Reason Roundup

House Reveals Articles of Impeachment Against Trump: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress

Plus: corruption, corruption, runaway spending, and more corruption...


Impeachment articles are here. Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled the charges today, officially accusing President Donald Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his alleged "quid pro quo" with Ukraine and efforts to cover it up.

"President Trump solicited a foreign nation, Ukraine, to publicly announce an investigation into an opponent [Joe Biden] … to help his reelection campaign," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) at a press conference this morning, calling the evidence of Trump's guilt in this regard "overwhelming and uncontested." And "when the President got caught, he committed his second impeachable act," said Schiff.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D–Calif.) schedule sends a bit of a confusing message, however:

The House Judiciary will vote on the impeachment articles Thursday, and if they get through (as expected), a full House vote will happen the following week.


The Inspector General report on the federal investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign speaks to the FBI's corruption and incompetence, independent of any partisan angle. Democrats and Republicans are both spinning it to their benefit…

But at the heart of the matter lies the same old overreach and incompetence among America's top law enforcement agency.

Said Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union in a statement yesterday:

While the report found that there wasn't an improper purpose or initiation of the investigation, it also found significant problems that are alarming from a civil liberties perspective…. The system requires fundamental reforms, and Congress can start by providing defendants subjected to FISA surveillance the opportunity to review the government's secret submissions. The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns.

Read more on the report from Robby Soave here.



  • In case you're running low on images to haunt your nightmares:

NEXT: On the Last Day of Reason's Annual Webathon, Donate To Join Our Awesome Crew of Supporters and Friends

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. Impeachment articles are here.

    The long march to the inevitable continues. President Hillary, here we come!

    1. Hello.


    2. The articles are laughably light. They’ve gone from 4 to 2 on the thinnest of terms. Terms so thin every president is guilty. One of the articles on obstruction requires one to believe the Senate is superior, not coequal, to the executive. It also forces you to again ignore every prior administration who ever claimed priviledge or fought a subpoena. Which is every prior administration.

      1. Terms so thin every president is guilty.

        “Impeach ’em all! Let God sort ’em out!”

        1. I actually laughed at that.

        2. What a chuckle I’d get seeing every living president sitting in the dock with Trump.

          Also, do you think ENB gets embarrassed when she hits submit for articles like this one? I’d personally be mortified.

        3. The original phrase was “Kill them all. God will know His own.”

          Unfortunately for politicians, God won’t recognize any of them.

      2. ” It also forces you to again ignore every prior administration who ever claimed priviledge or fought a subpoena.”

        I have no doubt the authors here are up to that task.

      3. When Obama abused his power by directing the FBI and the IRS against his political opponents, that was just fine with these fake libertarian assholes.

      4. Agree that the obstruction charge is kinda b.s.

        If the Democrats weren’t rushing to impeach, they could wait for Judge Brown Jackson’s ruling on the McGahn testimony to go through appeal, which is scheduled for January 3rd, at which point there would be a clear decision on the House’s powers to subpoena people associated with the Executive branch and the limits of invoking executive privilege.

        1. Keep hoping, fascist clown

        2. Where in the US Constitution does it give Congress power over the Executive Branch?

          It doesn’t. Congress is claiming a power that they dont have as the Executive Branch is the only Branch with the power to execute police powers passed by Congress.

          Congress has Legislative powers and these dont include being able to force anyone to talk to Congress.

          1. First of all, you are arguing with me when I was agreeing that the obstruction charges are problematic. But, apparently I didn’t take an extreme enough view since I talked about specifics and subtleties.

            Congress *does* have some powers over the Executive Branch, one of them being impeachment powers. When the trial begins in the Senate, it will come up that there is precedent from past impeachments that the Senate can exercise the power to compel testimony from the Executive branch, although they cannot compel the President to incriminate himself.

            But that leaves the question of what the powers of the House are. That is exactly what the McGahn case, which I referred to, is addressing.

          2. Congressional powers are listed in the US Constitution and they dont have others.

            Impeachment is a power over all government, not just the Executive Branch. Congress can remove Judges, Executive officials, Congressmen, and Senators.

            I personally cannot wait for all the US Senators to be sworn in. No swifter way to get rid of Democrat Senators than indict them for perjury.

            1. That article was included in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments does it’s not surprising to find it here.

              1. Obstruction?

            2. “Impeachment is a power over all government, not just the Executive Branch.”

              So, you are agree Congress has the power of impeachment over the Executive Branch? (I.e. the Venn diagram of offices Congress has impeachment power over includes Executive branch offices, including the Presidency.)

              1. Nobody is arguing that Congress doesn’t have the power of impeachment, special mikey.
                The argument is that they do not have the power to compel executive testimony of executive officials in House hearings prior to an impeachment vote, after which they can be compelled to testify in the Senate trial

                1. Right, so what is loveconstitution1789 arguing?

                2. +1000

                  Special mikey is having trouble thinking with his fingers crossed.

        3. Professor Turley made much the same point. Namely, the need to build the case. I happen to agree with him (and you) regarding the adjudication of privilege claims by the Executive branch.

          Mind you, I think this impeachment thing is total bullshit, but the legal questions here are pretty huge….just how far does Congressional (meaning, the House not the Senate) authority extend?

      5. “One of the articles on obstruction requires one to believe the Senate is superior, not coequal, to the executive.”

        Do you mean the House?

      1. She’s going to announce.

        All this makes madness makes sense in that context. Since 2016 they’ve made sure they were going to make Trump – and anyone connected to him – look like a criminal racist – and it worked. Even Reason seems to have fallen for it. Lay some seeds of doubt to sway the ill-informed or ‘low information’ morons.

        Make sure, in addition, the DNC field is bat shit insane.

        Then comes the fact she hasn’t shut up since 2016. This reached an apex when she went on sell out Howard Stern – Mr. Whack Pack Porn Man iconoclast has now gone full Democrat establishment.

        Not to mention they got rid of a really potentially troublesome poison pill in Epstein.

        The red carpet is out for her.

        Coughing fits and all.

        1. “Even Reason seems to have fallen for it.”

          Oh come on. They haven’t fallen for it, they are in on it.

          This has had Journolist Part Deux written all over it.

          1. +1000

            No matter how badly Lefties want to start a Civil War 2.0, it will not work out for them.

            1. The Progs want Civil War 2.0 — but if they succeed in starting hostilities, it will be American Revolution 2.0 (subtitled “And This Time We Mean It!”)

        2. If she runs, the family’s connection to Epstein becomes an instant national issue. Prince Andrews is facing some serious heat and new accusers are emerging. There was a portrait of Bill Clinton in a dress found in his home.

          She’s more of a liability for the dems now then she was in 2016.

        3. “Since 2016 they’ve made sure they were going to make Trump – and anyone connected to him – look like a criminal racist – and it worked.”

          Trump & co. could have made this a lot harder than they did though.

      2. I guess it’s still her turn.

        1. The fact that they had to go this far shows they’re rapacious sociopaths who will stop at nothing to get what they want.

          The GOP can’t possibly match their penchant for ruthless political machinations.

          You would have to have a combo of Cicero and Cato to push them back and even then….we know what happened to those two.

        2. Hillary HAS to be President soon or a bunch of Democrats are going to be under indictment soon without a president to pardon them.

          1. Who in particular, and for what offenses? Please be specific.

          2. Trolls are fun. They appear and demand things.

        3. No, it’s not Hitlery’s turn.
          She has serious physical (and mental) health issues.
          The democratic nominee will be Bloomie, and what a wonderful candidate he will be.
          He’s not only a gun-grabber but is the scourge of plastic straws everywhere, and don’t even get me started how brave he was when he went to war with sugary soda pop in NYC!

          1. Hizzoner made me laugh recently. He just came out and stated that POTUS Trump would ‘wipe the floor’ with any of the current crop of Team D candidates. He was right.

            What Hizzoner also needs to know is POTUS Trump will wipe the floor with him as well. Hizzoner BARELY won that third term. His Nanny State policies will not go over well with the electorate. And his hypocrisy is truly something to behold.

      3. What does she have on them? Maybe we should do the right thing and get them all on witness protection

        1. AFTER they give their sworn depositions . . .

      4. I kinda hope Hillary runs. She will come in late and her privilege will stand above the work all other candidates have done so far. It will be a slap in the face to the current candidates.

        She will not be the president her supporters expect her to be and disappoint will set in if she wins.

    3. NO SPOILERS! I haven’t yet caught up on the latest episodes and this is one of my favorite shows. I can’t wait to see how the writers get the show out of this dead-end thread and into next season’s promised “Replacing the King” thread, but I still want to see it for myself. (I’m guessing next season will feature a surprise twist involving the return of a character from the first season that we all thought had been written out of the show, but that may be just a teaser they’re not going to deliver on.)

      1. God you’re fucking boring.

        1. “God you’re fucking boring.“

          I feel for You Buttchug. Nobody likes spoilers or speculative plot lines that ruin the suspension of disbelief you turds have had for 3 years watching this Trump Hate Porn. Just 5 more years of this. Have a good day!

        2. “you’re fucking boring”

          And you’re creepy and shouldn’t be near children. What’s your point?

      2. I haven’t seen the next season, but I am expecting it to be predictable, with the Senate not removing Trump from office. But the wild card is that Giuliani is off poking around in Ukraine; Trump is reportedly wanting a long Senate trial, against McConnell’s wishes, where the tables can be turned on Biden; and Biden himself is throwing temper tantrums or appealing for sympathy about his son’s death whenever Hunter comes up on the campaign trail.

  2. Pelosi has literally scheduled back-to-back press conferences to announce articles of impeachment against Trump and then support for his trade deal.

    Well, on trade he is a Democrat.

    1. This, along with her pushing the schedule to get the house hearings off TV demonstrate that she knows she has to pander to the part of the base that demands impeachment and thereby protecting a significant part of her caucus from the wrath of the voters, while simultaneously knowing that this nonsense is not working for them and it is bad for the country as well. So she cut the baby in half….

      “Here, have your hearings and call it impeachment, and then let’s vote this loser out of here and drop it on the Senate where the Republicans can step in their own poo.”

    2. I don’t know of any Democrat who ever promised free trade.

      Trump did at the G-7 Summit. It was rejected by our trading partners.

  3. Record number of African migrants at U.S.-Mexico border

    Something tells me this is too local for reason to cover.

  4. County may become first in U.S. to bar new refugees

    Uh-oh, North Dakota just made the reason shit list!

    1. Kinda surprised they aren’t talking about how Amelia, Ohio just voted to disband their town government over how corrupt it was. It might not have been huge news, but still would have been interesting and relevant for a libertarian website. A real libertarian website I mean.

  5. That somebody came up with the idea of the Constitution hugging Pelosi is sooooo wrong, troubling and disturbing on sooooo many levels.

    Goes back to listening to Machaut for comfort.

    1. Seeing that brings to mind a Vince Lombardi quote:

    2. The Constitution better have asked before hugging her.

    3. The Constitution should have just slapped her fanny as it jogged by.

  6. Biden says Warren on list of possible VPs

    Just like a Party of slavery member to put an AmerIndian on a list.

