The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Is There Some Sort of Current Event in D.C. Happening This Week?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Feel free to comment upon it, whatever it is.

 
Hide 161 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Something called “impeachment trial” I think.
    It sounds like adding peach flavored simple syrup to some soda water to see how it tastes?
    Am I close?

  2. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/dems-to-impeach-trump-over-a-biden-scandal/

    Where does this theory stand now? Biden got a groveling apology from Bernie when a Bernie surrogate called Biden corrupt. Biden has a layer of insulation: bringing up his corruption undermines the impeachment case, apparently.

    • Replies: @Barnard
  3. Lot says:

    I’m ignoring it completely.

    I don’t think I’ve read a single news article about it in the past 6 months.

    The Squad and Friends should have listened to Pelosi who warned them it would be a distraction that makes them look bad.

    The primary is more interesting.

    Still have Joe to win, and good bet. Also some on Liz but more because I like the 10-1 odds.

    Bernie is at 44/100 to win Iowa and 58 in NH. Too high, I again like the Joe and Liz odds.

    I don’t know what to think about Bloomie. He’s 3rd and 4th in the Super Tuesday states. I wouldn’t bet on him, but best not to bet against a guy with $30 billion to spend. His commercials are the best made on the D side I’ve seen this cycle.

    • Replies: @Anon
  4. There is a big set of new frontline videos up on youtube:

    America’s Great Divide, Part 1 (full film) | FRONTLINE

    They have a minimally edited two hour interview with Bannon. Bannon kills it. If you deliberately ignore politics as I have to do being a resident of the People’s Republic of California a great deal is explained in these videos.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Paco Wové
    , @Anon7
  5. As always, Ben’s Chili Bowl will be standing-room-only with woke white tourists; the 9:30 club will have crappy bands with the same white folk bathing (metaphorically) in the shadow of Howard University. Chomp on those famous chili burgers and you’ll find yourself thinking “bowl, bowel?”

    BTW, anyone notice that BCB employs East Africans almost exclusively these days? Odd that they don’t employ the locals.

  6. Is There Some Sort of Current Event in D.C. Happening This Week?

    There sure is:

    Donald Trump to become first president in history to attend March for Life rally on National Mall

    This, too:

    9 WAYS TO CELEBRATE THE CHINESE NEW YEAR IN WASHINGTON, DC

    Never has the Year of the Rat been a more fitting label. Even more than 1972.

  7. nebulafox says:
    @Morton's toes

    “The idea that the American public would elect twice Barack Obama, first African-American President in history, and then turn around and pick Donald Trump, who played the racial card…”

    What’s there to misunderstand? The Rust Belt voters who flipped in 2016 sent Barack Obama to the White House not out of some white liberal’s wet dream about the New Diverse America, but with the simple hope that he’d make the deep, systematic changes they long desired. He largely failed to deliver. So, when the Democrats decided to nominate a candidate who was the absolute epitome of the post-1992 managerial mandarinate, they shrugged their shoulders and decided to give Donald Trump a crack at being the changer they wanted: especially since everything “mainstream” in the United States was so visibly against him. Since he’s embraced Bushism with nativist characteristics, in 2020, I expect that they’d be open to a Democratic alternative that doesn’t openly hold them in disgust, but that doesn’t seem likely, way things are going.

    I’ll never cease to marvel at the failure of our political class to not understand the obvious. “Why does Iran want the bomb?” (Security and political status.) “Why do mass shootings happen?” (Nihilistic men deciding to go out in a blaze of glory in the age of social media.) “Why are there racial tensions?” (A cocktail of toxic factors that cannot be reduced to a single paragraph blurb.) The answers are mundane and usually do not align neatly with the ideology of either side of the political spectrum. That’s why we have endless conversations without any real answers.

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    , @William Badwhite
  8. Every member of Congress who voted or will vote for this is guilty of treason.

    • Replies: @Michael S
  9. Is there some sort of current event in D.C. happening this week?

    Yes, I think the Senate is having an est seminar.

  10. I will defer to our greatest philosopher-poet, Butt-Head:

    • Replies: @Lot
  11. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s the annual Right To Life March, and DJT will be the first POTUS ever to attend IN PERSON. I guarantee that will be a far bigger event than anything else that may be going on in DC this week.

    That was too easy.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
  12. They have a minimally edited two hour interview with Bannon. Bannon kills it.

    Bannon is an intelligent guy with great political instincts.

    Unfortunately, he’s also a greasy-looking drunk who can’t keep his mouth shut when the media is around.

  13. J.Ross says:

    Rand Paul: Senators ready to vote to dismiss right now: 45 (I presume you would need 51 and want 60).
    Charles Schumer’s proposals and requests tabled (failed): 100%.
    Idiot US journalist quoted on BBC radio: the third impeachment trial ever has “grandeur and spectacle” about it.
    Adam Schiff: allegedly in photos from Ed Buck’s death party house. Even if there are no photos, Buck was just one of Schiff’s criminally perverted friends now in legal trouble.
    CNN earning those journalism dollars with pains-takingly researched hard-hitting facts:
    https://postimg.cc/QKjMMnxM
    ———-
    If only we had some warning about Chinese indifference to safety procedure (note: right now there is no proof that this is even relevant. But come on, it’s China, in the name of their own safety they should never have been allowed to have electricity).
    Nature, 2017:

    A laboratory in Wuhan is on the cusp of being cleared to work with the world’s most dangerous pathogens. The move is part of a plan to build between five and seven biosafety level-4 (BSL-4) labs across the Chinese mainland by 2025, and has generated much excitement, as well as some concerns.

    https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    , @Alden
  14. Bugg says:

    He’s still talking……and talking…….and talking.

