Impeachment

Trump's Congressional Defenders Deny Reality

While the president’s motives in seeking Ukrainian investigations are a matter of dispute, his actions are clear from the public record.

|

During Monday's impeachment hearing, Republican lawyer Stephen Castor denied that Donald Trump had asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender to oppose Trump in next year's election. "I don't think the record supports that," Castor said.

That jaw-dropping moment starkly illustrated the lengths to which Republicans have gone in rebutting the charge that Trump abused his powers for personal gain. The president's defenders have repeatedly contested well-established facts in a way that makes fair-minded nonpartisans despair of having an impeachment debate based on a shared understanding of reality.

According to the White House's own transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump asked Zelenskiy to look into the claim that Biden pressed the Ukrainian government to replace Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin with the aim of thwarting an investigation of Burisma, an energy company that employed Biden's son Hunter as a board member. "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution," Trump said, adding that "it sounds horrible to me."

Trump asked Zelenskiy to "look into it," and Zelenskiy agreed, saying his new prosecutor general "will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned" (i.e., Burisma). Trump himself has said what he wanted from Zelenskiy was "very simple"—"a major investigation into the Bidens."

You can argue, as Republicans have, that there was nothing improper about that request. But you cannot credibly deny that Trump made it.

Yet Castor claims to be agnostic on that point. "I think it's ambiguous," he insisted. Republican legislators likewise misrepresented the public record in their recent report on the impeachment inquiry, falsely claiming that Trump brought up the Bidens only "in passing" and that Zelenskiy "did not reply."

The Republican report concedes that Shokin, whom Trump described as a "very good prosecutor" whose dismissal was "really unfair," was "seen by State Department officials as corrupt and ineffective." Shokin's shortcomings were widely recognized, and his dismissal was consistent with the Obama administration's foreign policy, which makes Trump's claim that Biden was only trying to protect his son implausible.

The other part of the "favor" that Trump wanted, a subject he raised immediately after Zelenskiy expressed gratitude for U.S. military support, was an investigation of "what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine" involving "Crowdstrike" and "the server." Those are references to a bizarre conspiracy theory alleging that Ukrainians hacked the Democratic National Committee's emails during the 2016 presidential election campaign and framed Russia for the crime as part of an effort to hurt Trump and help Hillary Clinton.

That theory has been decisively rejected by U.S. intelligence agencies, congressional committees, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It is so disreputable that the Republican report pretends Trump was actually concerned about the broader issue of "Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election," as evidenced by a few Ukrainian officials' publicly stated preference for Clinton.

The report likewise argues that Trump was legitimately concerned about official corruption in Ukraine. But Trump did not broach that subject in the July 25 call or an earlier conversation with Zelenskiy, and his interest in discrediting Biden is consistent with the lobbying of his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who by his own account was seeking "information [that] will be very, very helpful to my client" and who was intimately involved with the administration's efforts to secure a public commitment regarding the investigations from Zelenskiy.

Current and former administration officials have testified that such an announcement was a prerequisite for a White House meeting and the release of congressionally approved military aid that Trump had delayed without explanation. While Zelenskiy denies that he was "pressured" or subjected to "blackmail," that is exactly what you would expect an ally desperate for U.S. support to say, especially if he believes he is dealing with a mercurial president driven by personal interests.

Whether that's an accurate description of Trump is the issue at the center of his impeachment.

© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: San Francisco Ballot Measure Would Tax Empty Storefronts in Attempt to Boost Retail Sector

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

  1. Of course Castor denied an investigating of JOE BIDEN; Trump wanted HUNTER BIDEN investigated….. Duh…. It’s right there in the transcript as well as this article…

    Obviously EVERY accusation Trump is making here is absolutely True… You just don’t get this kind of negative attention without banging on the door of truth. Now if truth is allowed to come out we will have to see.

    1. Trump has made psychotic lying a competitive sport. And not just in DC. And Trump and his cult will always win that contest!

      A screeching TJJ200 manages to LIE about the article..

      According to the White House’s own transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump asked Zelenskiy to look into the claim that Biden pressed the Ukrainian government to replace Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin with the aim of thwarting an investigation of Burisma, an energy company that employed Biden’s son Hunter as a board member.

      And the transcript!

      “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution,” Trump said, adding that “it sounds horrible to me.”

      And THAT is part of Trump’s crazed Crowdstrike conspiracy — that it’s owed by a Ukraine billionaire, and Hillary’s server is in the Ukraine!

      HOW CRAZY US THAT?

      1) Anyone with the IQ of a gerbil, KNOWS a server does not have to be taken to Ukraine. Every trace of its contents can be deleted in a my that can never be detected …. AND CROWDSTRIKE IS A TOP EXPERT ON CYBER-SECURITY. (pees pants laughing)

      2) CROWDSTRIKE IS A PUBLICLY TRADED US CORPORATION BASED IN SUNNYVALE, CA ……. not a Ukrainian proprietorship!!!
      PROOF https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/CRWD/

      When it’s THAT easy to PROVE Trump is as psycho as his Birther delusions … what does that tell us about his puppets? That they’re as brainwashed as Bernie’s and Alexandria’s!

      1. “pees pants laughing”

        There are incontinence products, like diapers, to help you with this problem, Hihn.

        1. He is well aware of them, the nice CNA at the home changes his twice a night.

          1. While you slugs fling infantile insults, I provided PROOF, with a link for THINKING ADULTS to confirm.
            .
            Keep whining, pussies.

      2. Holy fuck Hihn. I know you’ve got the talking points and you’re super eager to share them, but literally not one thing in your entire rambling, incoherent typo-riddled spittle-flecked, creamy diaper rant had any connection at all to anything that was said in the post you’re replying to.

        The course of your disease is getting worse Hihn. You’re going to be dead very soon anyway. Save us taxpayers some money. Why die as an undignified disgusting welfare leech? There are cleaning products and sharp knives available if you look hard enough.

        1. I have strongly suggested fire on numerous occasions.

        1. That was published a few weeks ago … by a TOTAL wacko right-wing web site … with even crazier conspiracies than the Trumptards here! Be VERY afraid of these puppets … as big a threat as the readers of Daily Kos.

    2. This is what Trump said, according to his transcript:

      “The other thing,There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

      In context it seems clear that the “it” that Trump wanted Zelensky to “look into” is JOE Biden allegedly demanding that the prosecutor get fired. Not whatever Hunter Biden did.

      1. Poor baby jeffrey. Refusing to give up hope that he can have those he despises jailed.

        1. Lock her up! Sound familiar you fucking lowlife idiot?

          1. Is there any remote dispute that Hillary kept confidential documents on a non-secured server?

            1. No. Relevance?

          2. Still want those 17 incidents of FBI fuckery you think didn’t happen, you useless cumdrop?

            1. Red Rocks, in his typical sneering, somehow “forgot” that all 17 fuckups were a single case, Carter Page’s FISA …. which Trumptards say CAUSED the investigation (which had begun six months earlier)

              He also “forgot” that the IG report TOTALLY demolishes Trump’s latest conspiracy theory (of so many) which had been demolished months ago: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/27/trump-mentioned-crowdstrike-conspiracy-during-his-/

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano defending the FBI’s lying.

                1. ALL I SAUD, GOOBEDR, IS THAT A

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihsano stroked out.

                2. Calling something a “fuckup” is NOT defending it, Gomer!
                  And it was four people, NOT the entire FBI, you hate-spewing conspiracy freak. .

                  YOU BEING FULL OF SHIT ON WHAT LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATION IS A FUCKUP …. NO, DID NOT JUST DEFEND YOU. (SNORT)

                  ***AND I LINKED TO PROOF THAT YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT ON THE OVERALL ISSUE.

                  ***DO TRY TO CONTROL YOUR “DEEP STATE” DELUSIONS.

                  STOP BEING SUCH A WHINY PUSSY.

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines like a pussy when his buddies in the FBI have their lies pointed out.

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano still assmad that his buddies in the FBI were caught lying 17 times in the course of one investigation.

      2. “JOE Biden allegedly demanding that the prosecutor get fired. ”

        Biden bragged about doing it, you don’t need to say “allegedly”, unless you think he was lying.

        1. What he bragged about doing, and what he did, may be two different things.

          1. So is he crooked or a liar?

      3. But… Lets consider this, “In context it seems clear”…
        “seems clear” doesn’t necessarily mean stated.

        The accusation is, “that Biden stopped the prosecution” — there is no first name. How can everyone be so certain the “Biden” being referred to is Joe?

        Isn’t Joe still in the U.S.? If he is; then why would Ukraine be investigating someone in the U.S. instead of the U.S. investigating?

        Perhaps, The call to investigate was actually Hunter at Burisma and if it links to Joe we’d like to know about it… That alone doesn’t seem to point to “investigating Joe” but to “investigating Hunter” and any legitimate ties Hunter may have had. Adding on the, “seems clear” to point to Joe Biden still doesn’t actual change the subject of investigation inquiry into Hunter.

        1. Don’t you know?
          The leftists are masters of mind reading.
          They just know what Republicans or conservatives are really thinking when they say something.
          It is from whence we get ludicrous ideas like “dog whistles” and “code words”.
          Meanwhile they are the masters of lying to everyone’s faces about their intentions.
          The demoncrap party is the party of lies, doing the bidding of the father of lies, projecting their evil intent, to that of their opponents’.

          1. TRUMP IS STILL A DEMOCRAT???

            1. Well if he is; he’s the worst Democrat the party has EVER seen!!! Worse than many of their Republican counterparts.

              Cutting regulation, cutting taxes, cutting foreigner grants, cutting subsidies.. Democrats don’t lobby for that stuff EVER…..

              You might get away with saying his limited foreign-intervention is a little Democrat but that kind of blows up in your face when we talk about the wall.

              I really don’t care what party you want to associate him with — He’s done more to preserve any sense left of our Constitution than the last 5-Presidents put together.

              1. You’re scary dude. If they keep you ignorant of reality … and program your mind with tribal talking points .., you’ll always spout bullshit like that.

                ***Why do YOU defend Trump DISGRACING his office, LYING about who initiated the mass assaults and murder in Charlottesville .. LYING about who charged, smashing people with clubs?

                *** Why do YOU defend Trump DISGRACING his office … by LYING to defend vicious assaults by his beloved Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist supporters.

                *** Are YOU a Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist. Or just one of their supporters?

                He’s running it all on a debt binge … THE WORST PRESIDENT ON ADDING NEW 8-year DEBT EVER. In only 3 years, he’s added as much 8-year debt than Obama did AFTER 8 years (CBO 2024 forecast) … FAIL … FAIL … FAIL

                ***ESPECIALLY when he campaigned on PAYING OFF THE ENTIRE DEBT IN 8 YEARS!!!. OMFG

                AND …
                Obama inherited the 3rd worst economy since the 1930s, and gave Trump the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President. THAT’S A MASSIVE FAIL.
                ***1) Current GDP growth is LESS than what Obama gave him
                2) Trump ridiculed the Labor Force Participation Rate under Obama. He has FAILED to improve it!
                3) If the economy is “booming,” why have so many given up on even seeking a job?

                Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the third quarter of 2019, according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

                THAT’S LESS THAN THE 2.3% OBAMA HANDED HIM!!

                GDP Annual Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.20 percent from 1948 until 2019

                FAIL … FAIL … FAIL

                Democrats don’t lobby for that stuff EVER….

                IGNORANCE is your greatest handicap. MORE EDUCATION:

                There have been only two postwar economic booms … from the two worst postwar economies … KENNEDY (A DEMOCRAT) launched the first one. Reagan launched the second …. BOTH WERE NOT SO STUCKING FUPID ON TAX CUTS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

                Kennedy and Reagan passed IDENTICAL tax cuts, “across the board, top-to-bottom, business and corporate” (Kennedy’s words, not Reagan’s) … BECAUSE A GROWING ECONOMY IS LIKE A 3-LEGGED STOOL — CONSUMERS, EMPLOYERS AND INVESTORS ALL NEED CONFIDENCE … IF ANY LEG LACKS CONFIDENCE, THE STOOL FALLS OVER … BECAUSE THEY MUST ALL PARTICIPATE! (duh)
                *Consumers buying
                *Employers hiring
                *Investors providing the needed capital.

                ***This is NOT rocket science. BOTH parties are full of shit ,,, debating supply-side vs demand -side economics … TO BRIBE THEIR CONSTITUENTS

                ***In a free society, government takes NO SIDES. (Even establishment libertarians are now suckered by supply-side bullshit.)

                ****Over 60% of Americans think America is HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION ….. …. ….. UNDER TRUMP!

                ====

                Trump also campaigned on a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF .. and for a tiny fraction of the 1%.

                *** Why do YOU support his attempt to be a billionaire paying a top income tax rate of 15% ….. What’s YOUR marginal tax rate, sucker?

                Any questions

                I’m not blaming you, just as I don’t blame the equally deluded supporters of Bernie or Elizabeth. You’re all just victims of political manipulation.

                “Nobody ever went broke, underestimating the intelligence of the American people”.

                1. We’ve already been over this Lie-Teller…

                  Your GDP figures are cherry-picked… Obama had the WORST budget deficit ever on his full Democratically supported first term. The Economy didn’t even START to get better until Republicans had both the House & Senate and also reflected in the deficit. GWB saved the auto-industry by “loan” and got the “loan” back and then some. Obama didn’t save ANYTHING; it just got worse and worse.

                  Lies, Lies, Lies and more Lies.

  2. . . . his actions are clear from the public record.

    Here’s the deal though – what has he done that is wrong, let alone illegal or even impeachable?

    Let’s not forget that all this comes about because the former vice-president used the power of his office to *illegally* demand quid-pro-quo from Ukraine. That man could be our next president. Should that not be investigated? Should we not know what motivated that action?

    As for asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on a candidate – is that not exactly what Biden, Obama, and Clinton conspired to do in the lead-up to the 2016 election? Remember, that man could be the next president.

    Some people say its wrong for a president to ask another country to ‘meddle’ in US internal affairs – but that’s exactly what the US has done for longer than any of us have been alive. How many nations were *destroyed* because we didn’t like them? Given that the modern US is an existential threat to every other collective on the planet, what national government *wouldn’t* be taking every effort to meddle? How could we condemn them for doing what not only we do but what may be exactly what needs to be done to ensure their survival?

    Why are Biden’s actions getting a pass? I can understand Clinton and Obama – they’re both has-beens and out of office. But Biden might be your next president.

    1. We’ve got killers too so therefore murder is okay is about the sum of your comment.

      1. No cytotoxic, you’re just a horrifically retarded cunt who can’t comprehend the argument being made. It’s okay. We’re used to it.

        1. Pod seems more like Shriek aka buttplug

          1. Meh, until xe says “peanuts” or “dotard”, I’m not with it.

  3. Shokin’s shortcomings were widely recognized, and his dismissal was consistent with the Obama administration’s foreign policy,

    So you’re saying Obama’s foreign policy explicitly required quid-pro-quo for the receipt of a bribe, then? Change your government to be more like we want it to be or else we won’t give you all this money.

    1. Precious snowflake, brainwashed victim of Fox News Pravda … AND an Obama Birther!

      So you’re saying Obama’s foreign policy explicitly required quid-pro-quo for the receipt of a bribe, then?

      It MAY look that way to anyone so totally ignorant of the facts. Or just plain dishonest. Or both.

