking kill yourself you shit brained faggot.

                2. The purpose of a trial is for the decisionmaker to determine ultimate facts from among a competing bag of disputed facts.

                  When there are no factual disputes, there is nothing to try. The weight of the evidence matters.

                  When everybody insisting there was misconduct does not possess any direct evidence, and when everyone with direct evidence has denied the existence of any misconduct, there is no need for a trial.

                  It isn’t hard.

                  Having a trial under such circumstances is pointless.

      3. most of the witnesses who could provide that testimony refused to testify

        Because they’re not idiots. If you’re not on Team D you’d be insane to participate in a obvious witch hunt. Wait until there’s an actual trial in the senate, Jacob.

  7. I thought with the whole asking your readership to donate you may pause in antagonizing those potential donors. It is to your credit as a magazine that you have the audacity to stick to your guns while also asking the people you loathe to finance the endeavor.

    1. Are John, JesseAz, etc. the entire Reason readership? Or just some conservative-libertarians who are very active in the commentariat?

      1. They are the among the most sensible, owing more to their conservatism. Libertarianism and leftism are mutually exclusive.

        1. Define either of those, if you can.

          An alarming proportion of the American electorate only reads and watches right-wing pro-Republican (and, it turns out, pro-Kremlin) propaganda. That’s why you think they’re right, when here in the real universe they are wrong about everything.

          We learn how to discern reliable sources from bullshit in middle school. I’m sorry you guys were too busy giving nerds wedgies or whatever.

          1. I like ya, Tony, but you’re really not helping yourself out here

          2. “right-wing pro-Republican (and, it turns out, pro-Kremlin) propaganda.”

            You’re a joke Tony. (Que response that includes eating balls or sucking cock)

          3. pro-Kremlin) propaganda

            Lol, never change, Tony.

          4. We learn how to discern reliable sources from bullshit in middle school.

            Then why do you continuously reference Huffington Post, DailyKos and Mother Jones?

          5. An alarming proportion of the American electorate only reads and watches right-wing pro-Republican (and, it turns out, pro-Kremlin) propaganda.

            That’s rich coming from someone I’d imagine has a steady diet of NPCNN and MSDNC.

      2. At least mike knows which losters are probably successful and would donate.

      3. By the way mikey boy.. you’re fat more partisan and liberal than john or I are or ever have been. You believe opinions are facts because they agree with your world view. You arent neutral nor intelligent.

  8. The democratic party impeachment reads as follows: We, members of the elitists, wise, all-knowing, all-hearing, all-wise, have decided to impeach the standing president, one Donald Trump, because he has guided our country into economic prosperity, have forced many to leave Uncle Sam’s plantation, enforced border security, etc. and has have made a mockery of our beloved socialist ideals, and worst of all, will in all probability be re-elected next year. Therefore, as being responsible ruling elitist selfish, greedy and oppressive pigs we are, we must terminate the presidency of Trump in order to form a more perfect socialist slave state before the people wake up and turn to the evils of capitalism, freedom and choice. So let us sharpen the guillotine to enforce our form of People’s Justice and ensure this ugly and nefarious counter-revolution is aborted in its womb.

    1. That summary completely left out the actual accusations.

      1. Care to comment about the absurd headline in this article? No, of course not. Your empty, freshman year sophistry always seems to cut one way. Gutless hack.

        1. The headline is pretty awful and exaggerated. A lot of the headlines on the blog have been pretty awful lately.

          1. Awful clickbait headlines is the KMW way.

      2. We, your obvious betters, do not need facts.
        Assumptions, accusations, lies, innuendo are sufficient to terminate any president we do not like.

        1. He’s not even close to being removed from office. For that to happen, the Senate would have to vote to do so. Unlikely to happen.

    2. Yup. Nonsense House committee meetings about Trump that are failing in the public eye.

    3. Quit whining, you bigoted, clinging rube.

      1. ““We don’t need proof to execute a man. We only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him.” – Che

        I’m sure you would agree with your hero, Che.

  9. R’s defense- la la la la la, we can’t hear you.

    Shameful but what do we expect from a fascist cult.