    1. Hey, now — you don’t have to go there. He probably just likes her hair.

      1. or her fingers.

      2. It’s the smell of her Vidal Sassoon and Geritol that puts the ardor in his garters.

  7. …a full House vote will happen the following week.

    With Congressman Danny Tanner abstaining.

    1. Cut it out!

  8. Trump is the head of the executive branch and he’s a fucking criminal committing crimes in your faces. This Carter Page stuff is interesting but you’re missing the forest here people.

    1. please refrain from posting your Trump fan-fic porn

      1. Go fuck yourself

        1. Are you about to cry?

        2. “he’s a fucking criminal committing crimes in your faces”

          Hey man, it’s your dream, apparently I’m just getting jizzed on in it…

        3. Ahahahah I got your name bitch ahahahahah

          1. I’m sure Sarah Palin appreciates you.

            1. Cry more bitch I GOT YOUR NAME AHAHAHHAAHHA

        4. Pod sounds angry.

          Pod was promised a pony.

          Pod didn’t get a pony.

          Even Pod knows this is laughable.

          1. ooh, is wittle Poddy Woddy gonna cry?

          2. Pod keeps promising us that he will eat Tide Pods but he is too chicken.

    2. You need help. And an education. Dont care which you prioritize.

      1. That’s you buddy. But whatever. I really don’t care, do you?

        1. “Pod
          December.10.2019 at 9:55 am
          Go fuck yourself”


    3. Thanks for picking up on my metaphor.

      The forest is “A sitting US president used the FBI, CIA, NSA, Department of Justice and the IRS to attack and spy on the political opposition. He then had high administration officials sabotage the incoming administration by distributing classified information around the government with the intention of leaking it after the inauguration in order to precipitate a call for a special counsel’s appointment. ” That is the forest.

      And not one syllable of that is conjecture. That is all things that they have not only “admitted”, but that they have publicly bragged about. They are very proud to have done all of it…. and there is no scandal in the history of the US that is even a rounding error on this one.

      Watergate was a handful of Nixon campaign guys breaking in to DNC offices to find out what they were up to. That’s it. Imagine if Nixon had used the FBI to spy on his opponents? What if he had used foreign agents to set up someone on McGovern’s campaign for process crimes? Holy cow! You think they would have just let him resign? Yeah, no.

      Tweeting about “slow Joe” isn’t in that ballpark. Neither is asking for an investigation into what is fairly obvious evidence of corruption by a high government official.

      1. It is as if the Democratic leadership and spokesholes have double standards!

    4. Does chemjeff have another, angry sock?

      1. No, this is likely “OG” from a few months ago that was relentlessly pimping the Mueller report up until that turned out to be a fart in the wind. He disappeared shortly after that, and this is likely the the same guy with a new screenname because the bald assertion style of posting and regurgitation of NPR talking points is similar.

        1. Lol, I remember him now.

    5. Please tell us more chud.

    6. This Carter Page stuff is interesting because it eviscerates the Russian probe, which found Trump not guilty of any obstruction despite rigging the process.

      If we can exclude evidence that was obtained via surveillance that was later proved to be unlawful, then we could say the entire Russian probe was fruits of a poisonous tree.

  9. Paris commuters face 300 miles of traffic jams in fifth day of French strikes

    reason is too much a national publication to cover local traffic news.

    1. I don’t understand people in general… but I really don’t get the French on this one. This has been their go-to “we are on strike” tactic for decades. Bring in trucks and block traffic.

      How the heck is this supposed to win people over to your side? I’d think this would lead to calls for strikes and unions to be outlawed. Forget all the people who are not involved in any way but can’t get to work…. there are emergency vehicles that cannot operate. Fire trucks and ambulances cant get through. Police cannot respond…..

      Yet the populace seems content with these tactics.

      People are complicated creatures.

      1. Well, compared to how they used to go about expressing dissatisfaction with their society, they may figure traffic jams are an okay price to pay.

      2. I think it’s less about getting people on their side and more about making it clear that their threats aren’t idle.

      3. Remember when the left used to support worker’s movements, before they decided they were the new First Estate?

        Listen to Cyto concern troll about firetrucks and ambulances.

  10. World’s first human composting site to open

    Boomers are mostly shit anyways.

    1. Sounds like a good idea. Why waste resources on dead meat? As long as it’s sanitary, people should dispose of remains however they want.

  11. $1,424 on Steam? Impressive.

    1. His family needed entertainment on all those plane rides.

    2. And who takes their rabbit with them on vacation? Don’t they have rabbit sitters?

    3. All that DLC adds up.

    4. Whales gonna whale.

  12. Initial reaction: The IG report is indeed incredibly bad for the FBI, though not for the reasons Trump & his defenders assert. Only against the backdrop of their exaggerated claims could anyone call this any sort of “vindication” of the Bureau.

    What are their motivations for going nutso on an investigation that is so high profile that it would be beyond stupid to think it wouldn’t be scrutinized? Are they that corruptly incompetent? People (yes, on both sides) have gone totally bananas at Trump’s election. That’s demonstrable. Why would we think the people that make up the FBI would be any different? This is insane.

    1. This report makes me want to support antifa

    2. You have to ignore and completely memoryhole everything they’ve ever said outside the conference room with the IG: In texts to each other, and on the airwaves of CNN and MSNBC

      I’ve just about lost any remaining patience with Reason

    3. I agree, this is insane.

      Ask yourself the question that nobody has asked publicly…

      Would the FBI start wiretapping the Republican presidential candidate’s campaign without a sign-off by the president himself?

      Remember – Comey is in charge. Does that guy step out on a limb like that, all by himself? Does Comey become the first ever FBI director to spy on a major political party’s candidate – all without any cover from above?

      This guy, who writes CYA memos about every phone call? That guy?

      So… why has nobody ever asked “what did Obama know, and when did he know it?” Why has nobody asked Obama why he signed off on spying on the republican campaign? Why has there not been one single reporter with enough of a sack to even ask the question?

      Is it merely partisanship? Or does it have something to do with all of those FBI wiretaps that were directed at reporters during the Obama administration?

      1. Keep in mind that the report said that Comey blurted out in a meeting that Trump might have “four” Russian assets tied to his campaign–and got no reaction out of it. No one, supposedly, asked him any follow-up questions about it. Not even a “WTF?”

        You’d think the FBI director claiming that there were Russian spies within the Trump campaign might have elicited “some” kind of reaction from everyone else in the room, instead of apathy.

        1. There weren’t any questions asked… but a stern “You didn’t tell us anything. DID YOU?!
          Plausible deniability only works with those who have suspended disbelief.

    4. What are their motivations for going nutso on an investigation that is so high profile that it would be beyond stupid to think it wouldn’t be scrutinized?

      I think a lot of behavior is explained by the assumption that HRC was going to win.

  13. The Inspector General report on the federal investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign speaks to the FBI’s corruption and incompetence, independent of any partisan angle.

    We are not sending our best to the FBI.

  14. Pensacola shooter was ‘infuriated’ over ‘Porn Stash’ nickname

    Mohammed “Porn Stash” Saeed Alshamrani was killed before he could star in man-on-man action in Arabian Lights: Islam Sucks a Bag of Dicks

    1. Is it OK now to ban every fucking Saudi from ever coming over here to learn to fly anything ever again? And his cock sucking friends who recorded this shit with their iPhones, they fucking knew he was going to shoot the place up. Accessory to multiple murders – throw all those fuckers in jail for the rest of their lives (they probably put them all on a plane home since then).

      1. Not gonna happen if all his buddies have the family connections that are common in the Saudi military (which is likely). It would turn it into a huge diplomatic shit storm, (or at least a bigger one)

        1. Sounds good to me. They should lock all these fuckers up – put them into a State prison too – I’m sure Islamic terrorists would do OK in general population. Seriously, we have nothing to be afraid of Saudi Arabia for – fuck them. They can’t even beat down a rebel uprising in fucking Yemen. Saudis might be the worst fighting force in the history of warfare, and that even includes Italians in WWII.

    2. And Trump’s reaction was to rush to make sure we all know the King of Saudi Arabia is sorry about what happened.

      1. Probably too local a story for Trump fans here to discuss, though.

        1. Well, yeah you’re one guy with TDS, that’s as local as it gets.

        2. You really must have TDS if you think there are any Trump fans here – there are just completely non-partisan neutral observers of the political scene and it’s not their fault that they have reasonably and impartially noticed that Our Lord and Savior Donald J Trump is completely pure and holy and unblemished by sin. They only praise Trump for the good things He’s done, they’re completely willing to criticize Him for the bad things. In the highly unlikely event He ever does anything bad, of course. If it ever appears He does something bad, they will be sure to chastise themselves for their lack of understanding how things that may appear to be bad are in fact good things that only a very stable genius, a very good brained master of 7-D Wizard Chess is capable of understanding.

          1. God youre fucking boring.

            1. This comment, on the other hand, was novel and gripping.

          2. That doesn’t even make sense.

            Most of the “pro trump” comments are of the “Holy crap, will you stop with these idiotic accusations that make no sense” variety.

            How Trump’s opponents manage to be worse than Trump is beyond me, but they do. It takes a lot of work too, since Trump cannot even string together a cogent thought or put together an articulate paragraph. Yet seemingly otherwise intelligent folk keep coming up with the most idiotic stuff to attack him about.

            I am certain to a metaphysical level that if Trump’s opponents (both in politics and in the press) had simply played it straight and tried to work with Trump when he was on their side and opposed his proposals when he wasn’t, Trump would have imploded all on his own.

            But the hyperbolic and insane attacks have actually kept anyone from noticing anything else. So he keeps right on going.

            There will be textbooks written about this idiocy.

            1. I am certain to a metaphysical level that if Trump’s opponents (both in politics and in the press) had simply played it straight and tried to work with Trump when he was on their side and opposed his proposals when he wasn’t, Trump would have imploded all on his own.

              But the hyperbolic and insane attacks have actually kept anyone from noticing anything else. So he keeps right on going.

              ^ This.

            2. “I am certain to a metaphysical level that if Trump’s opponents (both in politics and in the press) had simply played it straight and tried to work with Trump when he was on their side and opposed his proposals when he wasn’t, Trump would have imploded all on his own.”

              Yep. They could have horse traded and, given their greater experience in legislating, no doubt gotten him to sign off on things that were poison to his base. But no, they just had to make their disdain and opposition stupidly obvious. Worse than a high school clique.

              But, on the plus side, it has all been remarkably edifying. Especially watching the ersatz libertarian authors here torch what little credibility they had in support of the entrenched bureaucracy.

            3. darkflame, Nardz, John, loveconstitution1789 adhere to “gut-feelings” theory with “minimal evidence” that Trump got a good look at Epstein and the Clintons, and because of his disgust ended his friendships with them, and they are all afraid of him because he knows about their skeletons in the closet:


              1. We don’t “adhere” to it, we believe that its a possibility. Because, as mentioned, there’s no evidence, and unlike you, we aren’t a moronic mouthbreather.