      Pay attention.

      1) It was a LOAN GUARANTEE. not funding. For ONE BILLION..

      2) Ukraine had ZERO credit rating, and NEEDED loan guarantees, from the US and the EU, to get ANY money. We had already guaranteed $2 billion.

      3) The US and the European Union, REFUSED the loan guarantees, unless certain reforms were made. All of the reforms were met, except one … firing the chief prosecutor … who EVERYONE saw as a major factor in Ukraine’s corruption. Even Russia.

      4) The lender (International Monetary) Fund) also required the prosecutor be fired … even with loan guarantees..

      5) Trump is backed into defending the massively corrupt prosecutor … to support one of his his craziest conspiracy theories. (Crowdstrike)

      or else we won’t give you all this money.

      WE would not give the money, THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND would LEND the money … but ONLY if they US and the EU guaranteed repayment, AND the prosecutor was fired.

      Do you have any clue, the difference between a LOAN and a GUARANTEE? That it risks taxpayer dollars?

      From your ignorance of the facts. you DEFEND risking tax payer dollars … to guarantee a ONE BILLION loan .. to the worst credit rating on the planet!!!

      Because Trump. is not Hillary.
      Sad and pathetic.

      1. Tell us again how Trump is a Russian intelligence asset and the Mueller investigation is going to result in his removal from office and criminal prosecution Hihn.

        Can you imagine how torturous it must be for poor Hihn being completely senile, abandoned by his family to die in a taxpayer-funded inpatient facility, clinging to every word of Chris Cuomo, legitimately believing in the wildest conspiracy theories imaginable, and projecting all of your neuroses onto others in a sad attempt to cope? You would almost feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such a worthless piece of subhuman shit.

        1. Hi, I notice that none of you are able to stay on topic or address the arguments at all. Very telling.

          1. The arguments are based on the bad-faith execution of a years-long temper tantrum, so there’s no need to take them seriously.

            1. Don’t mess with De Espresso.

              He’s a ninja Or was it Jedi-ninja?

              Or maybe he’s a loser college student from Mississauga.

              1. I KNOW WHERE MISSISSAUGA IS! Lived a few miles from it, 1972-1974.

      2. So it’s a loan to Ukraine that were guaranteed to repay? So you’re saying it’s like cosigning a loan…

        And who has to repay a cosigned loan when the main recipient can’t repay…

        So really yout entire shrieking post is basically arguing the semantics over loan repayment terminology.

        And that’s why youre a failure who was never hired or elected to do anything significant, and who is despised by his own family and ex wives.

        1. Dizzle is CRAZIER than anyone imagined

          So it’s a loan to Ukraine that were guaranteed to repay? So you’re saying it’s like cosigning a loan…

          It;s a FACT

          <blockquote<And who has to repay a cosigned loan when the main recipient can’t repay…UMMM, TAXPAYERS — IN THE US AND THE EUROPEAN UNION.

          THIS IS WHAT I RESPONDED TO, ASSHOLE

          Change your government to be more like we want it to be or else we won’t give you all this money.

          You AGAIN ignored facts which are in-con-veeeeeeeen-yent to your bullshit.

          The same conditions for a loan guarantee were made by the EU .. AND THE FUCKING LENDER (International Monetary Fund).

          So really yout entire shrieking post is basically arguing the semantics over loan repayment terminology.NO, I’m saying you’re FULL OF SHIT THAT IT WAS CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED FUNDING, LIKE TRUMP’S

          And that’s why youre a failure who was never hired or elected to do anything significant, and who is despised by his own family and ex wives.

        2. THIS is a psycho

          And that’s why youre a failure who was never hired or elected to do anything significant, and who is despised by his own family and ex wives.

          And a poor loser! 🙂

          THIS link is what he LIED about (along with several other Trumptards)
          https://reason.com/2019/12/11/trumps-lawyers-deny-reality/#comment-8045077

  4. While Zelenskiy denies that he was “pressured” or subjected to “blackmail,” that is exactly what you would expect an ally desperate for U.S. support to say, especially if he believes he is dealing with a mercurial president driven by personal interests.

    Yesssssss . . .

    1. Look. Sullum knows who is and isnt a victim. Not you. This is obvious. He will force people to be victims whether they like it or not.

      1. The security of Zelensky’s country was at stake ,… Crimea … and Trump had supported Russia’s invasion and occupation. So Trump literally had Zelensky by the balls … and Ukraine … plus, Trump had acted like a dictator on withholding funds to Ukraine FOR WEAPONS TO BE USED AGAINST RUSSIA.

        Get real. Get informed..

    2. Denial is exactly what we expect! Denial proves your guilt!

      1. FUNNY SATIRE!!!

  5. “The report likewise argues that Trump was legitimately concerned about official corruption in Ukraine.”

    Fortunately, Trump is more concerned about corruption in the United States. That’s why Biden should be investigated.

    As an American, I tend to be more concerned about corruption here–not there. Why not you?

    1. Trump doesn’t give a shit about corruption. What other corruption investigations is he pushing for? Oh, none other than against his political opponent?

      Use your head.

      1. The corruption investigation involving the FBI and the 2016 election. The corruption investigation concerning the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s server. The corruption investigation of the Biden and Kerry families in China. And if he keeps digging into Ukraine, he’s going to find a lot more Democratic (and probably a few Republican) names he’ll want to investigate for corruption.

        My head tells me that you’re a pathological liar shilling for Team D because you know their behavior isn’t going to withstand scrutiny from a criminal investigation, unlike Donald Trump’s.

        1. Which of those corruption investigations are investigations that aren’t against his personal rivals again?

          1. Which career apparatchik isn’t his rival?

  6. Sullum, wanna know how I know you’re a partisan jackass? It’s because you keep writing these articles as if the Republicans and Trump are denying reality while completely ignoring that the actual evidence available doesn’t even come close to supporting any of the Democrat’s assertions. In the call, it was clear that Trump was mostly interested in Crowdstrike and their involvement in 2016 election meddling. There appears to be some evidence of Democrats and Clinton colluding with Ukrainian officials to that end. He also asks about Biden because it was in the news at the time with Joe’s statement that sounds exactly like a corrupt quid pro quo.
    What is aggravating is that the evidence of wrongdoing is high on the Democrat’s side and at best rises to the level of “improper” for Trump. Not only is the forest being ignored for the trees, but an old redwood forest is being ignored to highlight a sickly sapling being described as a giant tree.
    Seek help.

    1. Crazy, psycho liar.

      BIDEN WAS MAKING THE SAME DEMANDS AS THE US AND THE IMF … IN A QUID PRO QUO FOR …. A LOAN GUARANTEE FOR THE WORST CREDIT RISK ON THE PLANET ….RISKING TAXPAYER DOLLARS,

      You’re a pitiful victim of mental manipulation by Fox News.

      1. GUYS GUYS GUYS! IT’S TOTALLY OK! BIDEN ONLY WANTED THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HIS SON FIRED SO THAT A HORRIBLE CREDIT RISK COULD GET SUBSIDIZED LOANS!

        Of course that’s an utter and complete bullshit fabrication, but it’s hilarious that you think that’s somehow vindicating that Biden was supposedly strongarming the Ukraine so that it could receive a loan it couldn’t repay.

        1. ONE MORE TIME, GOOBER. THE SAME DEMAND WAS MADE BY THE EU AND BY THE LENDER (IMF)

          THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION OF BIDEN’S SON.
          THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, WHICH ENDED NEARLY A YEAR EARLIER.

      2. …also european nations and the imf have NEVER EVER EVER EVER BEEN CORRUPTED.

        Hihn says so

        1. IT’S NOT JUST OBAMA, DIZZLE NOW SCREECHES … IT WAS THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD … A NEW TRUMPTARD CONSPIRACY!

          …also european nations and the imf have NEVER EVER EVER EVER BEEN CORRUPTED.

          Hihn says so

          (SNEER)

          1. You declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

            (chortle)

    2. “Sullum, you’re a partisan jackass. Here let me explain why: Trump is innocent and Democrats are doodieheads. Stop being a partisan jackass, Sullum!”

      1. Don’t be an idiot. You’ve seen his posts and they have all been in that same vein. He ignores and twists facts to serve a narrative that everything Trump and Republicans do is uniquely bad. It is blatant how he completely misses anything that doesn’t assist that and even blatantly lies about what facts are available. The whole premise that “Biden looks to have done something wrong” turns into “Trump must be impeached because he wanted to look into possible misdeeds by Biden.” To assert that Trump is in the wrong without proving Biden innocent is putting the cart before the horse. Ignoring the latter while hyping up the former just shows a lack of reason and strong bias.

        1. I love how you completely cast Trump’s actions in the most favorable light.

          “Oh, Trump just asked about the Bidens because it happened to be in the news at the time. No corrupt intent, he was just discussing the daily news with his pal Zelensky”.

          1. Lol. Jeff complaining at somebody else using a form of cognitive dissonance? Fucking hilarious.

            You’re the one who said a Ukranian court determining the Ukraine meddles in the 2016 election didnt count you dumbfuck. There is a ton of evidence of Ukraine helping hillary you refuse to acknowledge.

            Fucking hilarious.

            1. You’re the one who said a Ukranian court determining the Ukraine meddles in the 2016 election didnt count you dumbfuck.

              This is a complete lie on your part. Why are you lying about me, Jesse?

            2. Jesse, the fact that you consistently misrepresent the facts is very very sad and low energy.

              Cult of lies.

              1. Speaking of a cult of lies, tell us again about how a group of supposedly “dedicated public servants” managed to fuck up 17 times in the course of one investigation, to the point that the OIG is now going to be reviewing 15 years worth of similar applications to see how far the bureaucratic rot goes.

                1. Hey, Sparky!
                  How many individuals, out of thousands?
                  Was it individuals or flawed policy?
                  Was it ONLY the Carter Page FISA’s? ….
                  Are you repeating the psycho lie that the investigation started with those 17 errors …. WHEN IT HAD BEGUN SIX MONTHS EARLIER?

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves it when the FBI lies.

          2. I love how you completely cast biden’s actions in the most favorable light.

            “Oh, Biden just asked about firing the prosecutor because the European Union didn’t like him, he was just following the Eu lead. His son hunters shady deals had nothing to do with it”

            1. You mean, like how I wrote below how I believe Biden was at least partially motivated to protect his son? That is “the most favorable light”? LOL

              I am being way more rational and fair on this entire saga than the Trump bootlickers around here, that is for damn sure.

              1. Right
                You’re sane, everyone else is crazy
                If events don’t match your prejudice, it’s reality that’s wrong

                1. Well, Nardz, which do you think is the more likely scenario?

                  1. Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor, and lots of institutions, both in Europe and America, and within Ukraine itself, wanted him fired due to his corruption

                  2. Shokin was an honest prosecutor, and all of those people wanting him fired were actually all corrupt themselves

                  Because, Item #2 is being seriously discussed below, unironically, and it’s not by me.

                  1. Everybody cytotoxic knows voted for McGovern!

                  2. I think all those people who wanted Shokin fired are more corrupt than Shokin ever was

    3. This “debunked CrowdStrike conspiracy theory” keeps changing …
      Originally I heard the Donks used CrowdStrike as a substitute forensic cyber security outfit to keep the FBI from snooping around their servers after the FancyBear breach. Alperovitch, while Russian born, certainly has Ukranian connections. Where better to hide the actual physical server than Ukraine where it cannot be subpoenaed and altered images can be provided?

      1. This “debunked CrowdStrike conspiracy theory” keeps changing

        The bullshit begins.
        It HAS been debunked … long ago.
        It only “changes” when Trump needs a new lie, because an older lie blew up in his face.

        You ALSO “forgot” that TRUMP invented and promoted the Crowdstrike Conspiracy. OOOPS

        HEY DUMBDUCK, THE SERVER COULD HAVE BEEN TOTALLY ERASED … OR THE STORAGE MEMORY CHANGED … LIKE CHANGING YOUR HARDDRIVE (DUH) … WHY THE FUCK MOVE IT TO UKRAINE?????

        AND … HAHAHA … CROWDSTRIKE IS NOT A UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND NOT OWNED BY A UKRAINIAN BILLIONAIRE … IT’S LISTED ON NASDAQ (which means shareholders!) … BASED IN SUNNYVALE ….. so Trump was FULL OF SHIT, as proven by his own “transcript” of the Zelensky call!!!

        “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike,I guess you have one of your wealthy people …. The server, they say Ukraine has it. “

        Who is “they?” .,,,, the voices in Trump’s “mind” that told him.
        *Millions of Hillary supporters voted multiple times, or I’d have won the popular vote, too
        *Hundreds of New Jersey Muslims cheer the 9/11 assault,
        *My inaugural crowd was the largest ever.”
        *It was the alt-LEFT that initiated the violence in Charlottesville, charging the alt-right with clubs,” (lying to defend his beloved nazi and racist supporters>.

        CROWDSTRIKE HAD NO CONNECTION TO HILLARY. A TOP CYBER-SECURITY FIRM, THEY WERE HIRED TO SEE IF THE DNC SERVERS WERE HACKED ,,, all 140 of them (some in the cloud).

        CROWDSTRIKE REPORTED THE DNC WAS HACKED … BY RUSSIA … WITHIN HOURS OF TRUMP ASKING RUSSIA TO FIND HILLARY’S EMAILS.

        ANOTHER PROVABLE FACT THAT TRUMP IS A PSYCHO LIAR.
        They brainwash and manipulate you, then send you out to troll the lies here.

        THIS LINK PROVES YOU FULL OF SHIT on the server in Ukraine ,,, the RESULTS of a google search, showing the thousands of news reports debunking Trump;s bullshit. You missed it ALL, by reading ONLY right-wing media.

        ANYONE who reads ONLY tribal media (right OR left) will make as many blunders as Entropy makes on this page. From self-imposed ignorance.

        (He’ll see PROOF of a media conspiracy … FAKE NEWS! 🙂 )

        He did say you people would even lie to defend him, even if he shot
        someone to death, with witnesses. The real shame is that you people are SO loyal that he can publicly insult you, publicly say you’re a lying sack of shit,

        1. HihnSockpuppet-

          You fucking stupid fucking fuck.

          “You ALSO “forgot” that TRUMP invented and promoted the Crowdstrike Conspiracy. OOOPS”

          Um, no, you fucking Fucktard.
          The fucking Donks started it when they wouldn’t let the FBI near the DNC server.
          Wonder why?
          Told them CrowdStrike had taken care of the problem.
          Read what I wrote, you mindless fucktard, your spewed drivel is totally non-responsive … as is typical of your shit-laced posts.

          I do hope someone at the home gets tired of your incoherent ravings and sets your Depends afire. For the children.

          Oh, and please let us know where your obituary will be published so we can have a Commentartiat Meetup and take a collective piss on your none-too-soon utilized grave.

          1. Is this SICK? Or infantile? A punk?

            I do hope someone at the home gets tired of your incoherent ravings and sets your Depends afire. For the children.

            Oh, and please let us know where your obituary will be published so we can have a Commentariat Meetup and take a collective piss on your none-too-soon utilized grave.

            Is that an adult, or a snotty child…. driven by raging, out-of control HATRED

            ONE MORE TIME FOR MY AGGRESSOR.