  15. fnn says:

    Adam Schiff is rattling his sabre in the direction of Russia again.

    • Replies: @Prester John
  16. @Dr. Krieger

    You forgot the fresh mint sprig

  17. Current event: Michael Lind discussing his new book “The New Class War” with the hillbilly elegy guy. Can’t decide if I like him or not.

  18. @Morton's toes

    I didn’t see Bannon anywhere in the video you posted, just Steve Schmidt telling lies.

  19. Barnard says:
    @Anonymous

    Yet his low level campaign workers can talk about throwing Republican Senators in reeducation camps and he says nothing.

  20. I am listening to the impeachment trial on my cell phone as I write this and have been listening for the last couple of hours, and it is fascinating stuff.

    It is now clear that the delays in forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate had a lot to do with buying time for writing the lengthy and detailed (and brilliant) script for a devastating statement of the case against the president.

    The case against Trump is pretty devastating. He wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into the son of Biden, and thus indirectly Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, in exchange for defense help in its border war with Russia.

    However the US had previously promised that if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, which it did, that the US would have its back in the case of any incursions from Russia (which remains a nuclear power).

    Announcing an investigation that specifically named the Bidens, rather than a general plan to counter systemic corruption in Ukraine, was asking a lot of Ukraine considering that in the event of Biden becoming president at some time in the future, the government of Ukraine would be in an very embarrassing spot.

    Everything points to Trump personally being responsible for illegally holding up the “security assistance” that had already been approved by Congress and signed off by Trump himself. The security assistance was only released after the White House heard about the whistleblower complaint.

    At this point the White House explained that the funds had been held up pending discussions about other allies providing part of the assistance to Ukraine, but there was no evidence that this was true.

    The only real defense that I can see at this point is that Trump appears in the Senate himself and explains step by step what was going on and how his actions were in the interest of US foreign policy, but that is never going to happen.

    Instead he has been retweeting childish cartoons from Switzerland, indicating how far he has mentally regressed.

    Furthermore, the US continues to make poor foreign policy moves. For example the US has threatened to cease intelligence sharing with Britain due to plans to use Huawei 5G technology for its updated network which is a major plank in the platform of new premier Boris Johnson, who is seen as a Trump ally.

    However, Huawei apparently has technology that no other rival has ready and available, which is strange considering that the objection to Huawei is that it steals intelligence and technology from others. There were reports that the US ambassador to London was in a rage about this and heard shouting at officials at the Prime Minister’s office. This will not end well.

    The House of Representatives has been chided for not enforcing its subpoenas to White House officials, which is a fair point, but if they had sent the sergeant at arms to arrest White House officials and bring them to the House to testify, there would have been an immediate constitutional crisis.

    It would not be a bad idea to have an emergency one-day meeting of the Supreme Court to determine if administration officials can be subpoenaed for the impeachment trial.

    Meanwhile, several Republican senators feel that attack is the best defense, and want to the Bidens to be called to the senate as witnesses. I think they are barking up the wrong tree, because while the Bidens are probably as rotten as an apple full of maggots, discussion of sinecure jobs for families of politicians might open up a veritable can of worms in the US, not just the Ukraine.

  21. @fnn

    The public–particularly the mob who haunt Manhattan, West Hollywood, SanFran and Cambridge Ma etc.–are eating what the Democrats are dishing out like candy. Privately however, I seriously doubt that Schiff etal. believe half of this stuff. It’s all about who wields power. Perfidy in full view.

  22. I offered to show a prog friend this video clip where Biden openly brags about doing the exact same thing Trump is being accused of doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo1t18ZqkXY.

    The difference is in the motivation. Biden was threatening to withhold funding unless the Ukrainians fired a prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma, the corrupt enterprise which was paying Biden’s corrupt, sex-addicted, crackhead son enormous amounts of money for reasons which have yet to be revealed. Trump, on the other hand, was attempting to get the Ukrainians to investigate this whole corrupt criminal conspiracy.

    Needless to say, my prog friend declined my invitation to swallow the red pill.

    • Replies: @Hail
  23. @Jonathan Mason

    After viewing this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo1t18ZqkXY see my comment below, putting it in context.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  24. Hail says: • Website

    Written late evening, Jan. 21:

    Shadi Hamid
    @shadihamid

    The entire NYT homepage is about impeachment. I get it. They have to cover it and cover it prominently.

    But I’m not sure I’ve ever felt a disconnect quite like this. It seems entirely detached from reality.

    I haven’t met a single sentient person in real life in the past week who’s even so much as mentioned impeachment, even in passing, or even to make fun of the supposed obsession with it. And the people I spend time with are precisely those odd people who might be compelled to care

    Evening Jan. 20:

    Jack Posobiec
    @JackPosobiec

    Trump goes on trial tomorrow or whatever and only the wonks actually care

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  25. I’m with you, Steve. I won’t click on any link to said current event. I don’t watch TV. However, I was walking by one before Christmas and I saw that old biddy Pelosi in front of some people in some red or pink dress. All I could think of is why in the hell should Americans pay attention to anyone like that.? During our Founding Fathers’ time she would have been put in a nunnery or burned as a witch (yeah, as kind of a last Hurrah), if she were lucky.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  26. Hail says: • Website
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    paying Biden’s corrupt, sex-addicted, crackhead son enormous amounts of money

    Didn’t a baby surface recently with a claim made about it that Hunter Biden was the father, at which Hunter claimed to have not known the woman (or maybe briefly, he couldn’t remember), denied it, and agreed to take a Jerry Springer-like paternity test? Whatever happened with that. The people want to know, who the baby’s Real Father is.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Dan Smith
    , @Alden
  27. Michael S says:
    @R.G. Camara

    It’s only treason if you can convict them for it. If you’re the ruling party, can’t commit treason.