                I guess that’s how you know you’ve made it at reason, when the trolls start stalking your posts.

                1. Special mikey is nothing if not a consistent liar

                2. So Mike has definitely made it.

                  1. Mike comes here to concern troll while misrepresenting his position, cheerleading The State as he claims to follow YOUR ideology. He predicates every argument and “question” on DNC talking points then calls himself a “neutral” libertarian.
                    Instead of bitching about people confronting him, maybe you’d be better served offering some pushback yourself.
                    You want to be on Team Administrative State?
                    Keep sticking up for Mike, the biggest Administrative State supremacist here, then.
                    Progress uber alles

                3. As Nardz regularly stalks my posts.

                  1. As you regularly stalk this comment board to post State Supremacist bullshit.
                    You stated your purpose in starting to post was literally to whine about people not hating Trump enough. That is the entire purpose of your existence.
                    It’s fucking pathetic.

                    You’re basically hihn with less bolding and capitalization.

            4. Cyto, you are absolutely right about the Democrats playing their cards badly over and over.

              The Russia probe, which we are now learning is even more f’d up than we thought (even though the FBI is supposedly absolved by the report) just kept the corruption of the DNC front and center in the news cycle. And, as Reason itself pointed out in a story, the actual social media postings Russia posted on facebook were laughably lame.

              Now, the impeachment of Trump is keeping Hunter Biden front and center in the news cycle. The Democrats should take the advice of pundits who are telling them to censure Trump and be done with it.

              I won’t make the argument that the Democrats should have said nothing and let the aid to Ukraine expire. The Ukrainian soldiers needed the aid badly, and that’s the one place where this affair stops just being a political football and may have gotten real people killed.

              1. I think its too late vote to censure, by going immediately to impeachment the dems over-played their hand. Had they started with just an oversight committee inquiry, censure would be a good way to go. I think if they move to censure, it’ll prove impeachment was bs and piss off the radical left. Basically Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler went full retard, no Oscar awarded

              2. “The Ukrainian soldiers needed the aid badly”

                “Neutral” mikey regurgitating deep state bullshit again, with no basis in actual knowledge.

                1. I don’t know to say to someone who cares so little about Ukrainian soldiers fighting on the front lines that they dismiss this consequence of delaying the aid as a mere deep state talking point. President worship is more important than people’s lives.

                  1. Please explain what fighting was impacted by the postponement of the money. Where did Russia make a gain against the Ukraine or where did the Ukraine fail to make a gain due to the late payment?

                    1. The Ukraine lost negotiating power with Russia because of the appearance of faltering support from the United States. If the aid expiration deadline had been missed (which it almost was before the delay of aid was discovered by the press), it would have had serious, direct consequences for fighters on the front lines.

                    2. Line for fucking line regurgitation of neocon professional “diplomat” talking points.
                      You’re a puppet controlled by the deep state dick up your ass.

                2. What? The blanket Obama was sending them wasn’t good enough?

                  1. Whataboutism. We weren’t discussing the Obama administration.

          3. There are most definitely Trump fans here. loveconstitution1789 regularly lists ASCII art bumper stickers reading “Trump 2020!”. I’ll post a link when I get back to my desktop PC where John and others completely abandon their concerns for evidence to adhere to a theory of how ethical Trump is.

            1. Trump is more ethical than you
              That is enough

              1. I don’t think Vera Coking would consider Trump more ethical that me. I never tried to take her house away to build a parking lot for my casino.

                1. Don’t care.
                  You’re a fraud, mike laursen, and an utter scumbag.
                  Yes, Trump is more ethical than you. Such a bar is, admittedly, not high.

                  1. So, you are hanging out on a libertarian website but don’t care about eminent domain abuse?

                    1. Is this a libertarian website?
                      I guess if you don’t have the balls or integrity to call yourself a progressive it could appear that so

            2. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗

            3. Poor Mikey. He is here to defend reason while Libertarians call out reason staff and post TRUMP 2020 messages.

              1. Yes, I am. But no need to feel sorry for me.

                1. I feel sorry for reason.

          4. Sorry, should have read your entire comment and recognized it as sarcasm before responding. Again, apologies.

      2. “And Trump’s reaction”

        Is something only a loser would TDS would even notice or care about after a bunch of people were shot.

        1. The Trump fans here in the commentariat are complaining about how Reason hasn’t written about the shooting.

          None of the Trump fans have stated what you want Reason to say, but I assume it would be along the lines of “ban every fucking Saudi from ever coming over here to learn to fly anything ever again”. I agree that with Conchfritters on this one. I assume everyone here does, too; please tell us about it if you don’t agree.

          Yet, President Trump’s only statement on the shootings was to make an announcement on the behalf of the King of Saudi Arabia. Why are none of the Trump fans here talking about that, let alone saying anything negative about Trump’s sole statement on the shooting?

          1. “The Trump fans here in the commentariat are complaining”

            Is something only a loser would TDS would even notice or care about after a bunch of people were shot.

            Which you know, hence wallotext.

            1. Pointing out severe cases of TDS apparently makes one a “Trump fan.”


          2. Trump actually tweeted:
            “Just received a full briefing on the tragic shooting at NAS Pensacola in Florida, and spoke to @GovRonDeSantis. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families during this difficult time. We are continuing to monitor the situation as the investigation is ongoing.”
            No need to lie, dude.

            1. I was wrong about it being his only tweet. Thank you for filling me in.

    3. When I first read the story i assumed the instructor meant a literal “stash of porn”, as in a large collection of DVDs with titles like “Hot Sorority Babes 6”, that Mo wanted to share with the class.

      I didn’t think “porn-stache” as in “Gillespie used to have an awesome porn-stache”. Spelling is important, people.

    4. Fucking hell, THAT was his reason for killing people? He was in the military and never got called a name before? What sort of family connections does he have that he thinks this was acceptable? Fuck this guy, give him the death penalty.

      1. Fuck this guy, give him the death penalty.

        They did.

        1. yeah, read up on it afterward. My bad

  15. The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns.

    Ha. Constitutionally protected. Maybe they could take some kind of oath to that effect when they are handed the badge.

    1. Yep, and while we’re at it maybe we can have FBI agents make some sort of formal legal-religious agreement with their wives so they would stop banging the staff attorneys.

      If only our society had some institution to protect this relationship….

    2. LOL. That was hilarious!

  16. “for his alleged “quid pro quo” with Ukraine and efforts to cover it up.’

    Sondland testified that there was a quid pro quo and that Trump had directed him to present the demand to the Ukrainian officials. You can drop alleged part. It’s been proven.

    1. Again you’re wrong. Always wrong. He wrote in his opening statement there was a pid pro quo for a meeting with trump. Then under actual questioning he said trump never said there was a pid pro quo on anything, that was his opinion. In fact he said nobody told him ever that aid or meetings were ever dependent on anything. So you’re wrong again.

      1. Here is a transcript of his November 21st testimony:

        There are 69 instances of the phrase “quid pro quo”. In the transcript of his live testimony, there are definitely places where he says that there was a quid pro quo in exchange for the White House meeting. Can you point to the exact place in the transcript where he walks that statement back?

        1. As soon as you quote the parts that show a quid pro quo so we can laugh at how desperate you are

          1. Sondland: (08:58)
            Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States and we knew these investigations were important to the president.

              1. That is an article from October 17th. Sondland’s most recent, public testimony was on November 20th. As we all know, Sondland changed his testimony and walked back some of the things he originally said.

                1. “As we all know, Sondland changed his testimony and walked back”

                  So you were wrong and lying, and I was right. Got it.

                  1. Sondland revised his original testimony from the closed hearings, reversing himself to say there was a quid pro quo after all. But you already know that.

                    1. And the guy he claims to have talked with about this says that no such conversation ever took place.

                      So much for “proof.”

          2. Sondland: (29:07)
            I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.

              1. That article is from October 17th, when Sondland first testified in closed-door hearings. On November 5th, Sondland added an addendum to his closed-door testimony saying that his memory was “refreshed” and he now remembered that there was a quid pro quo.

                The quotes I give here are from transcripts of Sondland’s November 20th open-door hearing testimony.

          3. Adam Schiff: (02:33)
            Now in your opening statement, you confirm that there was a quid pro quo between the White House meeting and the investigations into Burisma and the 2016 election that Giuliani was publicly promoting, is that right?

            Gordon Sondland: (02:44)

              1. October 17th. See above.

          4. Adam Schiff: (14:17)
            You’ve testified that that meeting was conditioned was a quid pro quo for what the President wanted, these two investigations, isn’t that right?

            Gordon Sondland: (14:27)

            Adam Schiff: (14:28)
            And that everybody knew it.

            Gordon Sondland: (14:29)

              1. October 17th.

          5. That’s four. I’ll stop there. There are 69 instances of the phrase, quid pro quo, in the transcript.

            1. Its actually one, revisited three times, and walked back. You lose.

              1. And I asked you to point out where in the November 20th testimony transcript he walked it back. I quoted three places where he did not walk it back.

            2. Is the fact that Schiff said “quid pro quo” now considered evdience, because that’s what you keep saying (and please dont pull your “I never said that” shit, you’re definitely saying it) Why should I care that the term was used? That isn’t evidence so why do you keep acting like it is?

            3. “That’s four. I’ll stop there. There are 69 instances of the phrase, quid pro quo, in the transcript.”

              Gee, if you check the NYT over the last month or so, you can probably find that phrase used hundreds of times!
              Now, do you have any evidence?

              1. If Schiff was saying something Sondland disagreed with, why did Sondland reply with “Correct.”?

                1. “If Schiff was saying something Sondland disagreed with, why did Sondland reply with “Correct.”?”

                  Why do you keep changing the subject? Is it because you’re a fucking imbecile?

            4. “”Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

              The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

              Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”””


              1. Presumptions are evidence to Chem/Mike/Jeff/deEspresso.

              2. All of the quotes above are Sondland saying that there was a quid pro quo for the White House meeting, not the military aid.

                His testimony about the military aid quid pro quo is that he made inferences about that, and was not told directly by Giuliani, Trump, or White House staff. I never said otherwise.

                1. Except the Democrats opened up the inquiry on the claim that the military aid was quid pro quo, not the meeting. So you’re still wrong.

                  1. No, I am not. You just changed what was being discussed. I was responding to JesseAz’s assertion: “[Sondland] wrote in his opening statement there was a pid pro quo for a meeting with trump. Then under actual questioning he said trump never said there was a pid pro quo on anything, that was his opinion.”

                    1. QPQ for a whitehouse meeting? Why was a whitehouse meeting so important when you got the President on the phone. I can understand why a QPQ to prevent military aid from being held up could be an issue. But just a whitehouse visits? That’s even weaker.

                      I do remember some QPQ for whitehouse visits but it involved the Clintons and renting out the Lincoln bedroom.

                    2. Not sure it was that important. But JesseAz still made an unproven assertion that Sondland retracted his testimony saying there was a quid pro quo for a White House meeting.

                    3. Mike Laursen
                      December.10.2019 at 5:49 pm
                      “Not sure it was that important…”

                      So you’re peddling bullshit and hope no one notices?