            THIS LINK PROVES YOU FULL OF SHIT on the server in Ukraine ,,, the RESULTS of a google search, showing the thousands of news reports debunking Trump’s bullshit. You missed it ALL, by reading ONLY right-wing media.

            You mess with the bull AGAIN (launch ANOTHER unprovoked aggression)
            You get the horns AGAIN (humiliated again … for your TOTAL IGNORANCE)
            In self defense AGAIN

            Um, no, you fucking Fucktard.

            Wait for it. (smirk)

            The fucking Donks started it when they wouldn’t let the FBI near the DNC server. Wonder why?

            (sneer) COUNT THE FUCKUPS THERE!

            1) The FBI got an image of the serverS (plural). Which is standard practice … LIKE WHEN YOU MAKE AN IMAGE OF YOUR HARD DRIVE. You’d KNOW that if you CLICKED THE LINK, I GAVE YOU! (SNORT)

            2) HILLARY’S SERVER IS NOT THE DNC SERVERS (140 OF THEM) …. EVEN AFTER i REMINDED YOU! … IN BOLDFACE!!

            ******AND
            **** YOU
            ****TOTALLY
            **** FAILED
            *** TO
            **** ADDRESS
            **** ANY
            ***** OF
            **** THE
            **** ACTUAL
            **** ISSUE
            *************TRUMP’S (AND YOUR) CRAZED CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            ONE MORE TIME FOR MY ASSAILANT …. AGAIN IN SELF-DEFENSE OF TOTALLY MINDLESS AGGRESSION,

            1) Trump is a PROVEN LIAR that Crowdstrike is a Ukrainian Company …. BUT YOU SWALLOWED IT WHOLE, SUCKER. (lol)

            2) Trump is a PROVEN LIAR that Crowdstrike is owned by a wealthy Ukrainian … WHICH THE CRAZY FUCKER TOLD ZELENSKY IN THE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED BY TRUMP! ….. And Trump SUCKERED YOU THERE, too,
            *****HINT: GOOGLE “Crowdstrike NASDAQ” (no quotes) …. WHILE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE JOINS ME IN LAUGHING AT YOU!
            AND I’D ALREADY CORRECTED YOUR SCREWUP ON THAT …
            ***YOU CALL ME A LIAR, I WILL
            ALWAYS KICK YOUR ASS TO THE CURB … ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE ALSO MAKING A TOTAL FOOL OF YOURSELF.

            ===============
            You obviously reacted out of blind rage, at being so TOTALLY humiliated … FAILED to address a SINGLE issue I raised … AND REFUSED TO CLICK A LINK TO PROOF YOU ARE TOTALLY BRAINWASHED.

            Suggestion: If your SUCH a pussy … maybe you should stop assaulting people!!
            Does your health care provide the Ego Transplant you so obviously need?

            1. How much did you cry when you declared bankruptcy?

  7. “Those are references to a bizarre conspiracy theory alleging that Ukrainians hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential election campaign and framed Russia for the crime as part of an effort to hurt Trump and help Hillary Clinton”

    This is pure, unadulterated gaslighting. Stop acting like this “bizarre conspiracy theory” was hatched out of thin air, and wasn’t written about fairly extensively by the mainstream press over the past couple of years.

    Now tell me all about how Nunes lied about FISA abuses as well.

    1. What does bat-shit crazy look like?

      Stop acting like this “bizarre conspiracy theory” was hatched out of thin air, and wasn’t written about fairly extensively by the mainstream press over the past couple of years.

      From where did you swallow such a MASSIVE PILE OF SHIT, Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, Daily Caller.

      PLEASE tell me you do NOT vote,

      1. Nah, it’s part of a broader effort to claim that Ukrainians didn’t meddle in our elections (which they most certainly did), and to morph it into “Republicans believe Ukraine meddled instead of Russia”, as if both can’t be true.

        1. That’s the part that seems so unhinged.

          “Republicans say that Ukraine was involved in hacking”
          True
          “So they’re denying that Russia did it at all when we have all this evidence”
          WTF? One does not follow from the other. Russia meddled – we have pretty substantial evidence on that. Ukraine also meddled – we have actual convictions in Ukraine for just that (and I expect to never see a conviction from Russia).

          I’d also be shocked if the UK, France, Germany, Israel, and China didn’t each meddle as well. The dominance of the US is too great to leave things purely up to chance. As for North Korea I’ve always wondered how they got the IT infrastructure to do anything along those lines. Pay someone else to do it, sure, but do it themselves?

          As for the Ukrainian false flag conspiracy theory – what makes anyone think that’s what Trump getting at? A direct theory that entities in Ukraine, including in the government, coordinated attacks with DNC affiliated entities in the US is directly described in the Mueller report, among many other places – that’s where Steele got lots of his content (according to him and his employer, at least – I’m half tempted to believe he wrote it as fan fic in his basement).

          Why would you rule out a well substantiated theory in favor of a crazy one? I mean it’s more likely that Trump would believe a crazy plot that Hillary would, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually likely at all. Why does Occams Razor always get thrown out when it’ll make Trump look bad?.

          Oh.

          1. “I mean it’s more likely that Trump would believe a crazy plot that Hillary would,”

            I’m assuming you meant Trump is more likely THAN Hillary to believe a crazy plot, and refer you to her recent assertions that Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are both Russian assets.

            1. That’s just a vast right wing conspiracy

            2. Umm, Hillary and Trump are BOTH crazy — to anyone who’s not a mindless tribal partisan.

          2. coordinated attacks with DNC affiliated entities in the US is directly described in the Mueller report,

            That’s even crazier than your three phony links, especially the Financial Times fuckup!

        2. Nah, it’s part of a broader effort to claim that Ukrainians didn’t meddle in our elections (which they most certainly did),

          (smirk) And Obama’s a Muslim!!

      2. From where did you swallow such a MASSIVE PILE OF SHIT, Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, Daily Caller.

        How about Politico

            1. Are those all right-wing conspiracy theorist sites too Hihn? Is Mother Jones and Democratic Underground our only source of objective information?

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              Poor Hihn. He was a sub-80 IQ nose picking troglodyte even before he lost his faculties to senile dementia.

              1. Funniest part is Hihn and baby Jeffrey have the exact same talking points.

                1. Hihn is exactly what psychoticjeff is going to become as he ages

                2. Crazed conspiracy nuts BELEEB that EVERYONE who disagrees with their bullshit conspiracies is ,…. ANOTHER CONSPIRACY!!! “Same talking points.” (gasp)

                  ****BUT IT’S NORMAL FOR THEM TO HAVE “THE EXACT SAME TALKING POINTS. HOW RETARDED IS THAT?

                  THE WORLD IS AWASH IN CONSPIRACIES!!! THE SAME TALKING POINTS ARE SPREAD BY:
                  *The vast Christian conspiracy!
                  *The seditious Jewish conspiracy!
                  *The diabolical libertarian conspiracy!
                  *The sneaky Bernie Sanders conspiracy!
                  *The salacious Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez conspiracy!
                  *The dastardly George Will conspiracy!
                  *The treasonous Mitt Romney conspiracy.

                  ALL trying to overturn a duly-elected President.

                  Because shrieking CONSPIRACY or FAKE NEWS … or laughing like a hyena … is SO much easier for the snotty punks of Trumplandia,

              2. Are those all right-wing conspiracy theorist sites too

                ALL THREE FAILEDTRUMPTARD
                (SNEER)

            2. and wasn’t written about fairly extensively by the mainstream press over the past couple of years.

              How about The Financial Times

              FAIL
              Behind as pay wall. (snort)

              1. PROOF! Copperhead LIED about The Financial Times.
                It NEVER says what he lies about

                The Financial Times is behind a pay wall. But is reprinted here.
                https://stonecoldtruth.com/financial-times-ukraines-leaders-campaign-against-pro-putin-trump

                The ONLY mention is the millions paid to … PAUL MANAFORT, Trump’s former campaign chairman. … it was Ukraine that outed Manafort, and got him fired,

                Trump had EXPLICITLY stated support for Russia’s invasion of Crimea

                HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH THE TENS OF MILLIONS SPENT BY RUSSIA TO ELECT TRUMP … INCLUDING DON JR KNOWINGLY CONSPIRING WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AGAINST HILLARY?

                Your crazy bullshit is EXPOSED

                (sneer)

                1. MOAR PROOF: Copperhead LIED

                  The Examiner reported, last month, that Ukraine opposition to Trump was based on Trump being pro-Putin om Crimea … and the ONLY action done to the Trump campaign was revealing Manafort’s millions working for the corrupt regime — the SAME corrupt regime STILL praised by Trump. This confirms what Financial Times had earlier reported.

                  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-what-if-trump-was-right-about-ukraine

                  (vomit)

          1. and wasn’t written about fairly extensively by the mainstream press over the past couple of years.

            How about The New York Times

            FAIL
            And shameful. Wrong story. (lol)

        1. and wasn’t written about fairly extensively by the mainstream press over the past couple of years.

          How about Politico

          FAIL
          Not extensive, nor mainstream press

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t like being shown sources that refute his stupidity.

            1. Dumbfuck Red Rocks denies the links FAIL.
              So … anyone who checked my corrections also known Red Rocks is as crazy as the Copperhead sock.

              Bu, as always, Red Rocks plays to the Trumptards, that band of angry screechers, as psycho as Trump. … the folks who DEFEND Trump LYING about Charlottesville, to defend their fellow nazis and racists from mass assaults violence and murder, THAT IS TRUMP’S AMERICA.

              1. Always remember–Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s bitchfits have no basis in fact, he declared bankruptcy, and even his own family can’t stand him.

                1. See? A total, crazed psycho.
                  So, who’s throwing a bitchfit? (sneer)

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano being a total crazed psycho is why his own kids hate his guts.

                    1. ANOTHER bitchfit?

                    2. ANOTHER bankruptcy?

      3. Actually it was first reported in the library rag politico lmao! Can you be anymore of a failure?

        1. ANOTHER CRAZY FAIL!!

          and wasn’t written about fairly extensively by the mainstream press over the past couple of years.

          Actually it was first reported in the library rag politico lmao!

          CRAZY FUCKSTICK ADMITS it’s NOT mainstream media!!!! lmao
          FAILS to show “extensively reported”

          Can you be anymore of a failure?

          (SMIRK)

          Q) WHY DO THEY ALL REPEAT THE IDENTICAL FUCKUP?
          A) Because their minds were all manipulated by the same source,

          ****Anyone NOT a puppet on a string KNOWS Politico publishes from the far right to the far left. EXPLODES THEIR BRAIN!

          ****Anyone NOT totally STUPID knows that far-right (and far-left) are BOTH published by a wide variety of sources …. not just the ideological clones like Fox, Breitbart, Daily Kos and Mother Jones.
          But Trumptards be as stupid as Berniebots, ridiculed by the majority of Americans

          HOW MANY ASSAULTS ,… ALL FAILING TO SHOW “EXTENSIVELY REPORTED FOR YEARS BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA,

          ONLY Copperhead LIED — his NYT link … and FAILED his Financial Times link (which he NEVER read, and.probably got it from a puce in the …. lo) … Washington Examiner

          The Financial Times reported … ijn 2016 … the OLD regime … that UKRAINIAN LEADERS OPPOSED TRUMP BECAUSE HE WAS PRO-PUTIN … and trump’s actions HAVE favored the Russian threat of Ukraine.

          Concerns about Mr Trump rocketed in Kiev when he hinted some weeks ago he might recognise Russia’s claim to Crimea, suggesting “the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were”.

          Natalie Jaresko, a US-born Ukrainian and former State Department official who served for a year as Ukraine’s finance minister, fired off a volley of tweets to US officials. In one, she challenged former Republican presidential candidate John McCain: “Please assure us you disagree with statement on Crimea/Ukraine. Trump’s lies not position of free world, inc Rep party.”

          https://stonecoldtruth.com/financial-times-ukraines-leaders-campaign-against-pro-putin-trump/

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

        Others beat me to it, but just to beat the dead horse you call your self worth.

        Hihn + time = failure

      5. TheLibertyTruthTeller
        December.11.2019 at 1:49 am
        What does bat-shit crazy look like?

        TheLibertyTruthTeller

      6. “”What does bat-shit crazy look like?””

        Your posts serve as a great examples.

        1. Name a specific issue, stop whining like a pussy, so I can PROVE how crazy you are, again.

      7. What does bat-shit crazy look like?

        Take another look in the mirror and you’ll know.

      8. “What does bat-shit crazy look like?”

        Try a mirror, fucktard.

        Oh, and DIAF.

        /EVERYONE

        1. PROVE ME WRONG, PUNK. OR JUST THROW A HISSY FIT, LIKE ALL THE OTHERS, (SNEER)

          1. “PROVE ME WRONG, PUNK.”

            No need, you old fart.
            You do it to yourself eleventeen times a thread.

            1. COWARDLY EVASION. By a loser,

            2. “You are WRONG. I don’t have to prove it, BECAUSE I say you are wrong. Harrumph” (gloating)

      9. So far, over two dozen raging Trumptards have assaulted me over 50 times …. ALL FAIL TO DISPROVE MY STATEMENT IN THIS EXCHANGE

        Stop acting like this “bizarre conspiracy theory” was hatched out of thin air, and wasn’t written about fairly extensively by the mainstream press over the past couple of years.

        From where did you swallow such a MASSIVE PILE OF SHIT, Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, Daily Caller.

        So far,NOBODY has provided an ounce of proof that the mainstream press reported the Ukraine conspiracy fairly extensively over
        the past couple of years. just like Trump … LOTSA lies and personal attacks.

        David Copperhead smugly posted three links. ; NONE saying what he claimed. …. ONE WAS A BAD LINK! WHICH MEANS HE MOST LIKELY NEVER READ THE SITE!

        And, of curse, the usual STALKER bullies of the Authoritarian Right: Dizzle, Entropy, Red Rocks and Nardz

        Whenever Trump is in trouble, his minions scurry like cackling cockroaches and …. ; also like Trump … spew ANY lie they can think of, even if it’s OBVIOUSLY psycho to non-Trumptards.

        The only PROVEN interference is Ukraine outing Paul Manafort, who made millions, because Trump was openly stating that he backed RUSSIA, in their invasion of Crimea (which is in Ukraine.)

        So, the damage Ukraine caused to Trump’s campaign was … Trump had to replace his campaign manager! HORRIFYING!

        ***MORE: ; TRUMP SUPPORTED THE MILITARY INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN NATION (Ukraine),TO SEIZE ITS LAND (Crimea”)

        https://reason.com/2019/12/11/trumps-lawyers-deny-reality/#comment-8045082

        NOBODY has provided an ounce of proof that the “mainstream press” reported the Ukraine conspiracy “fairly extensively” over the past “couple of years. just like Trump … LOTSA lies and personal attacks.

        David Copperhead smugly posted three links. ; NONE saying what he claimed. …. ONE WAS A BAD LINK! WHICH MEANS HE MOST LIKELY NEVER READ THE SITE! (He did screech a lengthy laugh)

        And, of curse, the usual STALKER bullies of the Authoritariian Right: Dizzle, Entropy, Red Rocks and Nardz.

        Whenever Trump is in trouble, his minions scurry like cackling cockroaches and …. also like Trump … spew ANY lie they can think of, even if it’s OBVIOUSLY psycho to non-Trumptards. ;

        The only PROVEN interference is Ukraine outing Paul Manafort, who made millions there, because Trump was openly stating that he backed RUSSIA, in their invasion of Crimea (which is in Ukraine.)