  28. Dan Smith says:
    @Hail

    He’s the father but it’s been memory holed

    • Replies: @Hail
  29. Michael S says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    The case against Trump is pretty devastating. He wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into the son of Biden, and thus indirectly Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, in exchange for defense help in its border war with Russia.

    And what precisely is devastating – or even impeachable – in this narrative?

    You can entirely eliminate the “a leading candidate” section unless you can prove that a “because” belongs in front of it. But even if you prove “because”, which you can’t, I’m waiting to hear what’s so devastating.

    In summary, GTFO shill. Collect your 10 cents from shareblue and never come back.

    • Agree: Ozymandias
    • Replies: @JMcG
  30. A123 says:

    Nothing we did not expect.
    .

    .
    PEACE 😇

  31. Anon7 says:
    @Morton's toes

    This is the one you want:

    Worth watching, even though the interview was conducted ten months ago.

  32. Dr. X says:
    @Anon

    It’s the annual Right To Life March, and DJT will be the first POTUS ever to attend IN PERSON.

    Which is really amazing. I had my doubts about how “conservative” Trump actually was in 2016. He was, after all, a brash, loudmouthed New York City playboy.

    But on some of these issues, he sure looks to be genuinely conservative. Even Jimmy Carter and W, the “born-again Christians,” didn’t go…

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  33. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Yes, true, but it seems like Biden was somewhat bullshitting, as this took place in Jan and the prosecutor was not removed until March, furthermore the removal of the prosecutor Shokin was generally supported by US policy at the time and the IMF was pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin,

    Corruption in the Ukraine has certainly been a problem since Ukraine emerged from the USSR. For example, Trump’s 2016 campaign chair Paul Manafort was convicted of tax and bank fraud for laundering millions in income he earned working for Ukrainian politicians. Manafort is now in prison.

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/

    https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

    Ukraine has said that it has no information on Biden Jr. breaking Ukrainian laws, and presumably Biden correctly reported his foreign earnings to the IRS and paid the taxes on them, or did he? The most likely area of corruption could be in how Biden Jr. was appointed to the board of Burisma in the first place, which looks fishy considering he does not speak Russian or Ukrainian and is not an expert in the oil and gas business.

    However a directorship is not a very onerous position, and it would be hard to prove that Biden did not do work of some value for Burisma. Even having his distintctive surname on the letterhead may be been of some value to the company.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    , @Jack D
  34. @Hail

    This makes complete sense.

    What the Demorats have failed to realize is that…

    …99% of Americans don’t give two shits about what happens in Ukraine, one of the fakest and gayest countries of all time.

  35. Hail says: • Website
    @Dan Smith

    Q. What did Jerry Springer say upon revealing the results of the Hunter Biden paternity test on whether he had fathered some woman’s baby?

    .

    [MORE]

    .

    .

    A. “I’ve got some big news for you, Hunter: Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself. Also, I guess the baby’s yours. Thanks for playing.”

  36. @Jonathan Mason

    “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

    – JS Mill

    You do have our thanks for presenting your own case in its most persuasive form, such as it is, should we some day have need to refute it. Given the quality (or lack thereof) of men chosen to present the case to the public, that eventuality seems highly unlikely.

  37. @Achmed E. Newman

    During our Founding Fathers’ time she would have been put in a nunnery or burned as a witch

    We hanged witches. Burning was a Continental, especially Scandinavian, thing:

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

    • Replies: @Pericles
  38. @J.Ross

    Wuhan is at the center of the corona virus outbreak.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  39. Anon7 says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “The case against Trump is pretty devastating.”

    You watch a lot of network television, and you read the most authoritative papers and blogs. This is exactly the impression you are meant to have.

    For an alternative view of the Trump presidency, see the Bannon interview I posted in answer to another commenter.

    The people here who support the President (I’m one of them) should read your comment to see what many serious Americans believe, thanks to three years (four?) of uniformly anti-Trump media coverage.

    I’d like to make fun of the #shampeachment, but the Democrats, the media, the rich liberals. the minorities – they’re playing with fire. You can’t tell sixty-three million people that they can’t have their constitutionally elected president.

    As Steve quotes in his recent piece at Taki:

    “…The changes of the 1960s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible…. Much of what we have called “polarization” or “incivility” in recent years is something more grave—it is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the de jure constitution of 1788, with all the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the de facto constitution of 1964, which lacks this traditional kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsements of judicial elites and civic educators and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as a liberation.”

    Civil Rights Gone Wrong

    • Replies: @By-tor
    , @Jonathan Mason
  40. lhtness says:

    They’re filming the season finale for the third season of Impeachment! It promises to be even more boring than the finale for season 2, where the mysterious hero turned about to be a senile old guy who couldn’t remember his lines.

  41. Alden says:
    @Hail

    The DNA test proved Hunter is the father. Current issue is reasonable child support commensurate with Dad Hunter’s income.

    But Hunter defied supeona to provide financial records and proof of income. He was threatened with contempt of court.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  42. @J.Ross

    The best part was the New York Post story where they pointed out that yes the baby mama is a stripper, but no she didn’t work in the D.C. strip bar where Hunter was snorting coke. That is a different strip bar.