                    4. JesseAz made a claim that he has not, so far, backed up. Why it is important is that Trump defenders have often made the claim that there is no firsthand evidence of anything, yet Sondland’s testimony about the White House quid pro quo is an example of firsthand testimony.

                    5. Except during the course of questioning, he admitted it wasn’t firsthand. Furthermore, his entire testimony lacks credibility due to the fact that he suddenly changed it based on venue location.

                    6. “ Except during the course of questioning, he admitted it wasn’t firsthand.”

                      Please give the part of the November 21st transcript where he did that.

          1. Byline: October 17th, 2019


    3. Trump and Zelensky say it is not true. I guess they wouldn’t know.

      1. How much weight is it usually given as evidence in a trial when the accused says, “I didn’t do it!”?

        1. Quote a bit, actually, because the burden of proof is on the accuser, you passive-aggressive dipshit.

          1. There is a presumption of innocence in criminal trials. That presumption of evidence is not based on the accused having said, “I didn’t do it!”

            When they ask a defendant, how do you plead, they don’t call off the trial when the defendant says, “Not guilty!”

            1. That’s actually where the presumption comes from, goofy. That’s why there are “guilty” and “not guilty” pleas, and it’s up to the prosecution to prove “guilty” when the defendant pleads “not guilty.”

              But you know this, you’re just pretending to be obtuse again.

              1. A defendant making a guilty/not guilty plea in a criminal court is not the same situation at all as Sondland testifying that Trump told him in a phone call that “There is no quid pro quo!”.

                Also, in the impeachment trial in the Senate, as well as in a criminal court, there would be a presumption of innocence assumed unless a confession of guilty were made.

        2. How much weight is it usually given as evidence in a trial when the accused says, “I didn’t do it!”?
          Not much…but there’s a hell of a lot of weight given when the “victim” says it didn’t happen.

  17. Walmart apologizes for sweater featuring Santa with cocaine

    Walmart has apologized for an adults-only Christmas sweater on its Canadian website that appeared to depict Santa with cocaine, according to a report.

    Great WHITE North!

    1. “The protests outside are frightening!”

    2. How the fuck else is he expected to keep up that Christmas eve schedule?

    3. What a bunch of hosers – that sweater looks better than 90% of the Christmas sweaters that I have see .

    4. appeared to depict Santa with cocaine

      No, it clearly depicts Santa with snow lined up as if it were cocaine. It’s a joke. It’s humor.

      I’ve actually seen depictions of Santa with Coke – it’s been a major ad campaign theme for years. Are we going to be claiming he’s been slyly advocating drug use all this time? What’s in that pipe he’s been smoking? And what’s with the flying reindeer? What are those reindeer flying on exactly? Visions of sugar plums? All those little elves? Hallucinations, I think you mean. Clearly, it’s all an opium dream. But that’s what you get when you mix the opium with the LSD.

      1. God youre fucking boring

  18. Pelosi has literally scheduled back-to-back press conferences to announce articles of impeachment against Trump and then support for his trade deal.

    This is insane. What is the message here

    Well, Nancy’s a good Catholic. It’s probably “Hate the sin; love the sinner.”

  19. Included: “Flights for pet rabbit”- $625

    Hunter’s comfort animal.

    1. As God is my witness, I thought rabbits could fly.

      1. Well I be-done seen about everything.

  20. “New report displays the perils of not spreading the wealth on innovation”
    “There are about a dozen industries at the frontier of innovation. They include software and pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and data processing. Most of their workers have science or tech degrees. They invest heavily in research and development. While they account for only 3% of all jobs, they account for 6% of the country’s economic output.
    And if you don’t live in one of a handful of urban areas along the coasts, you are unlikely to get a job in one of them….”

    ‘The world isn’t fair!’, episode #484,525,655,544.
    It’s an NYT feed, so you know it’s bullshit, but you can bet that if those companies set up shop in flyover country, the NTY would be screaming about tax avoidance.

    1. And if you don’t live in one of a handful of urban areas along the coasts, you are unlikely to get a job in one of them

      There are several non-coercive solutions to this:

      1) Move to where one of these jobs are
      2) Work remotely (many of these firms allow that)
      3) Start your own firm where you are

      what is wrong with that? why the hell can’t people just take some fucking responsibility for themselves?

    2. (I know you weren’t agreeing, just adding my 2cents)

      1. No one cares Jeffmike.

  21. Vice looks at how Chicago got safer when police started doing less.

    But what about the city’s revenues???

  22. Steele warned that IG report contains information previously blacked out, report says

    It also lays out violations of the US Constitution wherein FBI agents lied on their oaths or affidavits for probable cause.

    This is how the DOJ can indict all these corrupt ex-bureaucrats.

  23. If the FBI is this corrupt now imagine what they’d be doing if anyone else had become president

    1. +10000

    2. Shit, if they will do that to a sitting president, imagine how they will treat the citizenry.

  24. “The Inspector General report on the federal investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign speaks to the FBI’s corruption and incompetence, independent of any partisan angle. ”

    Reason actually tripled down. It is obvious they didnt even bother with the executive summary. Reason simply decided to go with the mainstream narrative.

    What was actually stated was they found is documented or testimonial evidence. Well no shit. This becomes especially easy when you dismiss the emails and texts that were anti trump and claim no bias because the agent said no bias.

    Remember, this is the same Reason who argued for weeks Trump was guilty on Ukraine despite no evidence, instead relying on opinion and inference.

    1. Barr’s Durham investigation is competely political from top to bottom. It was ordered by a politician and served up by a political appointee.

        1. Poor pod.

          IG investigations are political and a joke.

          Congressional “impeachment hearings”, because Trump is mean and wont listen to corrupt politicians, is NOT political and totes serious.

      1. if only more unaccountable bureaucrats were involved Pod could sleep better

        1. I’m pleased with how things have turned out in these investigations. Trump just got himself impeached. Barr was unmasked again when he attempted to cover up the whistleblower complaint. Trump keeps digging that hole.

          1. I’m pleased with how upset you are lololol

            1. But I’m not upset. I do get excited I will admit to that.

              1. “Pod
                December.10.2019 at 11:23 am
                But I’m not upset”

                December.10.2019 at 9:55 am
                Go fuck yourself”


          2. If the House votes to impeach, the Senate wont remove from office.

            So then Trump is still the best President in over 80 years and will be reelected as such.

          3. “” Trump just got himself impeached.””

            Clinton got himself impeached too. Big deal.

            Impeachment is not the liberal endgame anyway. Getting him out of office is. If the Senate does not remove him and the impeachment process makes dems loose some elections, and Trump is re-elected. The impeach the motherfucker crowed loses big time.

      2. You’re pathetic.

        1. Trump is pathetic and weak. Prison is going to be hell for him.

          1. It would be if he were a pedophile like you screech

          2. “”Prison is going to be hell for him.””

            For what?

            1. Poor pod is having fever dreams again where Trump is convicted for being mean to Congress and Hillary.

      3. Barr’s Durham investigation is competely political from top to bottom. It was ordered by a politician swamp creature and served up by a political appointee swamp creature.

        Have we got a countdown going on how many days until Trump’s people find out Barr was formerly Bush’s AG and realize he is not in fact a Trumpista but merely one more betrayal of Trump’s promise to pick “only the best”? If you think Durham is going to come up with some “bombshell” that winds up with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Clinton or Obama himself looking at charges, you need to quit sniffing glue and wake up and smell the coffee. It’s going to take something a lot worse than Trump to make a start on fixing this thing.

        1. This is actually a salient point.

          Everyone involved in “investigating” this stuff is a lifelong resident of the institution. They are highly unlikely to take a “rock the boat” stand that would effectively end their career.

          Contrast with the Mueller team – entirely brought in from private practice and with many having personal political motivations that aligned with the objective of the investigation.

          Imagine for a moment… Barr appointing an “independent counsel” to investigate and bring charges – entirely populated with Republican attorneys that have high end political connections to Republican politicians and Republican causes. Think that might raise a few concerns?

          1. It’s only wrong when the wrongs sorts do it.

          2. Yea, I don’t have the highest hopes.
            Only violence will solve the problem.
            Lots of it

      4. Its DC everything is political all the way from the street sweepers ass to Hillarys nose. it is impossible to not be political therefore it is a moot point to claim its political

  25. Today, on the 30th day of their freedom, DOJ filed appeals to send them all back. Disgraceful.

    The president needs to remind his dog the applause in which he basked thanks to First Step.

  26. The supremes back woo:
    “Berkeley’s cell-phone health warning survives Supreme Court challenge”

    1. What happened to the Supreme Court’s newfound fealty to freedom of speech?

      I thought we were against compelled speech? And this is the thinnest of reeds…. the WHO is very political and not very scientific. I’m not sure we should be using them as an authority. …. and in any event, the US government officially disagrees with this assessment.

      Really weird that they didn’t want a bite at that apple.

  27. In case you’re running low on images to haunt your nightmares…

    Methinks the Constitution didn’t give prior consent.

    1. It’s the unnamed deep state hugging Pelosi and the Constitution is not going to get in their way.

  28. House Democrats announced two articles of impeachment Tuesday against President Donald Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress –

    HAHAHA. Separate but equal branches of government…hahaha

    Even if Trump were removed from office (which he wont be), Trump would still be the best President in over 80 years!

  29. Whatever else we hear about impeachment today, we should also read the IG Report regarding the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.

    “FBI Headquarters established a chain of command for Crossfire Hurricane that included close supervision by senior CD managers, who then briefed FBI leadership throughout the investigation. Although we do not expect managers and supervisors to know every fact about an investigation, or senior officials to know all the details of cases about which they are briefed, in a sensitive, high-priority matter like this one, it is reasonable to expect that they will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in order to provide effective oversight, consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility. We concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliability of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not. In our view, this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command. For these reasons, we recommend that the FBI review the performance of the employees who had responsibility for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers and supervisors in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation, including senior officials, and take any action deemed appropriate.”

    —-Inspector General, Department of Justice

    “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation”

    Executive Summary, xiv

    After reading that, is it any wonder that Trump didn’t trust the FBI to investigate the Ukraine? After reading that the FBI was undermining his election campaign with surveillance authorized with data they knew to be fraudulent–with affirmations as to the credibility of these lies from the top of the FBI all the way to the bottom–I wouldn’t trust the FBI to do anything!

    Attorney General Barr needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate the FBI. Nothing short of a full investigation by a prosecutor can restore the country’s faith that our intelligence services aren’t willfully undermining our elections. If you think things are bad now, wait to see what happens if and when Trump loses. Convince the American people that every leak about Trump is a deep state disinformation campaign, and you lose a lot of trust. If a populist like Trump loses without a thorough investigation of the FBI beforehand, then we’ll really see trouble.

    The worst thing that can happen to libertarianism at the hands of populists is convincing the American people that their voices on policy cannot and never will be heard through classically liberal institutions. We need a special counsel to investigate the FBI to avoid that. If you ever thought auditing the Fed was a good idea, this one is even better.