        So, the damage caused by Ukraine was Trump had to replace his campaign manager! HORRIFYING! 🙂

        MORE: TRUMP SUPPORTED THE MILITARY INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN NATION (Ukraine) … BY RUSSIA … ,TO SEIZE THEIR LAND (Crimea) , AND A MILITARY OCCUPATION, FOR YEARS … but Trump is not Putin’s witless tool. ; :-

        Okay, puppets …. back to dancing on your strings

    2. Fairly extensively, really

      As a consumer of mainstream news, I hadn’t heard of it until Trump and his people started talking about it.

      1. YMMV, I guess. Don’t know how so many knew about these stories (me included), if it weren’t pretty widely disseminated.

        1. It wasn’t, liar.

          1. You know what isn’t a lie? You declared bankruptcy.

            1. Says the vicious thug.

              1. Says the Washington Bankruptcy Court

                1. Says the vicious thug

                2. Says the Washington Bankruptcy Court.

  8. His actions are clear.

    He started an investigation into blatant corruption using standard diplomatic means that are well within his authority and normal practice of his predecessors.

    I do not like how Trump went about doing that. However, that is a preference to be decided in the ballot box.

    The only way that this would be criminal is if Trump did not have probable cause to push for Biden to be investigated.

    Anyone who believes there was not probable cause to investigate the Biden/Burisma connection does not fit the definition of a “reasonable person” and might not meet the definition of “being of sound mind”.

    1. But why only the Bidens? Why was that the only ‘corruption’ he was interested in? And why did he want a public announcement? No one interested purely in justice would want a public announcement. They would want justice to run it’s course before they cast a shadow of guilt.

      No, Trump wanted to start hooting and hollering on the campaign trail how the “Corrupt Bidens’ were under investigation in Ukraine.

      1. It was not just the Biden’s. Kerry’s stepson was involved as well, along with a third. And China has not been discussed….yet.

        1. If Trump’s motivation here is supposedly to be sincerely interested in Ukrainian “corruption”, how is it that the only instance Trump can name is one that just so happens to be connected to the Bidens? Hmm? Is he the only example of corruption in Ukraine?

          Can we dispense with the pretense that Trump wanted Ukraine to “fight corruption” in some broad sense? He didn’t; he wanted Ukraine to look into *specifically* what the Bidens were up to.

          1. Poor retarded jeffrey still thinks Shokin was the only corrupt entity in Ukraine and all corruption ended after Biden got that prosecutor fired.

          2. Well chem….I look at it this way. The House can hold their vote, and then make their case to the Senate – assuming the votes are there to impeach.

            In the meantime, we’ll just plan on settling this the old fashioned way: At the ballot box. See you in November 2020….can’t wait. 🙂

          3. “how is it that the only instance Trump can name is one that just so happens to be connected to the Bidens? Hmm? Is he the only example of corruption in Ukraine?

            Can we dispense with the pretense that Trump wanted Ukraine to “fight corruption” in some broad sense? He didn’t; he wanted Ukraine to look into *specifically* what the Bidens were up to.”

            True. We only ever have one corrupt VP at a time. If Trump wants to look into corrupt practices by the previous VP, he really only has a choice of one guy. Stated another way, pick 1000 random people from the phone book and tell them you want them to investigate corrupt practices by the previous VP. Somehow, they will all name Biden as the subject of their investigation.

            1. ^This

      2. You know you could ask why Shokin was the only target under obama…

        And it wasnt only the Bidens. Trump had asked many countries receiving funding to investigate various things in their country from Mexico to Lebanon. The whole point was Trump was seeking to get better use of foreign aid, this was testified to by the OMB person during the Schiff hearings.

        1. this was testified to by the OMB person during the Schiff hearings.

          Liar

    2. using standard diplomatic means

      Like sending his personal lawyer on a fishing expedition. Got it.

      1. Which actually IS among standard diplomatic means. Presidents bypass the diplomatic corps all the time using personal envoys.

        1. Can you name another instance when a president sent *his personal lawyer* as a ‘personal envoy’?

          It’s a little bit different with sending a personal lawyer vs. sending someone else, due to conflict of interest. For whose interests is the lawyer actually working? His client’s? Or the government’s?

          Here’s a little taste of what Giuliani was actually doing in Ukraine: enriching himself at everyone else’s expense.

          https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/trump-lawyer-giuliani-sought-ukraine-business-deals-amid-search-for-biden-dirt.html

          “President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was in talks with Ukraine’s former top prosecutor while the two worked to dig up potentially damaging information about Trump’s potential 2020 rival Joe Biden, multiple outlets reported on Wednesday.

          Giuliani sought to make a deal worth $200,000 with that prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, in February, according to The Washington Post, which cited people familiar with the discussions. Lutsenko wanted Giuliani to help recover stolen assets that belong to Ukraine, the paper reported.

          According to The New York Times, which published a report moments before the Post, Giuliani signed a proposal in February that called for his consulting business to be paid $300,000 by Ukraine’s justice ministry in return for locating assets the government lost overseas. The paper said it reviewed another similar proposal between Giuliani and Lutsenko that was unsigned.

          A subsequent agreement drafted in March called for Giuliani’s consulting business to receive $300,000 and also included a role for the lawyers Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova, who operate a husband-and-wife conservative legal firm in Washington, both papers reported.

          The New York Times said the payment would be made by Ukraine’s General Prosecutor’s office, which Lutsenko oversaw. Later proposals included Toensing and diGenova but not Giuliani, the papers reported.

          Toensing and diGenova did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesman told the Post that no legal work was ever performed.

          None of the deals with Giuliani ultimately came to fruition either, the papers reported. A spokesperson for Giuliani, reached Wednesday, said in an email that Giuliani was unavailable for an interview because he was “on the road.””

          1. So, Giuliani, sent to Ukraine as a “personal envoy” for Trump, was actually signing contracts where he would serve as a lawyer working on behalf of *the Ukrainian government*.

            Frankly I think Trump was being manipulated and used by Giuliani, not the other way around.

            1. Are you this fucking stupid? Have you not seen “the irishman”?

              Who was jfks personal attorney AND his attorney general?

          2. None of the deals came to fruition

            This is exactly why negotiations are behind closed doors. People make all sorts of offers and asks, sometimes as negotiating ploys, that are not the real, ultimate goal of the discussion.

            You failed Negotiation 101.

            1. Oh I see. So now it’s Giuliani playing 99-dimensional chess here. Got it. He must have learned it from Trump playing infinity-dimensional chess.

              If Giuliani is supposed to be serving as Trump’s “personal envoy”, why is he even making proposals and signing deals to work on behalf of the Ukrainian government?

              1. Lutsenko wanted Giuliani to help recover stolen assets that belong to Ukraine, the paper reported.

                Maybe you missed that part. It is not clear what the goal of any of the discussions was. Was this somehow an inappropriate proposal? Why would Rudy engage other lawyers?

                All the motivations for any of this are unclear, and are projected or assumed by those outside. Without getting into Rudy’s head we can only speculate. That’s why the whole thing is a POS. It’s all based on presumptions and suppositions of intent that can never be determined.

                It’s not complex, but murky.

          3. This is cute how you try to pare down the example to be a very specific example requiring very specific actions and adjectives so you can dismiss all examples that are counter to your outrage.

            Lol. You are a fucking moron. Why not also ask for proof that other presidents sent people name Giulliani so you can really win this?

            1. So, which president sent *his personal lawyer* to be his “personal envoy” for purposes of diplomatic negotiations? Hmm?

              Because the vibe I’m getting here is that you see no problems or no potential conflicts of interest here.

    3. “Anyone who believes there was not probable cause to investigate the Biden/Burisma connection does not fit the definition of a “reasonable person” and might not meet the definition of “being of sound mind”.

      So it would be fair to characterize any such person(s) as deranged.

      If only we could identify the cause of their derangment

      1. I try to avoid that phrase. While it sometimes seems appropriate, in the end, it tends to shut down discussion and start the shouting match.

  9. I am just perplexed why anyone thinks that asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is an impeachable offense. There was and still is reason to investigate Biden. There is no explicit expression in the transcript that suggests Ukraine won’t get aid if they don’t. And even if it were there, such a suggestion seems insignificant relative to what every president in the past has done, when it comes to “abuse of power.” There simply is no precedent to impeach over this incident. The fact that the Democrats have been intent on impeaching him since he was elected therefore supports the conclusion that their impeachment is groundless. That Sullum writes these articles is bewildering. It is like he has no knowledge of the behavior of prior presidents.

    And this “While Zelenskiy denies that he was “pressured” or subjected to “blackmail,” that is exactly what you would expect an ally desperate for U.S. support to say, especially if he believes he is dealing with a mercurial president driven by personal interests.”

    Its also exactly what you would expect from someone who wasnt pressured or blackmailed. The reasoning here that Sullum applies could be made for anyone suspected of lying. “He denies the murder???” “That is exactly what you would expect a murderer to say who wishes to deny his crime!” Durp.

    Like the Democrats, Sullum wants Trump impeached, and any reason will do just fine. Perhaps when all Democrats who are trying to impeach Trump accept that FDR should have been impeached, and that Biden should be investigated, Ill begin to take their accusations as anything more than political butthurt.

    1. You’re perplexed? Have you not being paying attention?

      Trump withheld the aid for no reason, then asked for a ‘favor.’ He only released the aid after he learned of the whistleblower complaint, he got caught.

      Trump wanted a foreign government to make a PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT he was opening a criminal investigation into his political rival. If all Trump was concerned about was corruption, he would not have wanted a public announcement and he would have wanted corruption in Ukraine addressed universally, not just into his political rival.

      1. Gene…The POTUS does not need a reason to delay aid up to the fiscal year deadline (9/30), and the aid was not withheld. If you’re gunning to overturn an election via impeachment, you need something a hell of a lot more substantial than what we have here.

        1. Not true. The President is bound by various laws to spend appropriated money in a timely manner. He can’t just spend it all on the last day of the fiscal year.

          https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid

          Again, the President is not Emperor. He cannot do as he pleases.

          1. Chem…the fact is, the POTUS spent the money before the Congressional deadline. That is an objective fact. He was bound by law to spend by 9/30/2019; that is what Congress passed into law.

            Try harder, dude.

            1. Some of the money wasn’t spent because of the hold up and apparently extraordinary measures used to release the money that was spent.

              You Trump mfers are evil. I cannot wait for the next election and the next one and so on. I will never forget you scum and what you’ve done to our country.

              1. Still crying from yesterday’s letdown?

              2. Pod….oddly enough, we agree. See you in November 2020. 🙂

                Skip the evil horseshit. There are political differences. BFD.

              3. You forgot to change your sock cytotoxic. LMAO. Another one outed.

            2. He didn’t release the money until after he heard about the whistleblower complaint. Covering his ass.

          2. You’re really a fucking idiot. There was no expenditure date on the aid. The javelin missiles had already been released after the usual Pentagon review for export of weapons. The OMB official said similar delays were seen on aid to lebanon and south america.

            1. Why don’t you actually read the link that I cited.

              There is a deadline for ALL appropriated money. Once again, the President can’t just decide to spend all of the money all at once on the last day, or whenever he chooses. The President is not an Emperor, no matter how much you want him to be.

              1. None of us said he’s the emperor you fucktard. All were saying is he’s legally allowed to withhold or review all aid.

                Which he is, according to omb guidelines and testimoney.

                1. There are limits to what he is allowed to do.

                  He is NOT allowed to withhold all aid and then spend it all on the very last day of the fiscal year, which is what Commenter_XY asserted.

                  You do realize that the OMB is part of the executive branch, right? Of course the OMB is going to defend executive prerogatives.

                  Really, read the link I cited above.

                  1. Wait….here is what I said (at least have the decency to quote me accurately), the POTUS spent the money before the Congressional deadline. That is an objective fact. He was bound by law to spend by 9/30/2019; that is what Congress passed into law.

                    1. Arguing with Jeff is like arguing with a wall.

                    2. B-b-but he didn’t spend it the right way!

                  2. “He is NOT allowed to withhold all aid and then spend it all on the very last day of the fiscal year, which is what Commenter_XY asserted.”

                    Your citation of this “fact” seems to be missing.

                    If you have a bill due on a date and you pay it on that date exactly, no matter how early you got the bill…you paid it on time.

                    1. I cited it elsewhere in this discussion.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

                      See, this issue has already been decided, with Nixon, who didn’t want to spend money that Congress duly appropriated. The executive wound up on the losing side of that argument.

                    2. Literally nothing in your wikipedia link supports your assertion that Trump was obligated to spend the Ukraine appropriation before he actually did. It’s great to see that you don’t bother reading your own sources any more than you do others’.

                    3. Per the ICA, the President is obligated to disburse the funds within 45 days of being appropriated.

                      He’s not allowed to wait until the last day of the fiscal year.

                      That is my point.

                      Read the lawfare link that I posted above. It goes into the issue in greater depth.

                  3. He is NOT allowed to withhold all aid and then spend it all on the very last day of the fiscal year

                    Hey, you dumbfuck, if the deadline for spending the money is 9/30, then the President is, in fact, allowed to wait until that date to spend it. If Congress had put in obligation dates for that spending, like any other government budget, you might have a point. Were any obligation dates for that aid put into the bill, or did it just say, “Pay Ukraine $______ by 30 September”?

                    1. For all appropriated money, the ICA says that the executive has to make the funds available within 45 days.

                      Read the lawfare link that I cited above.

                    2. So what was the deadline? Give an actual date.

                    3. Well according to the ICA, the President has 45 days to make the money available. That would put the deadline sometime in August.

                      We don’t know the exact date because we don’t know exactly when the Defense Department finished their review in order to clear the money to be spent. Based on my understanding ,that is when the 45-day clock would start.

                    4. You should tell the Ds in congress that. I’m sure they’ll want to get right on it

                    5. We don’t know the exact date because we don’t know exactly when the Defense Department finished their review in order to clear the money to be spent.

                      So, your claim that he didn’t meet the deadline isn’t proven. Thanks for that.

              2. “There is a deadline for ALL appropriated money. Once again, the President can’t just decide to spend all of the money all at once on the last day, or whenever he chooses.”

                Yeah, he can. It’s why it’s called a deadline. As long as it is paid by the deadline, it is fine.

              3. There is a deadline for ALL appropriated money.

                What was the deadline? Was the aid released before that deadline, or no?

                1. No, the aid was not released before the deadline.

                  1. What was the deadline? Give an actual date.

          3. Hmmm,

            So you arr dayinv no other POTUD has refused to spend appropriated money?

            How many counterfactuals would you like? Three? Ten? A hundred?

            1. If they did, they were breaking the law.
              You can read the ICA for yourself.

          4. “Again, the President is not Emperor. He cannot do as he pleases.”

            Can he name his son Barron?

      2. Everything you said is false. Way to be a useful idiot. Hint. Read the transcript from the OMB official. He says the delays were normal and equal to other countries.

  10. “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution it sounds horrible to me.”

    I think there is a lot more evidence to support the allegation that Biden threatened Ukraine with withholding aid for an improper purpose than there is that Trump did. Including the fact Biden actually told the Ukrainians that no aid would be forthcoming unless they did his bidding.