    She’s probably going to collect 80 K a year for 18 years which is definitely not bad for five minutes work. She is an enterprising hustler. Also there will be tabloids that will pay her for baby pictures and whatnot.

  43. newrouter says:

    I’m a peach mint Mr. Schifty! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!11!!

  44. • Replies: @Lot
  45. Anonymous[160] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    It is possible that the impeachment trial is more interesting than your comment.

    The impeachment is a Hail Mary pass because the Democrats know they have 4 more years of Trump presidency.

  46. istevefan says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    As an American who voted for Trump, I can tell you most of us are not even paying attention to this impeachment. We could care less what happened in Ukraine. We know they have wanted to impeach him from the moment he was elected. They spent a couple of years on the Russia nonsense, and then glommed onto this Ukraine crap.

    If Trump is in trouble, it’s going to be over whether enough of his voters think he has followed through on his campaign promises. He can’t afford to lose support in the crucial Great Lakes states.

    This impeachment is a nothing burger. If anything it will help him because many of his voters will forget his campaign pledges and rally around him because they recognize the attack on Trump is also one on his voters.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    , @J.Ross
  47. MB says: • Website

    Impeachment: Make America Hate The Dimocrats More Than The Repuglicans.

  48. newrouter says:

    The cover art is where I’m at:

    Steely Dan – The Royal Scam (1976)

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    , @MEH 0910
  49. @Reg Cæsar

    Do the Chinese have a Year of the Swamp Creature?

  50. Well I thought we were having WWIII. Did it already happen? Are we on to IV? Russia was going to break out its wowsa wowsa secret technology along with China and the world was going up flames.

    But I guess we all got distracted by that Popeye’s sandwich drama thing.

  51. @Dr. X

    Trump at least has developed a good sense of who “his people” are. Whatever his many faults may be, he never seems to be pandering in an inauthentic way. He likes the deplorables, and they like him.

    I guess being loathed by the same group of globalist elitists creates a mutual bond.

  52. @istevefan

    they recognize the attack on Trump is also one on his voters.

    Bernie Bros. are starting to figure this out as well.

  53. J.Ross says:
    @istevefan

    Mason finds this stuff “fascinating.” Consider that any time he’s talking about “America,” he is insanely “wrong.” I notice that NPR is still broadcasting the “trial,” but is now doing so only once a day (it had previously been rerun at midnight).
    What if I told you that Trump deliberately mishandled classified information so as to make it easily accessible to foreign spies?
    What if I told you that Trump employed foreign spies as his IT staff, and they were caught because they decided to run a scam auto dealership too?
    What if I told you that Trump spent his spare time with a political donor who could only orgasm when murdering a homeless dude?
    What if I told you that Trump maintained a computer with military encryption full of pictures of exhausted shirtless distressed children, none of whom were related to him, and he’s visibly in the pics hugging the kids, and the local police chief said I refuse to investigate because he’s my friend?
    What if I told you that Trump rigged intraparty elections so as to kill the success of a more popular rival?
    What if I told you that educated people are merely people attuned to a certain way of thinking?

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  54. Hail says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    That “Chinatown gate” in Washington, DC.

    Strange but true fact:

    The Black Hebrew Israelite racial-militant group is known to regularly stake out sidewalk space off to one side of that gate. Banners, matching uniforms, and all. From that high-foot-traffic perch, they preach the most aggressive form of Black pride and eagerly inform passersby of the White plot against the Black race, the true Israel.

  55. @Jonathan Mason

    The Bidens are corrupt and Trump had every reason to expose them. If they wanted immunity, they should have slinked off with their millions to live quietly and not run for president.

    Dems impeached Trump cover up corruption at the highest levels and for no other reason. That will not end well for them.

  56. @Jonathan Mason

    Corruption in the Ukraine has certainly been a problem since Ukraine emerged from the [Byzantine Empire].

    But it was Biden who pioneered American officials at the highest level making millions off that corruption and then starting a civil war in Ukraine through their own stupidity.

  57. JMcG says:
    @Michael S

    His mask has slipped quite a bit recently.

  58. Jack D says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    That’s the problem. Relatives of high US officials are not supposed to sell their names in this way. If he was Hunter Smith Burisma would not have paid him a nickel.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
  59. Coemgen says:
    @nebulafox

    “Rust belt voters” had seen their jobs globalized out of existence by 2016 and likely were afraid of their posterity being globalized/diversified out of existence. Donald Trump was the only candidate who openly opposed globalism. In 2020, that has not changed. Thus the propaganda disseminated by “the press” and the Democrats is nearly all anti-Trump with no positive message.

  60. MEH 0910 says:
    @newrouter

    The cover art is where I’m at:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Scam#Cover

    The album cover shows a man in a suit, sleeping on a radiator, and apparently dreaming of skyscraper-beast hybrids. The cover was created from a painting by Zox and a photograph by Charlie Ganse, and was originally created for Van Morrison’s unreleased 1975 album, Mechanical Bliss, the concept being a satire of the American Dream.[citation needed] In the liner notes for the 1999 remaster of the album, Fagen and Becker claim it to be “the most hideous album cover of the seventies, bar none (excepting perhaps Can’t Buy a Thrill).”