    1. It’s all one big swamp Ken. They all just claim incompetence to avoid sending anyone to jail. The only person that strategy hasn’t worked for yet is Trump, and I think he’s about to use that defense for whatever comes next. And they can’t do shit about it because the swamp made these rules, not thinking anyone would use it against them.

      1. “For these reasons, we recommend that the FBI review the performance of the employees who had responsibility for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers and supervisors in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation, including senior officials, and take any action deemed appropriate.”

        I read that as basically calling for a special counsel.

        They’re already about to prosecute the FBI agent who altered an email.

        John Mitchell was the Attorney General. He did 19 months in prison for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

        Imagine if you went to the DMV, and you couldn’t leave for 19 months.

        Haldeman, the White House Chief of Staff did 18 months.

        We’ve thrown bigger fish than the FBI people in the pokie before.

        1. Rather than an SC I’m more in favor of a truth and reconciliation committee.

          You are subpoenaed, you appear, and you have one chance to tell everything truthfully. Honesty gets rewarded with immunity.

          Start with the little fish and work your way up.

          1. +1000

          2. Release all FBI employees from the NDA’s they were required to sign and immunize them from retaliation for what they reveal.
            I think our eyes would be opened, very wide.

    2. The report rips them for failures of management…

      Yet declines the obvious conclusion.

      They took something they knew to be inaccurate and used it as the predicate of an investigation that everyone involved had to know was historic and highly political. And yet at every turn they tweaked the evidence as needed to keep getting more authority from the courts.

      For the sake of argument, let’s say they had honest motives…. what that would point to is an extreme level of bias in their motivations … this is how confirmation bias works. IF they wanted to see “Trump bad, we must spy on him”, then confirmation bias kicks in and has them rejecting things that argue against their course of action and pumping up things that are helpful to their desired course of action.

      So you can get to a completely corrupt result without ever having overtly said “i am going to trump up a bogus investigation because I want to prevent Trump from being president”.

      That doesn’t mean the result wasn’t corrupt though.

      1. The report stated there were 17 errors in the FISA applications…”errors” that only leaned in one direction – to Page’s detriment.
        What are the odds that 17 random errors, versus intentional ones, could come to that result?

  30. Deconstructing some common porn-censorship claims.

    As I said on the comments of that article, the best argument against porn censorship is not regarding whether it is good or healthy. It’s pointing out the tyranny that would necessarily result from porn censorship, just as drug prohibition has resulted in the same.

  31. Hillary Clinton emerges as top choice of Democratic voters in Harvard-Harris presidential poll

    Hahaha. Please PLEASE please let Hillary run. The Trump landslide would put some more nails in the Democrat Party coffin.

    It’s her turn 2.0!

    1. These people call Trump voters idiots, right?

      Just checking.


      1. The democrats in DC re-elected Marion Barry after he was caught on tape smoking crack in a hotel room with a hooker.

        No, that’s not a euphemism or exaggeration. Literally crack. Literally a hooker. And literally in a hotel room. All on video.

        And he won his next election.

    2. We must be careful who she anoints as the president of vice.
      Because if she gets in but loses the house, a certain email issue will be finally investigated to its logical conclusion, and yet another impeachment will occur.

  32. Louie Gohmert threatens to impeach Joe Biden in hearing meltdown: ‘We’ve already got the forms’

    Poor Democrats and their shitty precedent. Now every Democrat will be impeached immediately after taking office.

    1. The majority of people, 50%, support impeaching and removing Trump. The Republican impeachment of Clinton never got more than 30ish% support.

      1. All that means is that Democrats are emotional twits who hate Trump no matter what he does.

        1. I hate Trump because he’s a liar and a criminal. And a traitor. It really has little to do with politics. It’s his character and the corruption that offends me.

          1. Thank you for confirming my point.

            1. It’s probably has alot to do with psychology. If you’re dead inside like alot of you guys around here then you probably have an easier time dealing with Trump’s behavior.

              1. If you’re an emotional twit then you’re gonna hate Trump no matter what he does. If you are someone who actually uses their brain you’re gonna laugh at the Russian allegations, shrug at the Ukraine witch hunt, and judge him instead on his policies. Personally I’m not a fan. Deregulation is good. I do not support trade wars and a border wall. I didn’t vote for him, nor will I.
                None of that matters though. You feel what you feel, and no amount of facts or logic change a stance you arrived at by emotion.

              2. It’s probably has alot to do with psychology.

                It does. You’re borderline delusional wishful thinking is unrealistic.

                If you’re dead inside like alot of you guys around here then you probably have an easier time dealing with Trump’s behavior.

                Impeach him. It will likely be a catastrophe for Democrats come November but go ahead. Pence will take office until November and you can’t impeach him or November and likely the next several election cycles will be an outright catastrophe for Democrats.

                If we’re all dead inside and that’s a problem what political action do you think you can take to revive our internal sense of morality? Even if you did take that action and it did revive some internal morality, why do you presume that our zombified/undead sense of morality would align with yours?

                1. We are “dead inside” because our morality is based upon cold logic. We don’t feel and then rationalize.

                  1. And then miss the joke. And become it.

            2. Yeah, the moving of the goalposts couldn’t be more clear:
              This impeachment is criminal.
              This impeachment is political.
              This impeachment is personal.

              There’s an obvious interpretation of the 30 vs. 50% that the GOP and Congress of the 90s wasn’t as batshit insane and “This impeachment is personal.” reinforces that interpretation.

              The shittiest/stupidest/scariest part, that idiots like Pod don’t seem to comprehend, is that people like me, or Trump, aren’t going to change simply because they don’t like us.

              1. Support for impeachment was at 42% BEFORE the Ukraine phone call became a story. This new stuff has barely moved the needle.

                At least Pod is conceding that his support for impeachment has nothing to do with Trump’s conduct as President.

      2. “The majority of people, 50%, support impeaching and removing Trump.”
        50% is a “majority” to fucking left innumerates, and tell us again how big the hags electoral college majority was to be according to those polls.
        Oh, and fuck off and die.

        1. Close enough. Definitely a plurality. Definitely way more than the Clinton impeachment. Doesn’t really matter until we have another election.

          1. So, you were wrong and lying. Again.

          2. “Definitely a plurality.”

            Do you ever post without lying?

      3. Wrong. Stop looking at polls from 4 weeks ago. Then pay special attention to polls from swing states.

        How are you so fucking wrong about everything?

        1. Trump isn’t going to be removed so people who don’t support removing him from office will get their way. I was talking about the support for Trump’s removal. Support for his impeachment and disapproval of his conduct is way higher.

          1. Too bad those polls have to have a D+6 bias to get to that 50%. Bitch.

            1. Funny how Lefties are mentioning support for impeachment but never touch on numbers where they lost the majority in the House and the GOP gains more Senate seats in 2020.

              The GOP is gaining at least 1 Senate seat when Doug Jones gets the boot in Alabama.

    2. At this point I think that going forward, every president will be impeached after taking office, regardless of their party. It’s sour grapes all around. And considering how much power the office has, I doubt anyone can be president without doing something questionable. Just like a cop will find an excuse to pull you over if he follows you long enough, any president will do something the opposing party considers to be impeachable with enough scrutinizing.

    3. I’m not sure it is the Democrat’s precedent. There was this whole thing with President Clinton a while back.

      1. You’re really going with that?

        1. Is it untrue? Is the effort to impeach Trump the first in modern history?

  33. “Rebuilding forests after massive fires: Debate over best methods moves to court”
    “…At stake in the lawsuit is the extent to which forests and woodlands are managed and whether fire-scarred habitat should be artificially restored or left to recover on its own…”

    The recent CA fires are a result of mis-managed (or non-manged) forests; when left to its own, forests burn from time to time.
    If you want safety for humans in forests, they cannot be ‘pristine’.
    But the watermelons want it both ways.

  34. A 5,000-Year-Old Plan to Erase Debts Is Now a Hot Topic in America.

    In ancient Babylon, a newly enthroned king would declare a jubilee, wiping out the population’s debts. In modern America, a faint echo of that idea — call it jubilee-lite — is catching on.

    Support for write-offs has been driven by Democratic presidential candidates. Elizabeth Warren says she’d cancel most of the $1.6 trillion in U.S. student loans. Bernie Sanders would go further -– erasing the whole lot, as well as $81 billion in medical debt.

    1. “Support for write-offs has been driven by Democratic presidential candidates. Elizabeth Warren says she’d cancel most of the $1.6 trillion in U.S. student loans. Bernie Sanders would go further -– erasing the whole lot, as well as $81 billion in medical debt.”

      Yep, those Jackson trees had better deliver a bumper crop if lefty fucking ignoramuses have their way.

    2. Expensive drugs, that require extensive R&D: “GREEDY PHARMA!!!”
      Expensive colleges, doing the same thing as 100 years ago but more poorly: “More subsidies!”

      1. It all makes perfect sense once you recognize that “GREEDY PHARMA” is nothing more than code for “big pharma needs to pony up just like higher ed already does.”

        Statism is nothing if not a shakedown.

        Warren Buffet knows that. Bill Gates figured that out just before it was too late.

    3. The new king wiping out the tax debt of the population to the previous king sounds like a great way to cement your legitimacy as their new leader. Is that what we’re talking about?

      There was a similar thing in the Old Testament among the Children of Israel, also called a year of jubilee as I remember. The thing was, everybody knew when the year of jubilee was coming. They knew that on this date, seven years from now, all outstanding loans would be considered repaid, so people would make loans of only seven years. In the end, the effect wasn’t to forgive anyone’s debts. The effect was to restrict the availability of credit.

      Will you give me a loan? I’ll pay you back in two years!

      Um, the year of jubilee is six months from now, so the answer is no.

      1. Only a prog-tard would think that eliminating everyone’s debts wouldn’t result in less available credit in the future!


      2. +100

  35. Finland’s parliament approves world’s youngest prime minister

    What could possibly go wrong with a Parliament choosing a Prime Minister that is a Millennial?

    1. The dude might illegally blow a bunch of money on Steam?

      1. It’s a chick and she’s kinda cute.

        1. I’d tax her. And I have a feeling she’d tax me too.

  36. ‘Social credit score’: China set to roll out ‘Orwellian’ mass surveillance tool

    One thing is for sure, reason staff have excellent Social Credit Scores in Communist China and they dont even live there.

  37. “From Elk Grove to SI honors, Megan Rapinoe has used her soccer career for worthy goals”

    SI now giving “SJW of the Year” awards!

  38. So, no actual crimes. The Ukraine thing was not remotely illegal as they mentioned precisely zero crimes involved in it.

    Got it.

    Good articles, Dems. Really solid.

    “Trump didn’t bow down to our political — not legal — investigation to our satisfaction” seems to be the thinnest of possible gruels.

    1. So, no actual crimes.

      My exact thought. Of all the High Crimes and Misdemeanors in all the land, they had to settle on crime-y sounding buzzwords. It was a bad move and I opposed it at the time but the GOP in ’98 at least had a solid perjury case.