    1. “His bidding”, in the case of Biden, was official US policy.

      On the other hand, “his bidding”, in the case of Trump, was Trump’s personal desires, unconnected with official US policy.

      That’s kind of the key difference here.

      1. Who determines policy? Why I believe that is the POTUS, from article 2.

        1. The president is not emperor. Policy is determined by both Congress and the President.

          Besides, by your reasoning, if Trump had said “I am not giving you aid unless you give me tax credits to build a Trump hotel in Kiev”, that would just be “policy” as well, right?

          1. Chem, Chem, Chem….C’mon now. The question is who determines policy. That is POTUS Trump, per article 2. There is no ‘shared’ power there. The POTUS makes the call and Congress can signal disagreement by withholding monies. That is how the system works.

            You’re reaching….a lot. Listen, you should chill out. No matter what happens, we are going to settle this one at the ballot box. Personally, I can’t wait. Enough with the theatrics. It is abundantly clear that our elected leaders cannot settle their differences.

            Therefore, We the People will settle it for them. I’m good with that. How about you?

            1. Trump has to faithfully execute the laws passed by past Congresses and Presidents. That includes obeying criminal laws against bribery and extortion. Fuck you. Trump will be under indictment soon mfer.

              1. He did dumbass, the money was released. The executive is not subservient to the legislative. Not even nadler or pelosi are going the crimes route idiot.

                1. The executive is not subservient to the legislative.

                  When it comes to HOW and WHEN to spend the money, the executive IS subservient to the legislative.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

                  Do you read anything outside of right-wing news sources? Any at all?

                  1. Do you read anything outside of right-wing news sources? Any at all?

                    Considering you read nothing but WaPo, Huffington Post and DailyKos, this is fucking rich.

                    Also rich that you’ve now posted the same link 3 times despite it not supporting your assertion in any way, shape, or form. Trump had to release a congressional appropriation by a certain date. And he did. SCANDAL!

              2. Pod…you seem to be very angry. You really don’t need to be angry.

                I mean, no matter what happens – this is going to the ballot box in November 2020. Now you like to tell us that it is as plain as day that POTUS Trump is some kind of criminal. Very well then. The country will be the judge of this next November. Is that a problem for you? 🙂

            2. The commies are out in force, and unwilling to give on any of their talking points/lies because their reality is being thrown in the proverbial wood chipper by the reports that have come out and are in the works, now.
              It is a waste of effort to try to get them to accept the reality that Trump did nothing remotely wrong and the actual lawbreaking was done by the anti-Trump forces.

              1. IMPEACHMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAWBREAKING, OR A CRIME.
                SO … YOU JAMMED YET ANOTHER PIE INTO YOUR OWN PUSS.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks “high crimes and misdemeanors” has nothing to do with crime. That’s why he eats his own shit.

          2. Trump wasnt ratifying a treaty you dumbfuck.

            1. What does that have to do with anything?

              The President and Congress share duties in enacting policy, yes even foreign policy. Once again: The President Is Not An Emperor.

              Here is a recent example of both the President and the Congress sharing power in the realm of foreign policy.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Democracy_Act

              1. Got it.

                President can’t act without Congress’ approval, and if Congress disagrees with the President, Congress wins.

                Someone needs a civics course. Do they still offer that in LA?

                1. chemjeff is actually a Canadian named cytotoxic, and he’s just as clueless about his own country’s government as he is ours.

                  1. That would explain why he feels “bullied” after people call him out on his bullshit.

              2. “The President and Congress share duties in enacting policy, yes even foreign policy.”

                Incorrect.

                Congress declares war, appropriates money, and ratifies treaties.

                Congress has ZERO impact on diplomacy one way or the other.

                1. So when, say, Congress imposes sanctions on Iran, that is a Congressional usurpation of executive power?

                  Are we now arguing in favor of GREATER concentration of executive power?

                  1. When you have to resort to made up hypothetical situations, you have to know your argument is shit.

                    1. The Iran Sanctions Act

                      https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/isa_1996.pdf

                      Not hypothetical.

                      So is the Iran Sanctions Act a Congressional usurpation of executive power?

                    2. That’s an exercise of the power of the purse you hopelessly retarded Canadian fuckwit.

                    3. //The Iran Sanctions Act

                      https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/isa_1996.pdf

                      Not hypothetical.

                      So is the Iran Sanctions Act a Congressional usurpation of executive power?//

                      What this has anything to do with the topic at hand is anybody’s fucking guess.

                      This is why people abuse you, Jeff.

                      You went from impeachment to a completely unrelated law, in an entirely unrelated context.

                      This is why people abuse you.

                    4. Do try to keep up, GG.

                      The claim was: “Who determines policy? Why I believe that is the POTUS, from article 2.”

                      I showed how this is demonstrably false – both the President and Congress set foreign policy. An example of this is the Iran Sanctions Act, which is definitely an element of foreign policy, that Congress has a power to set.

                      Now, you could either say “oh, you have a point there” or you can continue to insult me because you refuse to admit it.

                    5. //I showed how this is demonstrably false – both the President and Congress set foreign policy.//

                      And, you are still fucking WRONG.

                      https://www.state.gov/duties-of-the-secretary-of-state/

                      “Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy.”

                      This is why people abuse you, Jeff.

                      You go on long winded tirades and extravagant tangents in futile attempts to disprove obvious, non-controversial shit.

                    6. Gee what a surprise, an executive branch agency is defending the prerogatives of the executive branch.

                      Do you think this helps your argument?

                      I give you example after example of where Congress had a demonstrable role in setting foreign policy, and your only rebuttal is what the executive branch thinks of itself.

                      You haven’t disproved anything, you’ve just embarrassed yourself.

                  2. “So when, say, Congress imposes sanctions on Iran, that is a Congressional usurpation of executive power?”

                    Power of the purse, so no. If they say “We aren’t funding this”, then it is not funded.

                    1. Imposing sanctions is not spending money. This is not “power of the purse”.

                      And besides, right at the start of the Iran Sanctions Act, it says:

                      “SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
                      The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States
                      to deny Iran the ability to support acts of international terrorism
                      and to fund the development and acquisition of weapons of mass
                      destruction and the means to deliver them by limiting the development of Iran’s ability to explore for, extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources of Iran. ”

                      Declaration Of Policy. Why I thought only the executive set foreign policy! How dare the Congress usurp executive authority! Amirite?

                    2. U.S. civics lessons from a retarded Canuck.

                      What could possibly go wrong?

                    3. The more insults that I get, the more I know that the arguments I make are hitting home.

                    4. //The more insults that I get, the more I know that the arguments I make are hitting home.//

                      Only you could be so confident, even when you are so clearly wrong.

                      https://www.state.gov/duties-of-the-secretary-of-state/

                      “Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy.”

              3. “Once again: The President Is Not An Emperor.”

                He sure is if his name is Obama and he has a Magick Phone and Pen and wants to turn what should be Treaties into Executive Orders.
                See: JCPOA, Paris Accords

          3. //Besides, by your reasoning, if Trump had said “I am not giving you aid unless you give me tax credits to build a Trump hotel in Kiev”, that would just be “policy” as well, right?//

            We don’t need anymore Schiff-like “parodies.”

            1. By the “logic” being presented in this discussion, Trump could ask whatever he wanted of Zelensky and it would be regarded as “US policy” regardless of what he asked for.

              So, why not? Explain why Trump asking for personal favors wouldn’t be “foreign policy”.

              1. Why not concoct another hypothetical?

                Would it be “policy” for Trump to promise not to invade Mars if the Martians offered him a hotel overlooking the Newton Crater.

                This is why people harass you, Jeff.

                1. You cannot stand having the logic of your own stupid arguments thrown back at you.

                  CLEARLY, Trump does not have an absolute right to set foreign policy in any way that he wishes whatsoever. Otherwise, he COULD ask for bona-fide personal favors under the guise of “foreign policy” and there would be nothing illegitimate about it.

                  But instead of having the humility to say “oh you have a point, presidents don’t have unconstrained power to set foreign policy”, you resort to insults. It says way more about you than it does about me.

                  1. You don’t have a point. You are a moron spouting nonfactual bullshit. The constitution leaves diplomacy with the executive. This is not ambiguous or controversial, you are just completely and totally ignorant. Congress has remedies to oppose the executive, up to and including impeachment, but they do not conduct diplomacy. The state department is not a branch of congress.

                  2. Made up hypotheticals are not arguments.

                    The problem with your freshman year sophistry is that you are always arguing in generalities to avoid confronting the facts at hand. And, to make things worse, you insert unwarranted assumptions and unproven facts into the generalities as though you are setting forth some sort of fundamental principles that govern every case, including the specific factual circumstances that you originally ignored.

                    “The police officer had probable cause to arrest the shoplifter because he saw him stealing merchandise.”

                    Jeff’s response:

                    “So, by that logic, police officers are free to arrest anyone that happens to cross their field of vision? If not, you need to explain why.”

                    This kid of reductionist theorizing is why people abuse you.

                    1. Made up hypotheticals are not arguments.

                      Followed by a made-up hypothetical. Got it.

                    2. //Made up hypotheticals are not arguments.

                      Followed by a made-up hypothetical. Got it.//

                      So you *are* capable of reasoning through bullshit, but choose not to do it when it’s *your* bullshit.

                      This is why people abuse you, Jeff.

                      Your critical skills conveniently stop the moment it comes time to analyze your own arguments and conclusions. The rules of logic apply to everyone else, except to you. Fallacies are roadblocks for everyone else, but not you. Assumptions, speculations, and counterfactual reasoning weaken arguments, except when you make the arguments.

                      This is why people call you out for being dishonest and inconsistent.

      2. Jeff. . While users official foreign policy? How you answer will demonstrate how dumb you are.

        1. Who sets foreign… wtf autocorrect

          1. Both the President and Congress set foreign policy.

            Once Again: The President Is Not An Emperor

            1. Once again: You are wrong. Utterly and completely unambiguously wrong. Congress does not set foreign policy. Congress has remedies to stymie the executive on foreign policy. They do not set foreign policy.

              1. Both the President and Congress share the power to set foreign policy, as I have demonstrated above with the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, and the Iran Sanctions Act. But do continue to make yourself look like an idiot for denying reality.

                1. “Both the President and Congress share the power to set foreign policy”

                  You are only embarrassing yourself. You really should stop.

                  1. There we go. Someone else who believes the Schoolhouse Rock version of the Constitution over reality.

                    1. Psychoticjeff continues to breakdown

                    2. [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

                      Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

                      The President determines foreign policy. The Senate’s (not the full Congress’) role is limited to “advise and consent” on the ratification of treaties and the appointment of officers to posts.

                      So you’re wrong again, chemjeff.

                    3. The Senate ratifies treaties – yes.
                      The President appoints ambassadors – yes.
                      Those are not the only two elements of foreign policy.
                      Who decides the policy that the ambassadors are going to carry out? BOTH the President AND Congress have a say in that.

                      https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president

                      For example, Congress passes a bill imposing sanctions on Iran. This definitely has a role in foreign policy – it influences how the US and Iran will interact with each other. It is completely within Congress’ powers to do this, pursuant to their role in regulating trade between foreign nations. This is one way that Congress has a voice in foreign policy.

                    4. Just because the Congress and the president can agree on a foreign policy action doesn’t mean Congress and the president have to.
                      Congress can pass a sanctions bill and the president can veto it. However, if the president makes the executive decision to sanction, Congress cannot stop it except to the extent that they can refuse to fund the exercise, as is their only resort to executive actions with which they disagree – sometimes that doesn’t make a difference.
                      The president has the final word, and doesn’t need Congressional approval.

      3. And whose to say that “u.s. policy” wasn’t corrupt AND/OR influenced by Biden while he was v.p. to cover his son and any other elites that were tied to burisma?

        I know it’s certainly not your ignorant ass.

        Like fucking christ, when did so many libtard stooges start taking the word of random diplomats in Europe as gospel. “Some guys in Europe didn’t like shokin so Biden must be right!”

        What about the possibility that Biden AND stooges from Europe all were under shokins cross hairs and they ALL were corrupt?

        Thought never crossed a libs mind

        1. Here’s a profile of Shokin:

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

          Three noteworthy examples:

          1. An honest prosecutor was pursuing an extortion case that led to ties between the extortion racket and Shokin himself. And, as a result, Shokin fired the prosecutor.

          2. Shokin “investigated” Burisma for 14 months, which resulted in…. nothing. No prosecutions, no indictments, nothing. He just sat on it.

          3. During the 2014 revolution, government snipers would shoot and kill protestors in Kiev. What did Shokin do about it? Nothing. Because guess what, he was hired by, and loyal to, the ousted regime. So he was willing to overlook murder if it meant covering up for his former boss.

          Yeah, sure, Shokin’s the honest one here, and it’s a giant European-American corruption conspiracy arrayed against him. LOL

          1. Right.

            Biden actually wanted *intensified* investigations into Burisma. Yet, for some reason, now opposes it.

            The only people taking you seriously are the voices in your head.

            1. So you can’t argue against the claims that I make, so you trot out the insults.

              Did you read the article about Shokin? He was not some noble crime-fighting hero. He was a corrupt POS. He is NOT the good guy in this saga.

              1. So, Biden now supports investigations into Burisma, right?

                I’ll wait.

                I insult you, along with nearly everyone else on these comment boards other than your socks, because you are an idiot and dishonest as shit.

                1. I don’t know what Biden wanted with regards to Burisma. Maybe he didn’t want Burisma investigated because of his son. I’ll absolutely entertain that as a possibility.

                  What I find ludicrous, is the claim by people like Dizzle above, that “Biden AND stooges from Europe all were under shokins cross hairs and they ALL were corrupt?” Which completely ignores the entire history of Shokin and paints this worldwide conspiracy of corruption.

                  I don’t think Biden’s a saint, but I do think that the claim that Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor is a pretty solid claim. What do you think?

                  And, you insult me because you can’t refute me. It is the last refuge of the bully that you are.

                  1. //I don’t know what Biden wanted with regards to Burisma//

                    Yes, you do. Firing a prosecutor that *wasn’t* properly investigating Burisma, which is your theory, implies that the purpose was to replace him with somebody that *would* investigate Burisma properly.

                    Your theory is that Biden wanted Burisma properly investigated.

                    Don’t run from the conclusions of your own arguments.

                    This is why people abuse you, Jeff. This is why.

                    1. I don’t know whether Biden had any direct feelings one way or another whether he wanted Burisma investigated or not. That is my point.

                      It is entirely consistent to want to have the prosecutor fired, without having any opinion one way or another with regards to any specific investigation in the prosecutor’s portfolio.

                2. //It is entirely consistent to want to have the prosecutor fired, without having any opinion one way or another with regards to any specific investigation in the prosecutor’s portfolio.//

                  It is not consistent at all.

                  Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma so he was, in your view, replaced with someone that would. Biden pushed for Shokin’s firing and replacement. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Biden wanted investigations into Burisma to continue.

                  You expect us to believe that Biden wanted Shokin fired for *not* being investigating Burisma.

                  We were not born yesterday. We are not retarded.

                  We all know you don’t even believe your own bullshit.

                  https://www.theepochtimes.com/hunter-biden-was-going-to-be-interviewed-in-burisma-investigation-former-prosecutor_3169056.html

                  Enjoy!