  61. Interesting series of documentaries by a French blogger (professionally an actuary) entitled “UkraineGate – Inconvenient facts about an impeachment” (subtitled “Joe Biden, Friend or Foe of Corrpution”) which I don’t imagine are getting a whole lot of publicity in the US. Parts I and II are available in English, in both long (50 min.) and short (< 10 min.) forms:

    https://ukrainegate.info/

    PART I — A not so Solid Prosecutor

    Although Joe Biden very often denounces the “cancer of corruption”, this first episode shows that he has lied several times, and that his attitude remains very questionable on this subject. You will also discover three characters at the heart of UkraineGate. First, Mykola Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch through whom the scandal happened. Then, General prosecutor Viktor Shokin, whose resignation was obtained under pressure from Joe Biden, less than ten months after his appointment. And finally, the latter’s successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, whom Biden was quick to describe as a “solid man”…

    PART II — Not so “Dormant” Investigations

    This second episode focuses on the investigations of General prosecutor Shokin, described as “dormant” by the Biden clan. It demonstrates the fallacy of the narrative launched by Biden’s communication advisors. But you will also discover that Biden’s defense – widely reported by the mainstream media without any verification – has been challenged by Viktor Shokin in various interviews, of which we reveal several excerpts that have never been broadcast…

  62. 22pp22 says:

    All sorts of important things should be happening, but they are being ignored because all over the West our leaders are frivolous people.

  63. @Dr. Krieger

    It’s a culinary practice? I’d assumed it was a competitive team sporting event of some sort, like this:
    Democracy: 1
    Democratic Party: 0
    https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5914/Will-the-Senate-convict-Donald-Trump-on-impeachment-in-his-first-term
    BTW, apparently Kim Kardashian is doing something of historical note this week.

  64. SFG says:

    He’ll walk. That’s all I’m saying.

    I just hope the Dems nominate Warren so I can vote against her. Besides, she does the worst in the polls.

  65. Matthew Bourne’s New Adventures: Swan Lake, tonight & tomorrow night at the Kennedy Center.

    You can have dinner afterward at The Kingbird, at the Watergate.

  66. @Reg Cæsar

    Donald Trump to become first president in history to attend March for Life rally on National Mall

    It was at last year’s event we learned the name of Nick Sandmann. Do you think Pres Trump will appear with Mr Sandmann to further poke a finger in the MSM’s eye?

    • Replies: @Precious
  67. MEH 0910 says:
    @Alden

  68. Fascinating the mirror image the Impeachment presents to the Hillary server case.

    In that case, an intent exception was read into the law where none existed to exonerate Hillary.

    In this case, an intent exception is read into the law where none exists to effectively indict Trump.

    To make it even more egregious, the reading itself of their respective intents flies in the face of all evidence.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @MB
  69. • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @nebulafox
  70. Liza says:

    Come, come, now. It is interesting to watch. If only to hear Schiff and his bombast. Most people of average intelligence could say all that stuff in 5 minutes, using ordinary language.

    However, let’s consider that Trump should be removed from office but for different reasons. It is unjust that he is being prosecuted for a minor misdemeanour.

  71. Anon[354] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    You may as well be recounting stats from an NFL negro game, and remind me of every sports numbers fascinated Jew from high school who would get ultra involved because they thought baseball stats made them seem more American somehow. In reality, it comes off as over-compensation.

    The same thing, in sports and politics, repeats every so often and its meaningless to the long term trajectory that your numbers obfuscate. So, who cares?

    The Jewish texts state that the United States (identified to represent Esau in Rabbinical commentary) will have to be destroyed before the Jewish Messianic Age can come about. With that in mind, any Jew or one of their supporters who would encourage us focus on short term political picture can take a hike. The encouragement reeks of the pseudo-enthusiasm of a pretend American who wants us to refrain from focusing on what they actually believe in.

  72. Lot says:
    @Desiderius

    My various WWC relatives would have been more open to Bernie 4 or 8 years ago when their local economies were still struggling.

    Now they are booming, lots of new $35,000 trucks for the men and CUVs for the ladies, and post a stream of Bernie Free Stuff memes on Facebook. All will vote for Trump if they vote at all. Hope he has a giant turn-out machine and doesn’t blow his cash on TV ads.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • LOL: Morton's toes
    • Replies: @Desiderius
  73. J.Ross says:
    @Ozymandias

    Shucks, ya don’t say.
    And coronavirus was also the subject of a Gates Foundation epidemic exercise — but this might be coincidence, since after the SARS incidents this type of virus would be exactly what you would want to focus on.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  74. J.Ross says:
    @Desiderius

    >fight X over there, … not here

    Well at least they’re stealing from universally admired Renaissance men geniuses who quickly defeated their enemies, stabilized the region, and did not knock over the economy. If you must steal, steal from the best.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  75. Alden says:
    @J.Ross

    On Drudge this AM, the virus traced to the diseased snakes in the food market. The Chinese must farm raise all those critters they eat. Otherwise the critters would be hunted to extinction.

    Oh well, Europeans and Americans ate eels till about 100 years ago. Who are we to criticize? Here’s the recipe for eel, more like prep than cooking.

    Buy them live and bring home in your own bucket. They have to be cooked immediately after death or the meat will rot. Keep in laundry sink full of water till you want to cook them. Don’t have a laundry sink? Use the bathtub. No bathtub? Keep in big covered bucket with a brick on top. Otherwise they will escape. Make sure container is big enough they can’t escape. Otherwise you’ll have eels slithering around.

    Gather a really thick cutting board, ice pick, pliers and very sharp thin blade knife. Fish knife if you have one. Grasp wiggling slithering irate panicked eel by the middle. Smack head down on the cutting board to stun it. Repeat if necessary.

    When eel has calmed down but still alive, pin head of eel to cutting board with ice pick. Make a circular slit around the head. Then 4 or 5 vertical slits neck to tail. Using pliers, peel off the skin. Eel will finally die during this process.