      1. And the same people who want to impeach Trump defended Bill Clinton!

  39. Interesting statistics:

    “Arrests of people crossing the southwestern border have plummeted by 75% since May, marking one of the most dramatic drops in recent history and a sign that policy changes by the Trump administration and Mexico are reducing migration to the U.S.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Monday that 33,510 people were arrested after illegally crossing the border in November, marking the sixth straight monthly decline since May, when 132,000 such apprehensions marked a 13-year high.

    The majority of those apprehended last year were families and unaccompanied children from Central America, nearly all of whom surrendered to border officials seeking asylum in the U.S. An unexpected surge of such migrants in the spring of this year created a crisis as the federal government proved unable to process them efficiently in safe and healthy conditions.

    Of those arrested in November, 9,000 were traveling as families, according to CBP.

    There are a number of interesting things about those statistics.

    I’ve argued for a long time that both the timing of the surge in asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) and the prevalence of children among the asylum seekers suggested that the reason for the surge since 2012 was Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order.

    I remember doing the statistics here in May of 2019. In 2012, there were fewer than 1,500 asylum seekers per year from all three Golden Triangle countries combined. DACA was initiated in 2012 by President Obama. Asylum claims started to surge since, and they kept getting bigger and bigger. The interesting part was that in May of 2019, when the influx was at a monthly rate that was well over a million asylum seekers a year, 78% of the asylum seekers were either children or family members traveling with children. It shouldn’t be a surprise that when President Obama promised not to deport people who came here as children, it created an enormous incentive for people in poor countries to bring their children to the United States.

    Now we’re seeing that families with children are making up only about 28% of the influx?

    Trump’s strategy to stem the tide has worked. He rescinded the DACA EO, and the Supreme Court has heard the objections to that already–I believe we’re expecting a ruling on DACA in April of 2020. Trump negotiated Third Safe Country agreements with all three of those countries, with an eye on getting Mexico to sign a safe third country agreement with the United States of their own if their army was unsuccessful in putting a dent in the flow of asylum seekers across their country. This put effective pressure on Mexico, and by all accounts, their efforts to stop asylum seekers from moving north to the U.S. border have been effective. Meanwhile, Trump’s remain in Mexico program has discouraged plenty of asylum seekers from making the journey here in the first place. Trump has implemented other policies, too, like enforcing the pledges to reimburse the taxpayers if the relative sponsors take home end up on a federal welfare program before their court date. We’re seeing the deluge dry up before our eyes!

    Speaking as someone who wants to see the U.S. enter into an open borders treaty with Mexico, the flow of asylum seekers into this country at the rate it was in May of 2019 was completely unsustainable–especially when you consider than less than 90% of the people coming here were eligible for asylum under international treaties and U.S. law anyway. To whatever extent you think the job of the president is to protect our country, its interests, and its laws, Trump has done a really good job with this asylum crisis, and he should be applauded–because he did it all constitutionally and he did it without building a wall.

    1. enforcing the pledges to reimburse the taxpayers if the relative sponsors take home end up on a federal welfare program before their court date. We’re seeing the deluge dry up before our eyes!

      As a pro-immigration person, this is an example of exactly the kinds of policies we should support.

      1. The law was on the books for years, but no one ever enforced it.

        These are defensive asylum seekers, most of whom turn themselves in after climbing the fence. They’re arrested for illegal entry, and they claim asylum as a defense against deportation. The treaty says that we can’t treat them any differently than native born Americans in terms of their eligibility for federal programs until their case is decided, which can take years–and they remain eligible. It’s just that a lot of these kids are coming here to be released to a sponsor. When the kid or family is picked up, they tell the authorities they were coming to American to stay with some family member. Usually, defensive asylum seekers (who are technically awaiting criminal prosecution) aren’t released until they can be put into a work program or a group home. It may be illegal for the government to release them from custody until they’re secure in government subsidized housing and food program with schools for the kids, etc. That can take a long time! So, they get their family member to “sponsor” them, and that means they get to get out of jail almost immediately–but the sponsor has to promise that if they end up on welfare, the sponsor will reimburse the taxpayers for the cost. I believe it was part of the Clinton era immigration reform bill circa 1994. Anyway, no one ever enforced the law, so all the asylum seekers were just getting out of the pokie and immediately onto federal welfare programs anyway.

        Not playing that game anymore!

        There’s this thing called moral hazard, and like death and taxes, it’s really dependable. As someone who wants an open borders treaty with Mexico, I think this is a necessary step. A lot of people’s objections to immigration fall away if they don’t think the immigrants are a burden to the taxpayer–and why shouldn’t they? We should all be free to do as we please so long as we don’t violate anyone’s rights, and that’s another way of saying that as long as no one else has to pay for it, you should be free to do what you want.

    2. Speaking as someone who wants to see the U.S. enter into an open borders treaty with Mexico

      Me too as long as the open borders treaty recognizes every letter of the BOR equally on both sides. Otherwise, same shit sandwich, different toppings, new larger size!

      1. Assuming by BOR you mean Bill of Rights: why would Mexico’s failure to, say, respect freedom of speech mean we shouldn’t allow immigration from Mexico?

        1. You’re not fooling anyone Jeff

      2. Yeah, you don’t have to go to Mexico if you don’t want to. If you don’t like the way they protect our fundamental rights, don’t go there.

        1. If you don’t like the way they protect our fundamental rights, don’t go there.

          So, not an open border, just a one-way border.

          1. That does seem to be an irreconcilable discontinuity.

            1. Or, after staring at the menu for long enough:

              Progressive American Shitburger –

              Our classic sandwich made with grade A ground liberal bullshit. Topped with a generous helping of government cheese along with mexican tomatoes and california Lettuce. Served with pungent SJW onions on the side and sweet neo-con ketchup and tangy LINO mustard. Your choice of fries with civil-libertarian seasoning or pickled libertarian cole slaw on the side.


          2. You’re using the term “open border” to mean something other than what I’m talking about.

            The open border treaty between the U.S. and Mexico that I want to see would allow Mexicans to cross the border into the U.S. without a visa–just like Americans can cross into Mexico now without a visa.

            The treaty I want would do other things too, but it’s the freedom to cross the border without a visa that makes the border “open”.

            1. You’re using the term “open border” to mean something other than what I’m talking about.

              Everybody everywhere has a different definition of what constitutes an open border, vast majorities explicitly or implicitly intending to bring about less liberty for all, but my version differing from yours is, somehow, my fault. You must be a manager.

              1. The wiki seems to be getting this right. They’re showing three basic kinds of borders:

                1) A conditionally open border

                No visa required

                2) A controlled border

                Visa required

                3) A closed border

                The Berlin Wall


                It’s about the visa.

        2. “If you don’t like the rules in libertopia, don’t go there.”

          Jesus, Ken, you’re starting to sound like Gillespie. It’s not like I’m quibbling about how they regard our rights. They fundamentally do not recognize that they exist. Moreover, they insist on rights for their citizens in our country that, rather arguably and/or overtly, do not exist in this country. It’s nowhere near something like quid pro quo and you’re asserting that equal liberty on both sides of a border isn’t within the realm of consideration. If we can’t capitalize *or* welfare our way into a more free Mexico then what the fuck is anyone in the small government camp to the right of Bernie Sanders fucking doing?

          “We can solve all the problems of libertopia by just not advocating for greater liberty anywhere!”

          1. See my comment above.

            You’re talking about “open borders” like it’s making us the same country, when it’s actually making our border with Mexico like it is with Canada.

            Because we stop requiring visas and start checking IDs doesn’t have anything to do with whether Canada or Mexico respects our Constitutional rights.

            Requiring visas is a stupid policy that’s bad for our security and bad for the American economy, and we should get rid of that policy if we can because it’s in our interests to get rid of all the illegal immigration and smuggling activity that thrives among all the thousands of migrants who traipse through miles of desert at night–rather than go across at a checkpoint, legally, and have their IDs checked. If the only people sneaking through the desert at night were cartels and criminals, who couldn’t get across the border with a simple swipe of an ID, they’d be a whole lot less of threat and easy to catch.

            If the border were open (no visas required), the border would be far more secure.

            1. no visas required

              Considering the varying degrees to which Reason extols expanding the Visa program, this would seem to be one of many definition of open borders.

              You’re talking about “open borders” like it’s making us the same country, when it’s actually making our border with Mexico like it is with Canada.

              See my comment above. To plenty, purists, the notion of ‘open borders’ means traveling with the same legal restrictions that exist between two cities in the same county or state, two neighboring states or, potentially, even less (“No papers”). To others, pragmatists, it means something more akin to what you indicate. To a third group, statists, it means something between both of the above that winds up enforcing California’s emissions standards on people living in Montana (and who never go to California) but buy from an automaker who distributes across the border(s) between MT and CA.

              I’d understand I’m being a purist if I don’t exactly consider our borders with Canada to be open. I don’t exactly mind the pragmatist’s approach, except when policies like ‘no visas required’ get adopted or, more accurately, co-opted by statists. The only way to guard against such charlatans is to insist on a greater degree of parity and ideological purity. As you indicated above, even well-meaning pragmatists can put policies in place to assuage purists that immigration will be treated in a fair and balanced manner that statists can subsequently choose not to enforce.

            2. “If the only people sneaking through the desert at night were cartels and criminals, who couldn’t get across the border with a simple swipe of an ID, they’d be a whole lot less of threat and easy to catch.”

              Sure, because the Mexican government is so trustworthy when it comes to cartels…

          2. Tim Cavanaugh’s piece from yesteryear is as good today as it was all those years ago:

            “A policy of borders without visas would in fact be more restrictive and formal than the system that applied through much of American history because it would depend on proper identification — either a passport or some other recognized papers — to cross from one country into the other.

            . . . .

            After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, this line of thinking goes, we cannot afford any laxity at our borders. This case breaks down on logic, facts and history. We already have laxity at both our northern and southern borders. If you believe undocumented immigrants are a security threat, things could not be more dangerous than they are now, because the near-impossibility of entering the United States legally drives thousands of people to cross the border in secret.

            Free movement would be more secure than our current system, removing Mexican workers’ incentive to swim across the Rio Grande and allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to track everybody who’s entering the country legitimately, with 100% assurance that anybody who crosses the border in secret is up to no good.


            A treaty that would allow Mexicans enter the U.S. could also restrict their eligibility for social services. I’m not clear on the details of Canada’s laws in that respect, but if open heart surgery were free for Americans through their national health service, Americans who need heart surgery would be flooding into Canada for the free service. Want restrictions that keep illegal immigrants or Mexican citizens from getting on Medicaid? Treaties are part of the highest law of the land.

            1. The flood of illegal immigrants, caused by the necessity of getting a visa, is basically a smoke screen for the cartels. If it weren’t for all the illegal immigrants coming to work as gardeners, in construction, to clean houses, work in restaurants, etc., the cartels, with all their violent, street gang supporting evil, would be exposed out there in the desert. Again, a border that doesn’t require visas to cross would be far more secure than the border we have now.