    1. It is a pretty good preview, though, of how the trial will go in the Senate. The Democrats should listen to the pundits who are advising them to censure Trump and drop the impeachment articles.

      1. A censure will not be good enough for the “Impeach the Fucker”, #resist, #stillwithher crowd.

        The dems made their bed. Let it play until the end even if it screws them in 2020.

      2. hey someone using my name called you stupid yesterday. i don’t do that

        1. But do you agree with the sentiment?

        2. Thank you.

        3. This is the fake dillinger obviously.

      3. Fuck censure, and fuck you

      4. It is a pretty good preview, though, of how the trial will go in the Senate. The Democrats should listen to the pundits who are advising them to censure Trump and drop the impeachment articles.

        I don’t think you get it. The censure comes from the trial. It’s a punishment.

        Clinton was impeached and censured.

        Trump’s probably not going to be impeached.

        Because a trial in the senate, with the reps pulling the strings, is something the dems REALLY want to avoid.

    2. fascist cult

      But enough about Liz of the Fauxhicans.

  10. reason- what a joke. This is the kind of crappy journalism that reason wastes their money on.

    No donation from me.

  11. After wasting time and money on this dumpster fire debacle, Pelosi flies her worthless ass to Madrid on yet another hoax conference while NOT working to ratify the USMA. Worst House Speaker ever.

  12. >>The minority report dismisses all witness testimony and maintains that Trump did nothing wrong.

    give us money for this groundbreaking reporting or it’s more Dalmia for you.

  13. Every single witness said “no” when asked if they had evidence of a bride or quid-pro-quo. So, obviously, the Republicans are partisan for asking for actual evidence like say a transcript of the conversation where a quid-pro-quo is actually laid out. I don’t think that Reason is even trying anymore.

    1. Sondland testified that there was a quid pro quo in order for Zelensky to secure a White House meeting with Trump.

      Several diplomats and NSC members testified that it was clear to them a quid pro quo was what Giuliani and Trump wanted. Was it all a coordinated group lie to bring down Trump — where is evidence of that conspiracy? How can the testimony be linked closer to Trump if the key witnesses who could provide that testimony refuse to testify?

      The July 25th transcript doesn’t conflict in any way with other evidence that a quid pro quo was being asked for, more explicitly in more private conversations. Is it expected that Trump would literally say the explicit words, “You don’t get the aid unless you make a public announcement of an investigation into Burisma and the DNS servers.” in a phone call?

      1. Sondland opening statement said there was a pid pro quo for a meeting with trump, not aid. Under cross examination he testified nobody ever told him directly this was the case. Under questioning from Schiff he said his evidence was based on his assumption

        You’re such a lying ignorant fuck.

      2. Opinions are like assholes. There’s a reason why opinions are not admissible evidence in any legal context. Every person you referenced has testified about their opinion, not about facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

        Now go jump off the CN tower cytotoxic.

      3. //Sondland testified that there was a quid pro quo in order for Zelensky to secure a White House meeting with Trump.//

        More goalpost shifting. The accusation that was that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo by withholding military aid in exchange for “digging up dirt on Biden.” Now that the original charge has been thoroughly debunked, the new accusation is that Trump dared to condition meeting with the new President of a notoriously corrupt country on a promise to root out corruption. Apparently, Trump has to meet with all world leaders on demand.

        Just stop. You’re being ridiculous and you know it.

    2. evidence of a bride

      Trump seems to prefer Slovenian brides over Ukrainian brides.

  14. Never Trumpers are one with the democrats in their irrational desire to get Trump re-elected. I wish they’d cut it out!

  15. Anyone who didn’t think Obama should have been tried, convicted, and retired early, should probably sit this one out. Even taking the worst case as true, (and its not) this is all really “penny-ante” crap in comparison.

    1. Seriously. Obama had fast and furious gun running, political IRS operations, cash to Iran, spying on Congress, abuse of whistleblower laws to spy on the media, interfering with israeli elections… and Republicans still didnt want to use impeachment as a mere political tool. Wont even list the pro Russia actions Obama took part in.