    Process the eels one by one. Clean up mess. Slice up eel neatly. Cook. Or don’t cook.

    Slice and dice in attractive shapes and eat raw. Dredge big chunks in seasoned flour and deep fry like fried chicken. Fry in a little oil like pork chops liver and steak. Boil till tender.

    Yum yum yum

    The slaughtering and flaying is one reason why people used to have dining rooms and separate kitchens with doors in the olden days. Imagine eating in a kitchen with the debris of eel slaughter all around.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    , @JMcG
  76. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Did the president commit any “ high crimes and misdemeanors “ by asking Ukraine to announce a Ukraine criminal investigation into massive corruption??

    I assume high crime means a federal or uniform criminal code ( states) felony. Misdemeanors are found in the Washington DC municipal code.

    There was something about the liberals furious some geriatric senators didn’t sit through the whole 12 hours. Be sympathetic face reality. 85 year old spines and pelvises aren’t capable of sitting for 12 hours without a lot of pain and further damage to those rotting bones ligaments and muscles. .

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Jonathan Mason
  77. @Lot

    Bloomberg’s spam could have the effect of helping Trump avoid that trap.

  78. MEH 0910 says:
    @newrouter

    Albums That Should Exist:

    Van Morrison – Mechanical Bliss – Various Songs (1974-1975)
    Wednesday, October 10, 2018

    As far as “lost” Van Morrison albums go, “Mechanical Bliss” is by far the most famous. This is puzzling to me, because if you’ve been following what I’ve been posting on this blog, Morrison left entire albums’ worth of songs all through the 1970s. There are a number of album titles bandied about, and “Mechanical Bliss” is just one. There hasn’t been any fixed song list for such an album, so various reconstructions are just wild guesses.

    Maybe it’s that there was specific cover art that was made – which is the cover I’m using here. Since the cover was never used, Steely Dan bought the artwork and used it for their “Royal Scam” album.

    ******
    Thanks to Peter at the Albums I Wish Existed blog, who pointed out that the Mechanical Bliss cover differs somewhat from the Steely Dan version, in that the Steely Dan one added a man sleeping on a bench at the bottom. I have replaced the cover with the more accurate one.

    http://albumsiwishexisted.blogspot.com/2018/05/van-morrison-mechanical-bliss-1975.html

    http://albumsiwishexisted.blogspot.com/2018/10/van-morrison-mechanical-bliss-1975-new.html

    [MORE]

    Paul Pearson:

    Songs Of The Day 1/2/2015: Van Morrison – “Mechanical Bliss” + “Naked in the Jungle” + “I Shall Sing”

    ******
    One album I won’t be covering in this piece is Mechanical Bliss, primarily because it never came out. This record was supposed to be Morrison’s 1975 follow-up to Veedon Fleece. Reading from a transcript of an interview Van did with San Francisco radio legend Tom Donahue around that time, Mechanical Bliss was mere inches away from being mastered and pressed. To Donahue’s disbelief, Morrison gave a release date of February 1975, which was only about five months after the release of Veedon Fleece. The gaps between artists’ releases weren’t quite as long in the ’70s as they are now, but even considering that, five months was a speedy turnaround time. But it got far enough down the pipeline that an album cover was commissioned.

    Parts of Mechanical Bliss were released on later compilation albums like The Philosopher’s Stone, but a bunch of it never obtained an official release. As you sharp-eyed album cover connoisseurs may have noticed, the proposed artwork for Mechanical Bliss was recycled and used for Steely Dan’s album The Royal Scam.

    Since it never existed, we don’t really have any insight as to what the lineup for Mechanical Bliss was going to be. But we do have excerpts from the Mechanical Bliss sessions, parts of which are some of the wildest stuff Morrison had recorded as a solo artist. One song I wanted to use was called “I’m Not Waiting for You” which bears a stunning resemblance to Bachman-Turner Overdrive. I just couldn’t use it because the audio quality was too low, even for this ramshackle hut’s standards.

    There were three songs I couldn’t decide between, so I thought I’d give you a new year 3-pack. (Or “3-pak,” as befitting the ad copy of certain ’70s products.) The title track actually did see official release as the B-side in 1977, and I first heard it on San Francisco’s last truly free-form station (can’t remember the call letters) sometime in 1988 or so. “Mechanical Bliss,” the song, packs in a bunch of oddities, apparently extemporaneous lyrics and vocal decisions, let’s call them. It almost sounds like the careless, vengeful songs Van recorded to get out of his Bang Records contract in 1967, but perhaps even more decapitated from reality. It’s fascinating.

    In regards to the other two songs: “Naked in the Jungle” is bluntly the hardest R&B/funk song Morrison ever did, a wildly energized recording that surely sounds out of step with the temper of his mid-’70s material — yet great. “I Shall Sing,” a sunnier update of a song he’d first recorded around the Moondance era, was made at some point during the Mechanical Bliss sessions but didn’t appear on any prospective track listings I came across. It remains the only time I can recall Van ever visiting the Caribbean in song. I guess the change in climate was a bit extreme.

    Van Morrison – 3 from “Mechanical Bliss”

    “Mechanical Bliss” / “Naked in the Jungle” / “I Shall Sing”

  79. By-tor says:
    @Anon7

    People as ‘Jonathon Mason’ are ‘Great Project’ Boston-NYC-Wash., DC neo-liberal adherents who are neither interested in facts nor history. There is no compromise with them nor is peaceful separation from them possible. It’s a waste of time to believe otherwise.