            2. Because fraud doesn’t exist

        3. Worked out so well in the EU

          1. Allowing Europeans to move across borders freely within the EU was wildly successful.

            Allowing refugees to flood into the EU from outside the EU is another story.

            1. *cough*Brexit*cough*

              1. Brexit isn’t about French or Germans crossing the channel to the UK. It’s about Africans moving north after Qaddafi fell, letting them stream through Libya from Chad and other points south, and it was, especially, about people streaming into Europe from the Syrian conflict. That was about Merkel, in particular, welcoming and inviting them into Germany–only to have them swarm further north to sit on the beaches of northern France and try to find a way to the UK. The UK was powerless to set its own immigration policies independent of the EU. I’m talking about how we should set our immigration policy specifically with Mexico, and that it should be done so by way of a Constitutionally appropriate treaty–with two-thirds of the Senate ratifying and all of that.

                Do you not understand the difference between the U.S. no longer requiring visas for Mexican citizens, specifically, if they can show an independently verifiable ID, and instituting that by way of a treaty with the Mexican government, on the one hand, and the United States flinging its borders open to the world on the other? There’s a big difference.

                P.S. Open borders doesn’t always means what its opponents say it means–like Pro-lifers aren’t universally opposed to people making choices no matter what the Pro-Choice lobby says.

                1. Brexit is also about Poles and Romanians

                2. I’m not entirely opposed to your no-Visas idea.
                  I just don’t trust it to go the way you assume it will

  40. “Said Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union in a statement yesterday:

    ‘While the report found that there wasn’t an improper purpose or initiation of the investigation’ …”

    A better question, Was there a proper purpose? I have yet to hear a sane reason for the Russia Collulsion investigation and/or surveillance. The suspicious activity was fabricated, and then introduced to the subjects, whereupon they were declared suspects for being aware of said suspicious activity.

    Someone correct me if there is more to it.

    1. “I have yet to hear a sane reason for the Russia Collusion investigation and/or surveillance.”

      Uh, Trump became president in an open election, following the constitutional process. That madness had to be overturned, or the serfs might believe again that they were free individuals. So a classic fascist propaganda campaign is required to correct the error of the people.
      What more reason need there be?

  41. What is an “abuse of power” that doesn’t break the law? If the President has the lawful authority to do something, and he by definition does if it doesn’t break the law, then it can’t be an abuse of power. The claim that something is an abuse of power without reference to some law or standard that is abuses is absurd and meaningless.

    “Obstruction of Congress” is even more absurd if that is possible. What is “Obstruction of Congress”? It is not obstruction of justice or they would call it that. The entire constitutional system is based on the President and the Courts having the power to “obstruct Congress” via their veto, rulings or other inherent powers.

    The articles are so absurd Kafka would find them beyond even his imagination. Who do they expect to believe this? And how do they not see that pushing this and pretending that it is legitimate is destroying whatever credibility they may have had?

    1. As terribly boneheaded as I think the impeachment in ’98 was, I’m now forced to laud the Congress of the era for at least correctly choosing ‘perjury’ as a high crime or misdemeanor.

      1. They alleged an actual crime on the President’s part that occured while he was in office. You can debate whether he was guilty. Some people claim that Clinton’s lie about Lewinsky wasn’t material and therefore not perjury. I don’t agree with that but it is at least a reasonable argument. You can debate if he is guilty whether it warranted his removal from office. I don’t think it did but I can see how some disagreed. But, whatever your opinion, the Republicans alleged an actual high crime and misdemeanor. The Democrats have not done that here. They have completely ignored the language of the impeachment clause and declared it a political matter and with that the power to impeach the President for any reason they like no matter how absurd or irrational.

        But remember, it is Trump who is destroying the norms of the Republic not his opponents.

    2. It’s all emotion. Trump haters feel it’s true, so to them it’s true. He colluded with the Russians to dupe Facebook users into not voting correctly for Hillary, he did something bad in Ukraine, therefore he must be removed from office. Though I imagine most of them would like to see him with a rope around his neck.
      They don’t care about facts, laws, or authority. None of that matters. He stole the election from Hillary, so he must be removed from office. Period.
      They’re emotional twits.

      1. It might be a real case of mass hysteria. Yeah, some of them are just cynical and realize how stupid this all is. But I don’t think all of them or maybe even most of them do. I think a good number of them actually believe this stuff and have no idea how surreal and absurd it is.

        1. My father is in that camp. But he’s an emotional twit. Though he’s very intelligent. Got into the Air Force Academy with a perfect score on the entrance exam. But when it comes to economics and politics it’s 100% emotion. It’s like his brain ceases to function for anything other than confirming what he feels.

          1. Yeah, I know some very intelligent people who have lost their minds over this. I understand if they don’t like or support Trump. There is nothing crazy or unreasonable about not liking his policies and thinking he is a bad President. But, the ones who believe this stuff have just turned off their minds.

      2. He’s guilty of being Donald Trump and keeping the hag from getting her turn.

      3. Trump tried to get the foreign govt of Ukraine to help him win his next election by framing his political opponent. Had the whistleblower not come forward you would have believed Ukraine was legitimately investigating fucking “crowdstrike” and “Biden’. There’s no telling how Barr would have used Ukraine’s “investigations” for his own “investigations”. You just don’t fucking care because you think everyone and everything is already corrupt so why bother. Well there is some truth to ‘everything is insane” but there’s also more to the fucking story.

        1. It’s nothing but sour grapes. Hillary supporters are grasping for any possible straw that confirms that Trump stole the election from their rightful queen. If you are a thinking person you will laugh at the idea of Russia or Ukraine influencing the election. If you are an emotional twit you will believe anything that supports the idea that Trump stole the election.

          1. If you are an emotional twit you will believe anything that supports the idea that Trump stole the election.

            Logically inconsistent, morally and culturally weak emotional twit.

            Hillary and America were strong until Russia meddled in a single election, then the castle turned into a house of cards. Biden would be able to rebuild that castle, stronger than before, if Trump and the Ukraine would ever stop huffing and puffing.

            1. Logically inconsistent, morally and culturally weak emotional twit.

              Redundantly repeat yourself much?

              1. He was talking about your soliloquy on the electoral college because you didnt get an obvious joke.

        2. If the Ukraine investigates Crowdstrike, Biden, and/or Burisma, it is legitimate. Criminal investigations aren’t off limits if the subject happens to be running for office. The same applies if the U.S. DOJ decides to investigate suspected crimes.

        3. “Trump tried to get the foreign govt of Ukraine to help him win his next election by framing his political opponent.”

          Notice to fucking lefty ignoramuses, “framing” someone is getting evidence that the person did what he claimed to have done on video.
          Tell us again how the investigation is ‘unbiased’, oh fucking ignoramus.

        4. It is very simple. Did Trump commit a crime? If so, what crime did he commit? The impeachment articles do not list any actual crime. Unless that was done out of kindness, then we can conclude that there is no evidence Trump did or else the Democrats would have made the allegation.

          If Trump didn’t commit a crime, then he was acting within his lawful authority and whatever he did was not an abuse of power. An abuse of power only occurs when someone uses their power in an illegal way. If it is not breaking the law it isn’t an abuse. It can’t be.

          Same with Obstruction of Congress. It is the President’s job and indeed implied Constitutional duty to obstruct Congress.

          1. His crime was beating Hillary in the election.

            1. God if only he had.

              1. He did you crazy dipshit. He won the election and is likely to win the next.

                1. Beat has multiple meanings idiot.

                  1. “Doesnt get the joke” John is my favorite

                    1. And now because he realized he didnt get the joke and looks stupid, John, instead of chuckling about his own obtuse self, will go full retard attack dog

                    2. “Doesnt get the joke” John is my favorite

                      Especially after all the months/years of “Best Typo Ever” John.

              2. The president is elected by the states, not the general population. The electoral college was meant to be protection against straight democracy, otherwise known as mob rule. Same with the Senate. They were originally elected by state legislatures as a check against mob rule in the House. I really believe the 17A ended the American experiment in liberty, because it eliminated the most important check against federal power.

                1. I meant like with a club JFC you people…

                  1. I take it all back, you are dead inside pod was 100% correct

                    1. If you’re gonna make a joke, make sure it’s funny first.

                    2. Why hold me to a standard you don’t adhere to yourself?

                      Now, cheap shot aside, getting bitchy because you missed a joke is a bad look.

                    3. Only if you’re not dead inside.

                      That’s gotta be tough, spend all morning whining because some prog troll called you dead inside, thinking your whining won the day, and then throwing it all away because you were stupid and hyper-emotional about a joke lololo

    3. Bye “the abuse of power”, they’re talking about four lines in a phone conversation–which any of us can read–that doesn’t contain a quid pro quo in it anywhere.

      By “obstruction of justice”, they’re talking about the president instructing his administration to decline the Democrats’ invitation to testify before their witch hunt, which they aren’t required to do.

      They probably are required to testify in front of the Senate, where the actual impeachment happens. There still isn’t an impeachment until a majority in the House votes to impeach the president, so the obstruction of justice charge is bogus.

      There is an important point to make here about the 27 Democrats in the House who are running for reelection in districts that voted for Trump in 2016. The names of every one those Democrats need to be in the inboxes, timelines, and twitter feeds of the voters in their districts–exposing them as having voted to overturn the 2016 election results and showing total contempt for the voters in their district. We should start a national fundraising campaign to send the candidates who oppose them all the money they can get.

      The Democrats who vote to overturn the votes of their own districts’ voters by voting to impeach the president–on the basis of this horseshit–need to pay with their seats as an example to future Congresses of what happens to those who treat the voters in their own districts with such contempt. No, those 27 Democrats don’t want the voters in their districts to be able to vote for Donald Trump.

      1. The number I saw was 27 before. It may be that 4 of the 31 listed here are no longer seeking reelection.

      2. No Ken, they are not saying “obstruction of justice”. Obstruction of Justice is an actual crime. They don’t make that allegation. They allege “obstruction of Congress”, which is their invention and is not a crime.

        1. Thanks for the correction, John.

          Everything else remains the same.

          It’s a bullshit charge. The House may have the authority to impeach the president, but apart from that, I don’t believe he’s compelled by the Constitution to send his subordinates to participate in their witch hunt. If Pelosi or Schiff want to oversee calls with foreign heads of state or the people who answer to the president, then they need to win their party’s nomination and run for president. If they want to impeach, they should hold a vote.

          The president’s obligations to an impeachment hearing in the Senate may be different.

          1. Just because there is no remedy for something doesn’t make it legal. Yes, the House can impeach Trump for anything and other than the Senate refusing to convict there is no remedy. He can’t take it to court. That, however, doesn’t make it legal. The government does illegal things for which there is no remedy all of the time. I think what the House is doing here is illegal and beyond the Constitution. The Impeachment Clause says “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Yeah, there is also an implied case where just refusing to do your job is impeachable though technically not a crime. Outside of that, however, the words necessarily imply the commission of some kind of crime in office. What crimes are impeachable and what are not I think are a political question for Congress. But that there has to be a crime is not a political question. It is required by the document. And any articles of impeachment that don’t allege complete dereliction of the office or a specific crime are not legally valid.