          2. Jeff,
            Shokin can be corrupt and evil.
            Biden’s actions can be corrupt.
            These aren’t mutually exclusive statements.

            Biden can also have both legitimate and personal motives to take the actions that he took. It’s quite possible that all his interests were aligned in this action.

            However, we aren’t convicting Biden in this discussion. We are talking about whether there is sufficient probable cause to start an investigation or whether Trump just wanted dirt dug up on Biden by any means necessary.

            I can say with honesty that there was probable cause and that starting an investigation was legitimate. We can talk about whether Trump’s methods were appropriate, and I can definitely understand if you feel that they are worth voting him out of office. However, I cannot see that this is some form of impeachable corruption.

            1. HiLIARy was asked if she intended to put national security documents at risk of being stolen, despite the law she violated not requiring intent as an element.
              She said she didn’t and it was accepted to the point of exonerating her for what many others have been severely punished.
              Trump saying what he mentioned was to get to the corruption of Biden and his son’s sinecure, and not for political gain, is not even given a minute’s consideration.
              The stark differences between how the two have been treated is very telling on how the insider/elites get special consideration by the Washington Cabal.
              That’s one of the things that got Trump elected.
              It needs to end and any “libertarian” supporting this, loses any credibility to claim that title.

      4. No, you calling Bidens bidding US policy is the one snd only difference.

        Trump sets US policy, not Col. Vindmann

        1. In reality, it is both the executive and legislative branches that set foreign policy.

          As a recent example, see:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Democracy_Act

          An example of both Congress and the President setting foreign policy with regards to Hong Kong.

          In the case of Ukraine, Congress appropriated the money to spend on Ukrainian military aid. And that money had conditions that Congress set. That is part of how Congress has a role in foreign policy.

          Once again: The President Is Not An Emperor

          1. In reality you are unambiguously and completely wrong. Congress does not set foreign policy. Congress is constitutionally unable to set foreign policy. Once again: You are a fucking moron

          2. In the case of Ukraine, Congress appropriated the money to spend on Ukrainian military aid. And that money had conditions that Congress set. That is part of how Congress has a role in foreign policy.

            That is congress using the power of the purse. Budgeting and appropriation is a constitutionally defined congressional authority. Diplomacy is not. Once again: you are a fucking moron and you are completely, unambiguously incorrect in your assertions.

            Your point is especially stupid considering that Trump met all of his obligations to release the funding in accordance with the appropriation.

            1. We are talking about “US policy”, not diplomacy specifically.

              Congress has a role to play in setting US foreign policy, partly via the power of the purse, yes. Thanks for agreeing with me, even if obliquely.

              1. Then explain how Congress authorized military aid to Ukraine and 0blama/Biden refused to send it.
                https://nypost.com/2019/10/09/sorry-joe-team-obama-refused-to-arm-ukraine-at-all/

          3. You should read the Constitution some time.

            When does what the POTUS say become “ official”?

            What made what VPOTUS Biden said “ official”?

            Thisgunbegood.gif

      5. ““His bidding”, in the case of Biden, was official US policy.”

        Jeff…WHO sets “official” US foreign policy?

        1. Both the President and the Congress.

          1. Still 100% unambiguously incorrect cytotoxic.

            And most hilariously, you’re undermining your own point since Biden intervened at the 11th hour to withhold a loan guarantee approved by………….

          2. Patently and absolutely false.

            Both Clinton and Obama signed foreign policy agreements Congress was vehemently (i.e unanimously) opposed to.

            They weren’t treaties, so they were easily undone…but they still engaged in foreign policy Congress loathed and broke exactly zero laws in so doing.

            1. They both have a role. It doesn’t mean they both have to always agree with each other.

              The President can set foreign policy over Congress’ objections, true.
              But Congress can also set foreign policy over the President’s objections, by overriding his veto. Or, by failing to approve a treaty that the President supports.

              Here is an example of Congress having a role in foreign policy over the President’s objections:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Against_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_Act

              This law was approved by overriding Obama’s veto.

            2. So, if Congress sets “official” US Policy, and Biden threatened to withhold money appropriated by Congress, for a quid pro quo, no less, then…….

  11. While the president’s motives in seeking Ukrainian investigations are a matter of dispute, his actions are clear from the public record.

    They certainly are. He released all of the funding to Ukraine despite Ukraine not doing what he asked of them and told his top advisors explicitly that he wanted no quid pro quo. Those are objective, undeniable, established facts brought out to the utter humiliation of the Democrats during their goat rodeo of a sham impeachment ”””””investigation”””””. You are completely fucking mentally unhinged Sullum.

    1. Saw David Copperfield. What a waste of time in Vegas.

      The only good thing was waiting for the show we got lucky enough In the casino to pay for it.

    2. Exactly. Sullum puts a link that does not in any way support his statement:

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

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

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

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

  12. I love how the people refusing to believe Ukranian officials denials of a quid pro quo would probably be the same people to point to the word of Ukranian officials if one said “yeah there was a quid pro quo” as if it was evidence lol.

    Of course you could twist both scenarios into a case of “ukraine is lying to protect their own interests”, but I doubt that would be done if we were seeing Ukrainian officials come out against Trump.

    In some ways this reminds me how some of the people crying about the electoral college would be the first to sing it’s praises if Trump had won the popular vote, but lost because of the EC. Can you imagine the think pieces from places like Slate or Salon telling us how the EC has finally proven useful, done what it was meant to do, etc.?

    1. //I love how the people refusing to believe Ukranian officials denials of a quid pro quo would probably be the same people to point to the word of Ukranian officials if one said “yeah there was a quid pro quo” as if it was evidence lol.//

      100%

      It’s called a double standard, or – as leftists like to refer to it – “common sense.”

      That they think anybody is being convinced by this nonsense is just proof of their delusions.

    2. It’s simple. They have already concluded Trump is guilty so anything against their belief is wrong.

  13. “While the president’s motives in seeking Ukrainian investigations are a matter of dispute, his actions are clear from the public record.”

    Has REASON ever written those words concerning an ongoing 4 year attempted coup involving several dozen of the highest ranking public officials (including Obama)? What exactly is REASON waiting for?

    1. Maybe Reason writers should write from the perspective of ‘what if this standard were used against me?’

      It stinks of a coup to me.

  14. Love Trump of hate him, Think Trump guilty or innocent. One fact remains, Impeachment is a purely partisan political process. And that fact will never change.

    1. No. The Nixon case proves that wrong. When the evidence is clear, and the crime is significant, principled people in the Prez’s party will do the right thing.

      The Clinton case had a clear act, but not a high crime, so it was political.

      The Trump case has neither, so it is purely partisan.

      1. Have you seen the trash representing Republican voters in Congress? You couldn’t tell them apart from the rightwing trash on the internet. Principled? That’s a joke.

        1. Lol. You’ve completely lost it. Your stupid ignorant world is crashing all around you.

        2. And yet were still better and less smelly than you

        3. Thanks for outing this sock again cytotoxic. LMAO

        4. Do you have a form of dyslexia that makes a “D” look like an “R” and vice-versa?
          Because if anyone in the House looks like trash, it is the demoncrap reps, and they’re clearly very stupid, too.
          When’s Guam going to tip over…?

          1. “I want to see the flag that the astronauts planted on Mars …”

  15. If you really don’t like denying reality, truth, because you recognize the real harm doing so causes, advocate criminalizing lying.

    You would of course except you have a little reality denying of your own to do.

  16. What a mess of paraphrase and not particularly on point quotes.

    Look, I have no doubt that Trump wanted the Bidens investigated. Anyone serious about government corruption would.

    But your claim is that he asked for them to be investigated, not that he wanted it. So, why couldn’t you provide a quote where he asked that? Because he actually didn’t.

    1. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sondland-trump-only-wanted-ukraine-to-announce-investigation-into-biden-not-a-real-inquiry

      “President Trump only wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens, but there was no expectation for them to follow through with the inquiry, according to Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

      During his testimony on Wednesday, Sondland was the first witness to claim Trump demanded that Ukraine announce an investigation into the Bidens in return for a White House visit. In his July 25 phone call, Trump had asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into possible corruption between Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who had landed a high-paying job for the natural gas firm Burisma.

      Sondland told House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff that Trump only wanted an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma to be announced, but he didn’t care if the inquiry ever took place. He claimed that Trump would only deliver on his promise of a White House visit for Ukraine if the investigation was announced. “

      1. Yeah, not really interested in Sondland’s magical mind reading powers. Or the Washington Examiner’s paraphrases and inferences.

        I’m asking for the quote where he asked for the Bidens to be investigated. Because that’s what was asserted in the OP: That Trump actually asked for it.

      2. How do you continually only used Sondlands written testimony and ignore how it completely collapsed under actual questioning. Sondland said no to every question asking for direct guidance. He explicitly said it was his opinion there was pid pro quo. Always so fucking wrong about everything.

        1. Because he’s a fucking liar, and he’s bad at it, but thinks if he keeps repeating the same gaslighting bullshit, some idiot on his level is going to scratch his head and pull the lever for Democrats come November 2020.

          The problem is there are not enough idiots on his level. Those below him will never understand the argument, and those above him will laugh at him, as these comments demonstrate. Jeff is an island, and quite deluded.

          1. He’s got “mike laursen”, pod, hihn, de espresso, eunuch, and the Reason staff in his corner.
            Telling company

            1. I’m fairly certain, judging by the writing style, that most of those accounts are actually Jeff.

              1. You are wrong.

          1. Let the hihn flow through you

  17. Well, there’s two hypotheses for Joe Biden’s motivations here:

    1. Joe Biden demanded that Shokin be fired in order to protect his son.
    2. Joe Biden demanded that Shokin be fired in accordance with official US policy.

    Personally I think it is probably a little bit of both #1 and #2. But it’s going to be hard to prove that it was #1 and NOT #2, as there were so many other institutions also demanding that Shokin be fired, which had nothing at all to do with Hunter Biden specifically. Shokin actually was a corrupt prosecutor in many ways and deserved to go.

    1. There are hundreds, no, thousands of corrupt prosecutors around the world. Why pick out Shokin?

      You get one guess.

      1. Biden was chosen by Obama to be the US government’s emissary to Ukraine, after the 2014 revolution and Russian invasion.

        It was literally part of Biden’s job to be interested in what Ukraine was doing.

        Why do you think Burisma hired Hunter Biden and not some other politician’s son?

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html

        1. You didnt answer his question just like you’ve never asked it why was Shokin singled out over a billion dollars.

          1. Biden wasn’t selected to be the emissary to Gambia. He was selected to be the emissary to Ukraine. So that is why Biden picked on Ukraine’s prosecutor, and not Gambia’s prosecutor. Get it?

            1. Hunter Biden wasn’t selected to be the emissary to Gambia. He was selected to be on the Board of Burisma. So that is why Trump picked on Ukraine’s prosecutor, and not Gambia’s prosecutor. Get it?

              FTFY

        2. So at least you admit my 3rd possibility listed below is a legit one because you admit this wasn’t “u.s. policy” in ukraine..

          It was “Joe Bidens” policy in ukraine.

          1. No, it was US policy to see Shokin fired. As well as the policy of several European nations.

            https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

            I am sure that Joe Biden certainly didn’t mind that his efforts would benefit his son.

          2. Oh by the way.
            Both Republican and Democratic senators, in a letter to Poroshenko in early 2016, at the time also “urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.”

            Were they in on the corruption that Shokin was supposedly fighting as well? Were they trying to protect Hunter Biden too?

            https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help

        3. Literally making the case for Biden’s corruption, while attempting to argue that Biden was clean as a whistle.

          Never stop Jeff. Never stop.

          Do you plan to kill yourself when Trump gets re-elected?

          1. “Do you plan to kill yourself when Trump gets re-elected?”

            One can hope …

        4. You are now making Trumps case

          Why did Burisma hire Biden?

          1. What a great question! Let’s investigate why Burisma hired Hunter Biden.

            However, there is one small problem: it’s not illegal for a private company to pay its board members whatever they wish. So what would be the probable cause for starting the investigation in the first place?

            If the answer is “we don’t need probable cause to start an investigation into something that looks obviously corrupt by people holding positions of power”, then I am actually with you on that one – I think people who hold power should be held to higher standards than simply “not committing crimes”. So let’s investigate everything that the Bidens did. But of course we would have to apply that same standard to Trump. So let’s investigate everything that Trump did too.

            If you are willing to hold both the Bidens and the Trumps to the same standard EITHER WAY, then I am with you. Sound good?

            1. Literally ignores the entire concept of a conflict of interest, while crying incessantly about the emoluments clause.

              Go stick a fork in a toaster.

              1. So first you disagree with the concept of private property, and now you are telling me to kill myself. Wow, maybe you really are a communist after all.

                1. Literally ignores the entire comment made to reference irrelevant comments from prior threads and thinks his argument is made.

                  This is why people abuse you Jeff. This is why.

        5. “Biden was chosen by Obama to be the US government’s emissary to Ukraine,”

          …hmm, and a Ukrainian energy company decided to put his utterly unqualified son on their board. Seems totes legit.

          1. It doesn’t seem legit.
            But it is not illegal, and the Ukrainian authorities have already said it wasn’t illegal for Burisma to pay Hunter Biden a large salary, and US authorities don’t have jurisdiction over Burisma’s payroll practices.

            And so, if you are going to argue “I don’t care if it’s illegal or not, I think people in positions of power should be held to higher standards than that”, then I AGREE with you – provided that that standard is applied fairly and equally.

            Are you with me on this?

            1. It doesn’t seem legit.
              But it is not illegal

              And the same could be said about every single action of Trump’s that you believe is impeachable and evidence of a massive conspiracy.

              Holy fuck you are stupid.

              1. Should Trump be held to the “anything goes as long as it’s not illegal” standard? If so, then you should hold the same standard to Hunter Biden. What specifically did he do that was illegal? Answer: nothing. Shady? Yes. But not illegal.

                But if you’re going to hold Hunter Biden to the standard of “shady shit should be looked into even if it’s not strictly illegal”, then I expect you to hold Trump to the same standard. Deal?

                1. “Should Trump be held to the “anything goes as long as it’s not illegal” standard?”

                  You’re holding the person who you think will run against him to that standard…

                  “If so, then you should hold the same standard to Hunter Biden. What specifically did he do that was illegal? Answer: nothing. Shady? Yes. But not illegal.”

                  HUNTER isn’t the one who did anything unethical. He’s just a sleazy shit. But he was hired, overpaid immensely, with absolutely no expertise in any aspect of Burisma’s business. And TOTALLY not to curry favor with the guy who ran US Ukraine policy at the time. That’s just silly talk…

              2. I becoming bored with him

    2. Well we have one proven hypothesis, you’re a fucking idiot.

    3. 3. Joe Biden directed official U.S. policy to fire shokin in order to cover his son, as well as all the other elites with connections on the burisma board.

      You forgot that possibility dickwad

    4. Shokin was not investigating Burisma at the time he was fired.

  18. He asked to specifically look into Hunter Biden but of course it was the Biden’s who were working this together. So what?

    What is the point of this article.

    Oh wait a whole bunch of Euro’s who also had their hands in the corruption also wanted Shokin fired, Once againso what?