  80. @J.Ross

    They’re trying to win over Rs who don’t exist anymore, like an amputee feeling a missing leg. Neocon Deep Staters are driving the impeachment, not sitting on the fence waiting to be picked off.

  81. nebulafox says:
    @J.Ross

    I nearly ended up in Wuhan last year for a lattice QCD conference. I was arranging the couchsurfing trip and everything when a personal emergency arose and I couldn’t go. Looks like I might have dodged a bullet after all.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  82. nebulafox says:
    @Desiderius

    Oh, I see. If we don’t arm this post-Soviet kleptocracy RIGHT NOW, we could end up with this:

    How dare Donald Trump go against the foreign policy set by random security state bureaucrats! Doesn’t he know that his job as President is to carry out what has already been decided? Seriously, this is political gold: the Democrats are already increasingly becoming the party of the oligarchs. Let them become the party of the neocons, too. It might force the GOP to look to less toxic places for their own political support.

  83. @Alden

    German WW2 eels?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  84. MB says: • Website
    @Desiderius

    It’s how you know they haven’t got jack sh*t to run on or govern.
    (Not to say the Stupid Party is that much better.)

    IOW Ronald Grump is being accused of exactly what Joe Biden has openly confessed to doing.
    So when Ronald follows up to try and find out what ole Joe was up to, bingo. Snow White pulls the mightily offended routine.

    And it’s not like Ronald couldn’t do a little poking around as the executive.


    Help Fakebook Make a Real Difference, Vote Today to Defriend/Deplatform Washington DC

  85. J.Ross says:
    @nebulafox

    Videos are leaking out on twitter, people literally just keeling over where they stand, 1983-Brazil volleyball team fun. Apparently it was speculated by an epidemiologist a few months back that a bad corona could take out 65 million people (common cold is like ten).

    • Replies: @Hail
  86. @nebulafox

    In their minds, denying Russia a deep water port is worth the President Pence bri’er patch. If you think this is about anything more than that (ham-handedly weaponized by the Ds – one wonders if there might not be some sabotage involved), I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Another CIA slam dunk for the rubes.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  87. J.Ross says:
    @Alden

    Contra Jonathan Turley, a law professor I admired and trusted as a leftist and continue to admire and trust as a rightist, the legalistic talking heads of the lyingpress had a week where the talking point was that “HCAM is whatever we want it to be. Misspelling a word in a tweet? Hey, the Constitution doesn’t say otherwise.” I don’t think anybody bought that, but that’s what the JMs and ACs and PAs out in TV land were getting from every channel. My quick and dirty understanding, which once was and hopefully soon shall be law: we do have to essentially exempt high level politicians from court squabbles, because otherwise they’ll never get anything done, but if they, say, keep bribe money in cash in their freaking icebox, then our patience must expire. Does Trump have anything that comes close to bribe money in an icebox? Hillary has something like twenty five examples.

  88. Hail says: • Website
    @J.Ross

    I searched for #CoronavirusOutbreak and this was the top result:

    BLACK BOY
    @Luisdeleon2020
    1m

    Follow back who follow me #followhelp #follo4folloback #CoronavirusOutbreak #MakeAsadoWithYou #GRAMMYs #ThursdayThoughts #ElVirusDeColombiaEs #iHeartAwards #followtrick

    A very ‘Twitter’ experience.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  89. J.Ross says:
    @Hail

    El Virus Del Colombia? Que?
    Try something like Wuhan Death.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    , @Hail
  90. @J.Ross

    What if I told you that Trump spent his spare time with a political donor who could only orgasm when murdering a homeless dude?

    I’d be forced to conclude you are a little weird.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  91. JMcG says:
    @Alden

    I made the mistake of butchering a couple of caribou in view of the kids. I’m surprised they aren’t vegans. Yet. And don’t get me started on ducks.

  92. nebulafox says:
    @Joe Stalin

    My grandmother used to spend time on the Baltic as a child before the war, and to our knowledge, nobody ever used a horse’s head to catch eels. If Grass was trying to make an analogy about Agnes’ guilt and disgust about her life, then that’s up to the viewer, I guess.

    Hitler made jokes about a dead grandmother being thrown into the river to catch them in order to disgust people into vegetarianism, though.

  93. @nebulafox

    The real question is….who drives the cooler Chevy flareside pickup truck…Patrick Swayze…or…

    …CHUCK NORRIS:

  94. anon[321] • Disclaimer says:

    Feel free to comment upon it, whatever it is.

  95. Precious says:
    @Feric Jaggar

    It was at last year’s event we learned the name of Nick Sandmann. Do you think Pres Trump will appear with Mr Sandmann to further poke a finger in the MSM’s eye?

    Trump should point out how well the economy is doing for Nick…he made $25 million in the past year.

  96. @Alden

    Did the president commit any “ high crimes and misdemeanors “ by asking Ukraine to announce a Ukraine criminal investigation into massive corruption??

    This is the problem with originalism. What DID the founding fathers mean by this phrase, of which they probably would have airily stated that they held the meaning to be self evident? They tended to be rather given to flowery language, these literary men who wrote with quill pens. I think they meant things like abuse of office, rather than poking a page girl in the oval office while under the influence of tobacco. Would that not be a low crime or a high misdemeanor?

    Trump’s best defense is to claim that it is all true, but that all that has been told is just a normal part of the rough and tumble of international diplomacy laid bare rather than communicated in the language of official communiques, and that his government was concerned about fighting corruption in the Ukraine and that while they may have mentioned Biden a couple of times, as an example of the kind of corruption involving US citizens in the Ukraine, Biden was really a side issue compared to the real issues of large scale corruption involving billions, not millions.