            1. What crimes are impeachable and what are not I think are a political question for Congress. But that there has to be a crime is not a political question.

              Very yes. I thought ’98 was the start of a slippery slope and this, I think, confirms it.

              The part that very much perturbs me that I don’t think many are considering is that the President is the most powerful man in the land. He should be beholden to the law and certainly not beyond the law, but if you can effectively try and impeach him for something that’s not actually a crime then all the due process and anti-Title IX rhetoric is just a farce and the only thing that saved Kavanaugh from being effectively hanged wasn’t the rule of law but the simple fact that the mob that wanted to hang him wasn’t large enough.

            2. “The government does illegal things for which there is no remedy all of the time.”

              No legal remedy, really, but in that case, the ultimate remedy is the court of public opinion.

              I think Bush Jr. and Obama relied on this to some extent with warrantless wiretapping and the NSA. They were basically daring the opposition to sue them in the court of public opinion. If you want to impeach me for protecting the country from terrorists, go ahead, I dare you! We’ll see what that gets you in the opinion polls and in the next election.

              If I were a Democrat running for for reelection in a district that went for Trump in 2016, I’d be mighty tempted to abstain from the impeachment vote–because I’d be scared of the court of public opinion.

              Trump has the court of public opinion on his side in that if they actually removed him from office over this, it would be political suicide for the people who orchestrated it. The court of public opinion would find them guilty.

              1. The global socialists don’t really care all that much about the court of public opinion, because once they eliminate the most effective opposition they’ve received to date, Trump, they’ll ensure that the spirit of Americans are crushed and they’ll never be forced to relinquish power again

                1. Yall really don’t seem to grasp or want to admit just what is going on here.
                  It’s dangerously naive

                  1. Yall really don’t seem to grasp or want to admit just what is going on here.

                    Either that or we realize that they are deluded and will fail, like every similar attempt before them and every attempt to come.

                    “Eliminating” Trump will not be the end of their troubles.

                    1. Since we’ve been so successful slowing the advance of global socialism and the expansion of State power?
                      Or are you pretending the status quo will forever prevail and all the incrementalism won’t add up?

                    2. “It’s just the secret police being turned against one political opponent, even after he won election. No biggie!”

              2. Nah not going to change a thing. Trump is going to be re-elected no matter what. Look who he is running against, any of them.

                Most people have their minds made up. For an independent libertarian I have already decided not to vote for either. You could run a cocker spaniel (l) for President I would vote for him.

                In state and local I don’t go by party. What will happen I have no idea.

        2. When I first heard it, it sounded like the sort of ‘crime’ Gary Shandling was going to charge Robert Downey Jr. with for not turning over the Iron Man suit.

  42. The Ukraine got their money after a slight delay and Trump didn’t get the dirt on Biden that he wanted. This is not to excuse his inappropriate behavior, but I suspect many voters – not just is supporters, don’t think this is that big of a deal.

  43. if you don’t like it here, you can leave.

  44. Obstruction of Congress should get him a spot on Mt Rushmore.

    1. If you want to make Trump unpopular with the country, I don’t think accusing him of “obstruction of Congress” is the way to do that. Just saying.

    2. It’s bit like a quid pro quo for Obama’s Peace Prize.

  45. I see you included a tweet from Brian stelter, the most trusted name in fake news.

  46. “I’m still looking for the quote from Trump that says,”You’ll get the money when you agree to investigate Hunter Biden.”

  47. No bribery in the Articles of Impeachment? I was promised there would be bribery!

    No wonder the Democrat base is pissed toght now.

    1. No extortion either.

      1. Did they do one for causing hang-nails?

    2. They’re just checking a box.

      They don’t want the late night talk show hosts making fun of them for doing nothing.

      They don’t want Trump to win and the Four Socialist Idiots of the Apocalypse leading a charge to replace the Democratic leadership for not impeaching him.

      They’re hoping it goes away quietly and quickly.

  48. The Democrats in the House just announced that they’re supporting USMCA .

    They’ll hold a vote on USMCA next week.

    Trump will call this a victory. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and that’s what he did.

    Nancy Pelosi must think that getting in the way of USMCA would be more costly for the Democrats come 2020 than it will help the Republicans. She’s probably right. The USMCA seems designed to boost Trump’s reelection chances in rust belt states, but he isn’t running for Speaker of the House, and there’s no way she’d give up control of the House with her as Speaker–not just to keep Trump from winning reelection. I maintain that the only reason she’s impeaching Trump is because she’s afraid that if she doesn’t, the Democrats will blame Trump’s winning reelection on her–and kick her out of the Speaker’s chair.

    1. She’s getting kicked out of the Speaker chair but it will because Democrats lose the House majority.

  49. “Abuse of power” = Not doing what the fascists want.
    “Obstruction of Congress” = Not doing what the fascists want.

  50. Elmer Fudd has a better chance of catching the wascally wabbit.

  51. Back to back conferences. I gave you got what you want, but I’m still in charge of the party.

  52. Maybe I’m dense, but what am I missing here?
    Day 1 after inaguration: Dems- “Impeach Trump!”
    Over what?….
    “Uuuuhhhmm Russie, I think?!”
    Investigation ensues. no evidence.
    1 year before election: “Impeach Trump!”
    Over what…? Did hew do anything grossly different than his predecessors?
    Investigation ensues. No evidence. So wtf is happening to our country when the unhinged left gets to impeach am president for a botched trial and a bunch of speculation, smoke ,and mirrors? Did I miss something earth shattering here? Did he bonk an intern in his office? Did he commit a Watergate-scale scandal?

    1. He dared to not submit to them. Dissent is one of the worst crimes you can commit to those who believe they are morally right and anyone who disagrees isn’t.

  53. “…corruption, corruption, runaway spending, and more corruption…”

    So Congress is being investigated?

  54. Obama abused his power by issuing the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.

    I need not remind people what Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Wilson, the latter Johnson did….

  55. Wait – Trump can’t be impeached! He isn’t the real President – the Presidency rightly belongs to Hillary Clinton, Peace Be Upon Her!

  56. I do not think cooperation with Saudi Arabia is going to stop anytime soon. The Saudis have tons of US equipment and planes. Those come with service and training contracts.

    Saudis would love to get ahold on f-35s. Thus far only Israel has them in the region. Rumors are the Israeli version, like other Israeli planes, is highly modified. They have used them in combat over Syria. Rumor is they have extended the range and can reach Tehran and back without landing to refuel. One source claims they have already done so.

    Which leaves Turkey as a real question. The relationship with Turkey is hanging on by threads and they have written themselves out of the F-35 program. Erdogan is such a putz.

    The US will just downplay this. Right now the Iranians are more dangerous than ever. No way the US is going to draw down in the gulf region.

    1. Right now the Iranians are more dangerous than ever. No way the US is going to draw down in the gulf region.

      ^ This. Expect mealy-mouthed reasons why we can’t leave Afghanistan, either.

      1. And if the next set of Iranian missiles hit a US base or warship what then.

  57. We should impeach Jesus Christ.
    No Jew should be the Messiah.

  58. “DOJ has done it again. A handful of people from New Jersey were released last month after serving 19.5 years, thanks to the crack retroactivity provision in the First Step Act. Today, on the 30th day of their freedom, DOJ filed appeals to send them all back. Disgraceful.”

    Jesus this makes my blood boil . Woodchippers for the lot of ’em I say.

    1. For who? the DOJ, or people from New Jersey?

  59. I’m super curious how they intend to subpoena foreign nationals for this impeachment hearing. That’s something that no one seems interested in asking, but as far as I know it’s never happened before in impeachment hearings.

    Follow up question, if you can subpoena foreign nationals, are you not inviting foreign nationals to influence an election via impeachment?

    The first question is more important, but the second one seems worth asking as well.

    1. What if you subpoena a foreign national and they don’t show up?

      For example, say you summon the president of Ukraine to testify and he says no. What does Congress do? Withhold military funding?

      1. Indeed. That’s sort of the problem in a nutshell, in that those people supposedly involved in this scandal are not entirely American citizens and American courts have no inherent jurisdiction over them.

        For example, lets say the President of Ukraine shows up and lies under oath. What could the court do to him for perjury?

        This is an unprecedented impeachment in that they can’t really prove their case in court without the cooperation of foreign nationals.

        Unless, of course, there’s an American somewhere in the chain that knew everything but so far such an individual has remained hidden so…I suspect they’re going to have a really hard time proving their case without becoming guilty of what they accuse Trump of.

        We already saw this in the Muller investigation, in fact, and there’s little reason to think an actual impeachment hearing will go differently.

        It’s a curious situation, and I’ll admit I’m popping some popcorn for this show.

    2. I would think the Senate won’t try to subpoena any foreign nationals. Was there a news story reporting that they intend to?

      1. I suppose my point went over your head. They can’t subpoena someone from the Ukraine or Russia.

        You better hope some bagman comes out of the woodwork with hard evidence of Trump’s intentions and also hard evidence that Joe Biden is the Democrat nominee for President in the future. I’m sure that’ll be simple to prove.

        And before you open your mouth to say that the Biden’s did nothing wrong, consider that they essentially stand accused of the same ‘crime’ Trump is accused of only there is a money trail and public statements in support of that case. The same cannot be said of Trump at this time.

        I also haven’t seen it reported anywhere that Trump hinged an investigation of the Biden’s on a particular end result.

        Odd, when some of the results of such an investigation (say, a finding of innocent) could quite certainly harm Trump’s campaign just as easily as it could have helped. Good luck proving that portion of the case, which is of course the hinge of the entire matter.

        If you believe an investigation of the Biden’s couldn’t possibly hurt Trump, let me introduce you to reality where it’s a basis of attempting to impeach Trump.

        Oops. The end results of his theoretical actions are directly opposed to the foundation of their case. It’s actually pretty ironic that their case disproves their own point in the matter.

        1. The point didn’t go over his head, he’s just being deliberately obtuse to try and muddy the waters as has been his habit.

        2. A couple of things:
          – I don’t care whether Trump is removed from office or not, so I don’t need to hope anything happens.
          – It is completely irrelevant to the impeachment articles whether Biden is the leading Democratic candidate or not.
          – And I would never claim that Biden did nothing wrong.

        3. Also, the testimony from more than one witness was that Trump wanted a public announcement of the investigation from Zelensky. He wanted the embarrassment to Biden from that announcement.

  60. “Flights for pet rabbit”- $625

    So logic and proportion have indeed fallen sloppy dead.

    1. Well it is no ordinary rabbit I am sure about that.

      1. Does it have big, sharp, pointy teeth?

  61. Is this the future of all presidential news coverage?

  62. Translation:

    Article 1. Orange Man Bad.
    Article 2. Also, Orange Man Bad.

  63. I still can’t believe PBG is siding against the FBI. And then today he chided someone for having too much TDS.

    He did say in the past that he does not like the establishment left (Clinton), but this is the first time he has actually stood against them.

    If he writes in Bernie Sanders in the general election, he would have done more for us than most republicans.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.