      1. You forgot personally ordering the murder droning of 2 American citizens without a trial.

      2. Biden said it best: “You got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

        Nobody is going to impeach that black fella’ there! The boy can string a sentence together and he’s not even smoking crack. Imagine that! What a hoot!

  16. “The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes.”

    I was listening to an interview from a professor of a small college (IIRC) who was also a former CIA analyst. He characterized what’s going on as an “insurrection”– he said ‘coup’ but backed off of that because he felt the circumstances didn’t quite warrant that term.

    That’s another characterization I could agree with.

    Replace “deep state” with “permanent state” and “coup” with “insurrection”. That makes a pretty politic way of describing what’s going on: It’s an insurrection by the Permanent State.

  17. Binion’s specific slices from testimonies above and other articles by him have left me a belief he has a bias. And that’s okay. But he has certainly appeared to be a above the fold, and front-line cheerleader here. I’m somewhat surprised by Reason by this. Let’s show balance people. Otherwise, I can turn on CNN for free.

  18. You can be as sarcastic as ya want. But for christ sake that little crap Trump did with Ukraine is nothing. No body cares. Ya want to remove a president for that?? Who should be removed is the idiot that came up with giving them money in the first place.

  19. Here’s the thing.

    We hear you all out there saying that nothing would be enough evidence, that we’ll just follow dear Leader into hell–but we’re not actually–well, most of us aren’t actually people who voted for or support or even like Trump. Some did, but there are VERY few people, even among Trump’s supporters, who don’t realize that he’s an overbearing asshole.

    So we are all aware that it’s possible that he might’ve done something criminal.

    And we’ve been dreading you actually coming up with something.

    And, time and time again, you come up with the same thing. People who don’t like Trump, saying that they don’t like Trump on the stand and acting as if that’s ‘evidence’ of a ‘crime’.

    When this Ukraine thing started, it sounded like just the kind of stupid thing Trump would do to get himself axed. We figured you all had something solid.

    And the most solid thing your best witness says is that Trump said absolutely no to a quid pro quo and that he FELT that there was one despite this.

    And that’s it. And you’re all acting as if you caught Trump shooting someone in Herald Square. On video. With him laughing maniacally about how he just shot someone.

    But all you’ve got is a bunch of sore losers saying how they ‘felt’ about shit.

    You literally have nothing. You’ve put your cards on the table and there’s not even a pair of twos. Nothing.

    And, I have to tell you, no amount of screaming is gonna turn that into a Royal Flush.

  20. There’s no chance the Senate will convict so this is all a waste of time.

  21. Your current web-site is fairly quickly growing to be certainly one of my top feature. pressure washing

  22. People think impeachment proceedings are subject to the same rules and standards of evidence as found in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. They are not, nor do the same standards of guilt/innocence apply.

    As Capt Barbossa told Elizabeth in the movie Pirates of the Carribean about the Pirates Code … “the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules”

    As to what is or is not impeachable conduct, well … that’s kind of like the old saying about “beauty” …. it’s “in the eye of the beholder” Fact is the Congress could impeach a President for throwing his peanut shells on the floor in the oval office if enough Senators voted to remove him … and there wouldn’t be a darn thing the President could do about it. It’s entirely up to the Congress.

    Oh, and “executive privilege” … well, I commented previously on what that is and isn’t … but let me just reinforce that “executive privilege” is mentioned exactly nowhere in the US Constitution.

    1. Hurrrrrrrrrr impeachment is a political process so there are no rules of evidence and everything is made up durrrrrrrrr derp hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

      And that’s why you want a trial in the Republican-controlled senate, you fucking retard?

  23. The President really has few actual “rights” in an impeachment proceeding, except those the Congress chooses to grant him.

  24. Blocko Billy Bunion: “Trump bad, democrats good.”

  25. The minority report dismisses all witness testimony and maintains that Trump did nothing wrong.

    Because the witness testimony is hearsay and largely bs relating to bureaucrats not knowing their place.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.