    Shokin was investigating Burisma and after he was fired the investigation was dropped by the next prosecutor who was also corrupt but Biden fired.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch the whole lets spy on Carter Page, and once under the tenet Trump, for three years was just A-OK with Reason I guess,

    1. Oh wait a whole bunch of Euro’s who also had their hands in the corruption also wanted Shokin fired, Once againso what?

      https://www.ft.com/content/44c1641e-cff7-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

      The IMF wanted major anti-corruption reforms. How did they “ha[ve] their hands in the corruption”?

      1. Hunter Biden was not the only patronage position on Burisma’s board.

        Oh the IMF they are beyond reproach. Next you’ll be saying Brennan and Clapper thought he was corrupt that would absolutely seal the deal.

        But in the end guess what happened. Prosecutor #2 dropped the investigation and no more legal issues for Burisma. Like magic. Democrats call this “debunked” most folks consider it never investigated and something we should look into.

        1. Jeff is completely ignoring the Ukrainian prosecutors opening an investigation to various banks over money laundering. Too many democratic connections for him.

      2. “The IMF wanted major anti-corruption reforms. How did they “ha[ve] their hands in the corruption”?”

        You don’t follow the IMF very closely, do you? It’s a rare head of the IMF who ISN’T in legal trouble for corruption.

        1. Okay, so what specifically is corrupt in the IMF wanting anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine?

          That someone at some point did something corrupt at IMF doesn’t mean everything that IMF ever does is corrupt and can’t be trusted

          1. Many IMF members were part of the money laundering efforts currently being investigated in Ukraine you half wit. Why do you think they would want a hand picked prosecutor favorable to them? Are you honestly this daft?

            1. Many IMF members were part of the money laundering efforts currently being investigated in Ukraine you half wit.

              Oh, they were? Do you have evidence for this claim?

              1. He heard a guy on a phone call say it. There. If it’s good enough to impeach the president on, it’s good enough to win an e-pissing match.

  19. To start with, you’re not helping your case when you start citing “facts” that are not facts but merely what somebody said are facts. It doesn’t matter that they testified under oath that these are facts or that the sources are highly respected in some quarters – everybody is capable of lying, being mistaken, shading the truth, etc. and when it’s people with agendas you should be even more skeptical of the “facts”.

    Moreover, I think a big part of the problem is that Trump is both ignorant and stupid. Ignorance is simply not knowing something and we’re all ignorant on an infinite variety of subjects, stupidity is the inability to recognize your ignorance.

    Trump is a political outsider, he is ignorant of how the system works and yet he insists he’s the smartest man in the world and knows everything about everything. It’s well-known that his most trusted advisor is his very good brain – he doesn’t take advice from other people because he doesn’t think he needs advice, he knows he’s more knowledgeable about every possible subject than any possible advisor could possibly be.

    When it comes to Ukraine, I’m skeptical that he wanted Biden and Clinton investigated to dig up dirt on his two most formidable political rivals, he just thought there was something that stunk there and thought he might find something he could use against his enemies. (Keep in mind that everybody is an enemy as far as Trump is concerned – you dare criticize him and he goes all whiny little bitch on your ass because he’s a thin-skinned bully with a fragile ego and a troll’s mentality of calling somebody names and hurling insults at them as the height of argumentative prowess. Fuck off, Tulpa, you’re a retard.)

    Being ignorant, Trump wanted dirt, he asked for dirt. When Hillary wanted dirt on Trump, we see what happened – she got the DNC to hire a lawyer who hired a scumbag who made up some shit and/or talked to some other scumbags who made up some shit. Hillary’s perfectly clean, she knew nothing whatsoever about Steele, had nothing whatsoever to do with nothing. And she’s a hell of a lot smarter than Trump at political intrigue. She could accomplish the exact same shit as Trump – and a lot worse – and it would all be rumors and suspicions, you’d never find a trace of her fingerprints on the shit.

    There’s a reason “Nice business you got here, be a shame if something was to happen to it” is a well-known cliche and so is “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” – it’s all about the plausible deniability despite the fact that we all know damn well what they mean. And Trump’s too damn ignorant and stupid and fat-headedly arrogant to think he needs such a thing – he could stroll down 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and get away with it, he’s bulletproof! No, you’re not and you couldn’t, you’re not Superman, you’re a delusional dumbass.

    1. The way I look at it, the difference between Trump and every other politician is the same as the difference between a mugger sticking a gun in your ribs and demanding your wallet and a cop knocking on your door and handing you a citation for having your grass 3/4″ too long – either way, it’s a guy with a gun who’s robbing you but only one of them can be prosecuted for the crime. Trump has no qualms about committing nakedly criminal acts because he knows damn well everybody else is doing it too, but these morally pure pecksniffian pieces of shit get to act all shocked – shocked! – that such a thing could possibly be going on. Go to hell, you’re all a pack of crooks and as long as you’re getting away with your crimes we’re going to see to it that Trump gets away with his. It’s jury nullification, bitches.

    2. It amazes me how folks call someone dumb who is one of richest men in the world and is president of the United States. I mean none of that excludes the possibility of being a total asshole but I would discount dumb.

      Forest Gump is a movie. It doesn’t happen in real life where a dummy just stumbles into incredible success.

      And Hillary has more friends in high places or else she would be in jail. Plain and simple. Its not that she is some genius or that it was unknown that she mishandled classified information. It was just over looked and accepted. Ask the guy who Trump pardoned with the submarine photos on his phone how regular folks get treated. Yea, thats not how Hillary gets treated.

      1. And despite it all…..Hilary is gonna announce.

        That’s the crazy part.

        1. When hell freezes over.

      2. Trump inherited his wealth and who knows how wealthy he really is. Hopefully we get his tax returns and financial records soon enough so we can find out who’s paying him and whether he’s taking bribes.

        1. WTF are doing on here. Go find a totalitarian site to comment on.

          He’s 70+ years old. Yes he inherited the business but he has built on it. He hasn’t run through any given amount funding a drug habit like lets say Hunter Biden. And FWIW its none of your business.

          So when “we” get the tax returns and private records I’m guessing “we” will then sift through them looking for a crime.

          WTF are still doing in the country. Seriously self deport

          1. I think he’s stifling release of his tax returns because they show how much money he’s lost. They are embarrassing.

        2. Yeah, I’m sure Trump’s taxes are such a fount of chicanery that some goofy IRS shill in the “Resistance” wouldn’t have already leaked them if there was anything there.

          The most scandalous thing we’ve seen so far is that he used a standard tax law associated with bankruptcy, used by pretty much anyone who knows about it, to avoid paying federal taxes for several years. Then there was Maddow’s hilarious segment that used tax returns which were probably leaked by Trump himself to make her look like a moron.

    3. This is the thing I find weird. Why is Reason – a magazine meant to be ‘reasoned’ – even remotely buying into this nonsense on any level? The Dossier – the file that kickstarted it all – was clearly fabricated and much of the ‘evidence’ is all just really hearsay.

      If this were real life, it would have been dismissed in court and the world would go on.

      But this is politics and it’s all purely partisan bull shit.

      Reason isn’t very ‘furbo’.

      1. Oh. And the FBI KNEW it was all lies and still proceeded anyway lying to FISA judges along the way.

        Sssssure. Trump is the problem.

        I think America has deeper problems than Trump. Trump will eventually go away. The FBI will stay and continue and do the same things in the future if not held to account once and for all.

        The best thing would be to have Hillary to account and Obama face some kind of public embarrassment for his role subjecting a nation to fake banana republic theatre since 2016.

        1. The more honest have (preposterously I argue) spun this as ‘patriotism’.

          I have another word for it. It starts with a ‘T’ and ends with ‘N’.

        2. Trump is going to prison when he leaves office. You fuckers enabled a criminal. For all that talk about Clinton corruption you turn around and elect next level corruption. It’s ironic to say the least.

          1. My favorite thing this week is watching your complete mental collapse.

            1. The only thing better would be to read about a string of suicides when Trump gets re-elected.

            2. I have some level of respect for pod.
              He’s passionate and honest about his position.
              He’s wrong and ignorant, but at least he doesn’t constantly misrepresent his position as “neutral” and “non-partisan”
              He at least doesn’t stoop to such lows to give his advocacy weight.
              Pod is a sincere liar – unlike some other deep state dick suckers around here

              1. I guess that is fair.

                In my neighborhood there’s a crazy guy who roams the streets jabbering about how evil Trump is. He walks into random stores and coffee shops and mumbles incoherently about any number of other random topics, but the most consistent is that Trump is a “monster.” Recently, I found out that he lives in a nearby private institution for the infirm and mentally ill and, unfortunately, wanders off into the streets when he is off his medications. When he does take his medication, he’s a reasonable guy and you can have a conversation with him; it is the only time he does not ramble about Trump being the anti-Christ.

                I think most of what he rambles about politically he simply picks up from the staff at the home.

                I view Jeff and Pod, and the others, in much the same way. Their entire political identity is a puerile exercise in mindless mirroring. They do not really understand why they hate Trump, but they know they hate him.

          2. Prison, for committing Foreign Policy.

            That doesnt sound Banana Republic Totalitarian at all. Glad you identify as Libertarian

          3. Pod, Pod, Pod….I know, it hurts. I totally get it. You thought for sure this impeachment thing was gonna do it, and now it looks like a big fizzle. Just like all the last fizzles for the last three years. The effort by Team D to galvanize the public to remove POTUS Trump has failed, decisively. There is no consensus to remove him.

            You’re sort of like Linus trying to kick that football….flat on you ass after a humungous whiff. I pity you.

            Listen, as consolation, I offer you this: November 2020. 🙂

          4. “” For all that talk about Clinton corruption you turn around and elect next level corruption. It’s ironic to say the least.””

            If you see one person being treated with a high degree of privilege in escaping accountability, another person expecting the same isn’t ironic.

      2. Because they need to support impeachment because Koch industries supports impeachment.

        As the saying goes: “It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.”

  20. Question for Mr. Sullum:

    If you interpreted his actions in the worst possible light before the Inspector General report that was released yesterday, doesn’t an honest appraisal of Trump’s actions and motives deserve reinterpretation after the Inspector General report on the FBI’s behavior against the president during the 2016 election?

    “That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand- picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process. 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.”

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

    Executive Summary, Page xiv

    https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

    Three teams with dozens of FBI agents all made the same 17 “mistakes” under the direction of Comey and other senior officials–and they did it on four different FISA applications in a row over a period of months. One of them is being prosecuted for altering an email! Furthermore, the FBI kept the fact that the source of the bad information they were using in the FISA application was none other than the Hillary Clinton campaign away from President Trump, even after he became president!

    President Trump knew all of this when he saw Biden on television bragging about having threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor that was investigating his son. We know this because President Trump makes reference to it in the transcript of the phone call. Knowing what you know now about the dishonest and illegal way the FBI conducted an investigation against the Trump campaign team using opposition research from Hillary Clinton’s campaign–and hiding that fact from him even after he was told about the existence of the Steele Memo–how can you not revise your assumptions about Trump’s motives?

    Why would anyone in Trump’s situation trust the FBI to investigate the Ukraine?

    It may even be perfectly acceptable to request an investigation from another country in that situation.

    1. Trump’s a ‘snowflake’ for daring to defend himself.

      1. Defending himself is obstruction!

        1. Well technically JesseAZ, POTUS Trump declined to make any of his cabinet officers available for Star Chamber Congressional impeachment testimony. So there is the obstruction of Congress.

          It was silly and stupid in 1868, and it is just as silly and stupid in 2019.

          1. Some people just don’t want to admit that executive privilege is a real thing. Here’s something else. If Trump ordering them not to testify is illegal, the cabinet officers have no obligation to abide by Trump and if they refuse to go testify it’s on them.

            1. Vic….Maybe it is me, but I have noticed that TDS symptoms include amnesia (of history), and a complete loss of reasoning and logical abilities. Have you noticed the same thing?

              God, these TDS afflicted people are pitiable. I truly feel sorry for them. What will happen November 2020 when POTUS Trump crushes whomever Team D puts up?

              1. TDS maybe, but I think it’s just partisan politics as usual. TDS may add to the fire and vigor but partisan politics has always been about that which you mention.

                “”What will happen November 2020 when POTUS Trump crushes whomever Team D puts up?”‘

                That will be interesting if that happens. I’m no fan of Trump but if Trump wins the EC and popular vote I’m going to laugh my ass off. No fan of Trump, but even a less of fan of haters and I see a lot of hating.

  21. Trump’s alleged motivation is the keystone to it being an abuse of power. If his motivation is something other than trashing Biden for campaign purposes, then the whole accusation falls apart. The motive is the supposed crime here as the quid pro quo was not actually carried our by either side.

    Has there ever been impeachment articles that are more self-aerving than what the Democrats have put forth, or hypocritical? If what Trump did was interfering in the 2020 election, then impeaching him surely is also an interference win the election.

  22. For those of you who aren’t familiar with some of the facts I stated above, here they are straight from the horse’s mouth. This is what Comey, the Director of the FBI at the time, told George Stephanopoulos about what he did when he told President Elect Donald Trump about the existence of the Steele Memo:

    “GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: How weird was that briefing?

    JAMES COMEY: Really weird. I mean, I don’t know whether it was weird for President-elect Trump, but I– it was almost an out-of-body experience for me. I was floating above myself, looking down, saying, “You’re sitting here, briefing the incoming president of the United States about prostitutes in Moscow.” And of course, Jeh Johnson’s voice is banging around in my head. President Obama’s eyebrow raise is banging around in my head. I just wanted to get it done and get out of there.

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you tell him that the Steele Dossier had been financed by his political opponents?

    JAMES COMEY: No. I didn’t– I didn’t think I used the term “Steele Dossier,” I just talked about additional material.

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Did he– but did he have a right to know that?

    JAMES COMEY: That it’d been financed by his political opponents? I don’t know the answer to that. I– it wasn’t necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information. Again, I was clear on whether it’s true or not, it’s important that you know, both because of the counterintelligence reason and so you know that this maybe going to hit the media.”

    https://abcnews.go.com/Site/transcript-james-comeys-interview-abc-news-chief-anchor/story?id=54488723

    Why would Donald Trump trust the FBI to investigate a publicly confessed crime against Joe Biden under those circumstances?

    Whatever it is you think President Trump did that was wrong by asking the Ukraine for help with an investigation, it needs to be interpreted against that background.

    If you think the president should continue to put his faith in an agency that used opposition research to get a warrant to do surveillance on his campaign–and then withheld the source of that information both from the FISA court and the president himself–then go ahead and say so.

    1. This is damning of the FBI.

      There should have been a purge at the FBI.

      Trump has shown remarkable restraint by not launching a holy crusade against the FBI for what they did to him. If anything, this Ukraine deals proves that the damage they did by knowingly using opposition research to obtain a warrant to do surveillance on a presidential campaign may be permanent. IF IF IF Trump did something terrible right now, why would anyone believe the FBI?

      They’re like a police officer who’s been convicted of perjury. All the cases that cop has testified in before may need to be retried. You certainly can’t use that cop’s testimony in court anymore–because everyone knows that cop is a convicted liar. It’s in the public record!

      If they report that Donald Trump broke the law again next week, who should believe them?

      The FISA court shouldn’t take their word for anything anymore.

      Donald Trump shouldn’t take their word for anything anymore.

      Jacob Sullum shouldn’t take their word for anything anymore.

      Now Biden is over there bragging about being a crook. What do you expect Trump to do–call the FBI?

      1. Now Biden is over there bragging about being a crook. What do you expect Trump to do–call the FBI?

        If Trump was sincerely interested in investigating corruption, then I would expect Trump to use a legitimate means to investigate that corruption. Sending one’s personal lawyerm to conduct some shadow diplomacy, is shady mobster-level bullshit. THAT is completely indefensible IMO. Even if you think Trump is sincere and Biden is guilty as sin, trying to nail Biden *in the manner that Trump chose to do so* is completely out of bounds.

        1. //If Trump was sincerely interested in investigating corruption, then I would expect Trump to use a legitimate means to investigate that corruption.//

          No gives a fuck what you expect.

          1. I suppose if you are totally committed to the whole “deep state” narrative, then Trump is a powerless victim surrounded by corrupt and evil forces, and so has NO CHOICE but to send his personal lawyer out to bravely and heroically serve The People. Is that it?

            1. I repeat. Nobody gives a fuck what *you* expect.

              1. So you don’t expect him to conduct an investigation using legitimate means either, then, I suppose.

                1. You don’t get to define “legitimate means.”

                  Clearly, investigating Democrats is illegitimate, no matter what the means are.

                  1. Not what I said, and you can’t answer the question.

                    Look, we both know that if the roles were reversed, and if Obama had sent his personal lawyer abroad to investigate claims about Romney’s kids, that you would be having a cow, and EVEN IF there was something shady going on about Romney’s kids, you would never endorse those tactics in order to try to uncover whatever happened.

                    We both know you’re at the end of your argument, and you can’t admit it, so you resort to insults.

                    1. But what’s the odds Obama would get impeached for it?

                    2. //Look, we both know that if the roles were reversed, and if Obama had sent his personal lawyer abroad to investigate claims about Romney’s kids, that you would be having a cow//

                      People who rely on hypothetical scenarios and counterfactual arguments are implicitly admitting that they have no argument based in the actual facts.

                      This is why people abuse you, Jeff.

                      I will repeat it until the day you die. This is why people abuse you.

                    3. Look, we both know that if the roles were reversed, and if Obama had sent his personal lawyer abroad to investigate claims about Romney’s kids, that you would be having a cow

                      Obama used his FBI, CIA, NSA and state department to concoct a fake oppo dossier, use it as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign, and illegally unmasked hundreds of American citizens and you had absolutely nothing to say about it. Your hypothetical would be chickenshit compared to what Obama actually did. And yet here you are still sucking his dick 3 years later. It’s almost like you’re a lying piece of subhuman shit.

        2. Chem, Chem, Chem….George Washington used personal emissaries to conduct foreign policy. So did Adams. So did Jefferson. So did Madison. Should they have been impeached for it?

          You’re reaching buddy…the historical record is not helping you. 🙂

          1. cytotoxic doesn’t know too much about American history since he is Canadian, poorly educated, and of sub-average intelligence.

            1. wait….this chem guy isn’t even an American? WTF? Tell him to go fix his country. He might start with tact lessons – ‘don’t wear blackface’ – for PM Trudeau.

              1. Yes I am an American citizen.
                Our “celebrity” troll here thinks for some reason I am some former commenter named Cytotoxic who was evidently Canadian. I’m not Cytotoxic, I never knew him, I don’t know anything about him, I don’t know where these trolls get this shit.

        3. “If Trump was sincerely interested in investigating corruption, then I would expect Trump to use a legitimate means to investigate that corruption.”

          Did you not read anything I wrote?

          You think the FBI is “legitimate means” after all the facts I cited above?

          Has the FBI launched an investigation into Biden’s claims that he shut down a corruption investigation into his son by refusing to release aid?

          If not, why not? What are they waiting for?

          Only and idiot in Trump’s situation would have trusted the FBI.

          1. “Legitimate means” doesn’t necessarily have to mean using the FBI. It could be some sort of special prosecutor. Or do what Obama did, designate the VP to be the special emissary to Ukraine. Put Pence in charge of figuring it all out.

            But it’s pretty hard to make the case that sending *one’s personal lawyer*, along with an entire raft of conflicts of interest, to conduct shadow diplomacy, is anywhere close to a “legitimate means” to conduct an investigation.

      2. “”Steele also refuted the IG report’s description of himself as a confidential human source — in other words, an FBI informant — saying that though he had provided investigative work for the FBI as a contractor, he is prohibited from serving as a confidential human source for the FBI because of his obligation to his former government employer — the British government. “”

        https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dossier-author-chris-steele-refutes-key-points-doj/story?id=67636399

        Seems like the FBI misrepresented their relationship with Steele. Perhaps to Steele himself. What reason would they classify him as a confidential informant other than to take advantage of hiding who was giving them the information?

      3. That it’d been financed by his political opponents? I don’t know the answer to that.

        What a fucking disingenuous hack. Now imagine these same people conducting an investigation of you instead of the incoming President.

    2. The FBI Director reports directly to the AG, not the President. I know I know, but the President appoints the FBI Director, La La La La (fingers in eats)! Comey is not Drumpf’s personal lawyer you know!

      1. He knew the credibility of the allegations against Trump were compromised by the fact that their source was Clinton campaign.

        So he told the President-elect about the allegations–because he says he wanted to let the president know it was about to hit the media–but he didn’t bother to tell the president that the source of the allegations was highly questionable and politically motivated?

        Why?

        Meanwhile, they withheld the provenance of the Steele report from the FISA court, too.

        The Inspector General report, I linked above, makes it clear that the provenance of the information was known by everyone involved at the time the FISA warrant applications were prepared. They kept this hidden from everybody–not just Trump.

        There was no good reason why Donald Trump should have expected the FBI to conduct a non-political investigation of anything–much less the leading contender for the Democrat nomination.

        1. Do you believe the FBI should be unbiased and should not be devoted to neither of American’s two corrupt political parties? If so then there is no question as to what Trump should have done with the information Comey provided to him.

          1. Do you believe the FBI should be unbiased

            This is just deflection. An investigation where they omitted or falsified information 17 times in an effort to get a FISA warrant is evidence enough that they are either malicious hacks, or supremely incompetent. Either way, it’s not in the FBI’s favor.

            1. I’m not disputing the fact that the FBI fucked up! I was acknowledging the point that Ken Shultz believes the FBI should have gave the impression of bias towards one particular 2016 candidate. And, I do concede that the optics of the whole thing appear like that is exactly what they did.

              1. Everyone has personal bias. Police, FBI, judges everyone. But professionals can put aside that and do their job even handed. If not they need to get another job. But this whole thing is over the top. It was not law enforcement.

                So a whole bunch of folks need to at a minimum get another job. Go work for the DNC or CNN. But some of those same people also need to be prosecuted so maybe not so quick.

            2. Unbiased..

              Per Horowitz’ testimony today the FBI met with both the Hillary campaign and the Trump campaign about potential foreign interference. And, in both cases, the information communicated was identical.

              But only one meeting then got written up afterwards as evidence.

              Circumstantial evidence is when a pattern evinces itself.

      2. The AG reports to the President. The FBI Director is still in the chain of command the ultimately ends at the chief executive.

        1. No. Impeach and remove for his truly shameful bullshit that it was the alt-LEFT who initiated the mass assaults and murder, in Charlottesville.
          Lying to protect his nazi and racist supporters, And THIS evidence is undeniable.

          1. AAAK, That should show as a reply to the Sandwich guy, just below. Will repost (and hope)

  23. Bottom line: do you guys really think you’re going to get anybody except for the coastal True Believers (who already hate Trump anyway) fired up enough to furiously demand Trump’s removal? Based on this case?

    1. You have to fire up the insane asylum otherwise they stay home on election day. If the Democrats were reasonable, they would lose the insane asylum. They cannot win an election without the insane asylum. However, they may win the election without the reasonable people in those deplorable flyover states.

      Between a demographic they can afford to lose, and one they cannot, the choice is simple.

      The Democrats are done trying to convince to people to change their mind. That much is abundantly clear.

    2. The Sandwich guy,
      No, on removal. Wrong case.
      .
      Impeach and remove for his truly shameful bullshit that it was the alt-LEFT who initiated the mass assaults and murder, in Charlottesville.

      Lying to protect his nazi and racist supporters, And THIS evidence is undeniable.

  24. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust in howdirect it was once I attempted it out.This is my essential concern.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot ………

    pop over to this website……….. Read More

  25. “But you cannot credibly deny that Trump made it.”

    Actually, I can and it’s really easy. I think in a past life, you worked for the state media in the USSR. You did a rather simple rhetorical trick. You stated your opinion about a matter of fact and asserted it as a fact despite your conclusion. You’re trying to cloak your spin (that Trump asked for an investigation into Biden) and not state things plainly (that Trump asked for an investigation to resume regarding Biden’s involvement with Burisma). The distinction is of the utmost importance because there’s a reason you’re choosing to go with the former and not the latter. Asking for an investigation into “Biden,” bar any additional context, sounds unjustifable and misleads readers into believing the so called “theory” of corrupt intent. In context, with a more factual reading, the request is not some blanket investigation into Biden, but a request to resume a pre-existing investigation based on prior behavior that is both suspicious and a substantial conflict of interest.

    Trump didn’t ask for a blanket investigation. He didn’t ask to fish for Biden and he doesn’t even need to. The senile old man makes an ass of himself on a daily basis and is unfit for office. He won’t win the nomination. The so called “personal gain” that Trump would receive by Ukraine announcing an investigation is moot; everyone already knew about the conflict of interest. We’ve all seen the video of Biden bragging about it. All Trump would have to do is tweet about it and all the alt news outlets would start digging on their own.

    1. +1000

    2. I’m very disappointed in Reason in the age of Trump.

      Fine. You don’t like him but can you mount a credible and reason why?

      So far I’m not impressed for the most part.

      It’s like they’re in an existential crisis and over thinking it. Just use your noggin and apply principles. It’s not that hard.

      Clearly the guy is being held to a standard no President ever has.

      He’s a piker next to Obama and Hilary.

  26. This whole thing is a smoke screen. That the Dems chose this week to announce their “articles” is intended to give the media an excuse to not extensively cover the Howowitz report or the associated hearings.

    Reason plays along.

  27. Meanwhile, Horowitz is presently eviscerating Obama’s FBI.

    But yea …. Trump’s defenders are the delusional ones, except that every “right-wing conspiracy theory” is turning out to be true.

    1. Pizzagate too?

  28. I can’t wait to see the impeachment case against Trump in 2022.

    1. Something about strawberries to be sure.

      1. Russiagate 3: Strawberries strike back

  29. Trump asked Zelensky to look into a public matter that was considered to be conflict of interest. Zelensky apparently agreed (they only resumed investigation on Burisma, not Biden) without ever being presented a condition.

    Trump never asked for any info that would uniquely benefit his campaign. According to democrat logic, if Burisma had allegedly had contact with ISIS and Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired, it would be some sort of election interference for Trump to ask Zelensky to “look into” that situation.

    We’re only having this conversation because Trump temporarily withheld aid, which is only evidence that would even suggest abuse of power. But this is how Trump operates – he says and does things that are in his mind with no beating around the bush. Look at how he implemented the travel ban, banned gun accessories, threatened trade embargo on Mexico if they didn’t stop refugees, etc etc. Trump obviously never trusted Ukraine. He distrusts globalists in general. He only sort of opens up when dealing with someone like Shinzo Abe.

    Voters who prefer a more stable leadership are free to choose someone else in the election. Removal by impeachment should be reserved for the worst kind of treason or at least criminal activity. The democrats failed to prove either, and now we know the FBI “colluded” against Trump. They DOCTORED emails to get warrants, anyone getting impeached over that.

    Sullum is one of my fave writers here, it’s just disheartening to see him unable to detect a soft coup attempt that undermines the foundation of democracy.

    1. We’re only having this conversation because Trump temporarily withheld aid, which is only evidence that would even suggest abuse of power. But this is how Trump operates – he says and does things that are in his mind with no beating around the bush.

      >You admit he has abused his power … BUT THAT”S JUST THE WAY HE IS! Same was true for every absolute dictator, in all of human history,
      That part is correct, Owners of family businesses have near absolute power, and many do develop a dictator mentality after having absolute power. for their entire life. And Trump has no BUSINESS management qualifications He’s a real estate investor, All his actual businesses FAILED, with many going bankrupt (as Trump screwed the people who trusted him most, investors and suppliers)

      You need a REAL news source,

      So, essentially, you’ve said Trump is neither capable or qualified for the job. THAT is not impeachable, But what he does in that state can easily be.

      Dems are chasing the wrong offense, When Trump lied about who initiated the violence and murder at Charlottesville ,,,he abused the power of his office to defend nazis and racists, But ONLY the alt-right (4 of them) was convicted and imprisoned for … initiating the violence and murder in Charlottesvile!

      Trump also insisted the alt-left initiated the violence, charging and attacking with clubs. BUT (hahaha) video shows that’s exactly what the alt-right did — his beloved supporters.

      1. When you went bankrupt, who did you screw over?

  30. Sullum is gullible if he thinks the Bidens had clean hands. If Trump wants them investigated, there is no surprise there. Trump can reasonably ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens if he suspects corruption. Why do you think a Ukrainian company paid idiot son Hunter Biden more than $1,000,000 a year while Joe Biden was VP – because they thought it wise to pay someone with no experience or knowledge in the energy field, and with no experience in Ukraine?
    Does Sullum really think there has been a president who did not abuse his power? Doesn’t he realize the Dems don’t believe that Trump’s behavior justifies impeachment, they just believe Trump should be impeached. And they resent that he has not cooperated with his own impeachment. Thus they have charged him with “obstruction of Congress,” for asserting executive privilege. That in itself is an outrageous abuse of power by the Dems. Power is always abused because it always corrupts.

    1. Why do you think a Ukrainian company paid idiot son Hunter Biden more than $1,000,000 a year while Joe Biden was VP

      (lol) The gullible one is … you.

      $50,000 x 12 = $600,000

      Also kinda silly if you think Boards of Directors need be from the industry ,,, Are you aware they have no management responsibilities, other than managing the CEO. Hunter is a successful venture capitalist.

      Thus they have charged him with “obstruction of Congress,” for asserting executive privilege.

      You blew that also. AND you admitted that Trump abused his power!

      Don’t worry, I’m sure Sean Hannity will give you the cookie, and pat you on the head.

      1. Hunter is a drug addict and a deadbeat dad. But then, you’d know about that–no wonder you’re coming to his defense.

        1. PROVING BULLSHIT DEFENDS ONLY THE TRUTH

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks it’s bullshit that Hunter is a drug addict and a deadbeat dad.

  31. Do you get to inoculate yourself against criminal investigations by running for president?

    1. Cannot indict a sitting President.
      His own goobers ate totally brainwashed, whoever’s in the Oval Office,

  32. Reality is every House Rep. and Senator, plus the Justice Dept. personnel and the FBI should all be on trial with Trump. Our government is totally corrupt.

    1. Nice rant. But NO solution.

    2. Can’t ague that…

      “If you vote for me”…………..
      – I’ll give you free healthcare
      – I’ll give you free education
      – I’ll give you more money from those nasty employers
      Talk about a “quid pro quo”…

      I would say it would be nice if the judiciary branch would do their job and throw out all bills that where UN-Constitutional but history has shown they are certainly not up to that battle.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.