    Only a complete idiot–they can claim–would attach any significance to a senile piker like Biden and his imbecile son, and that even if the Ukraine government did investigate Biden & son for corruption, any findings would probably have little significance to someone who might or might not be guilty of corruption and bribery, and might or might not become the eventual Democrat candidate for president when there were so many much more important issues in the world taking up the time of the president, such as peace in the Middle East, the trade imbalance with China, and the crimes of the Saudi Arabian monarchy.

    Or alternatively they could drop a bombshell and reveal that Biden has millions of dollars stashed in his checking account in the Caymans, which is the illegal profit from his Ukrainian dealings and that they were going to provide the information to the government of Ukraine to make Ukraine look really good. Now that really would put a spoke in Biden’s political ambitions.

    Ultimately though, it does not matter whether there were high crimes and misdemeanors while Trump’s party has a majority in the Senate, so it is all moot. A POTUS can only be impeached and removed from office when the opposition party controls both chambers of Congress, which is something that the framers most likely overlooked. The general election later this year will probably supersede the whole process and give us a new president and a new congress.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  97. @Anon7

    You watch a lot of network television, and you read the most authoritative papers and blogs. This is exactly the impression you are meant to have.

    I never, ever watch network television, or any television. I do listen to a lot of radio and podcasts.

  98. Corvinus says:

    “Feel free to comment upon it, whatever it is.”

    LOL, Mr. Sailer remains cagey. The “master noticer” doesn’t want ANYTHING on his record regarding his own thoughts about Trump malfeasance. But the case is a slam dunk legally and constitutionally. It’s just that the GOP is literally a slave to Trump. Remember, he owes a number of nations BIG TIME.

  99. Corvinus says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Generally spot on analysis, although you forgot to include the machinations of Guiliani and his henchmen, especially Lev Parnas, in the Ukraine affair.

    Mr. Sailer will sit silent while his shills will mount epic gas lighting.

  100. @J.Ross

    Colombia is a backward, tropical shithole rife with all kinds of nasty viruses which are far less common in (until recently) civilised places: zika, chikungunya, hepatitis, dengue….

    Now that the whole world has been made a shithole via massive invasions (sorry, “migrations”), of course, there will soon be no distinction worth noting at all – either about Wuhan or Bogotá.

  101. Hail says: • Website
    @J.Ross

    El Virus Del Colombia? Que?

    It looks like this is a Colombia twitter fad-of-the-day in which you fill in the blank of what Colombia’s biggest problem is. Here is the top result I get:

    Gustavo Bolívar [Verified] 639k followers
    @GustavoBolivar
    14h

    #ElVirusDeColombiaEs el uribismo.
    -Agente infeccioso: Álvaro Uribe
    -Periodo de incubación: 1980/1995
    -Reservorio: Antioquia, Sucre y Córdoba
    -Grupos de alto riesgo: Ignorantes y pobres.
    -Clima propicio: el odio
    -Modo de transmisión: fake news
    -Tratamiento: la lectura intensa

    This Gustavo Bolivar is a Colombian media guy and senator elected in 2018.

    So we know the virus and its name is “Uribismo.”

    That monster-in-politician’s-clothes, Alvaro Uribe, is a virus, or maybe a parasite, sucking the lifeblood out of el pueblo, preying on the fools and the poor. This sounds like a anti-Semitic trope, but I’m assuming Mr. Uribe is not Jewish so I guess it’s okay.

    Checking….

    Yes, not Jewish.

    But not so fast:

    In May 2007 the American Jewish Committee (AJC) gave Uribe its “Light Unto The Nations” award.

    “President Uribe is a staunch ally of the United States, a good friend of Israel and the Jewish people, and is a firm believer in human dignity and human development in Colombia and the Americas”.[87]

    Send this one up to a manager for input on whether to begin the process of condemning Colombians for their anti-Semitic tropes, or not.

  102. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    LOL, Mr. Sailer remains cagey. The “master noticer” doesn’t want ANYTHING on his record regarding his own thoughts about Trump malfeasance. But the case is a slam dunk legally and constitutionally.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, they shoot nothing but bricks. They forgot to list a criminal statue violation in their impeachment articles. Trump won’t make that mistake.

    It’s just that the GOP is literally a slave to Trump. Remember, he owes a number of nations BIG TIME.

    ^This nutty conspiracy theory has been debunked by the Mueller report and the Horowitz IG report.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    , @Corvinus
  103. @Precious

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, they shoot nothing but bricks. They forgot to list a criminal statue violation in their impeachment articles. Trump won’t make that mistake.

    I think the word is ‘statute’ not ‘statue’, so you might want to have a word with your paralegal about their typing.

    Considering that the house managers include a slew of experienced prosecutors and attorneys, it would be an amazing slip up on their part if they had simply forgotten to mention that Trump has been violating ‘statues’.

    “Abuse of power” is mentioned in the articles of impeachment.

    In the US political system there is a very sharp line drawn between what office holders may do in the course of their duties and what they may do in terms of electioneering or running for office and raising funds to support their election campaign. This is a bit like the separation of church and state. Government schools can celebrate the Christmas season, but they cannot teach children about the virgin birth and the coming of the messiah., or that they will go to hell if they don’t do their homework.

    For example office holders are forbidden to use official resources for campaign purposes. This is a bit like your employer telling you that you cannot use company computers or phones for your own private business. So you might be able to submit a vacation request on company time, but not research hotels, airlines, and car rentals and watch Youtube videos of tourist attractions while at your company desk.

    All politicians know this. It is not a secret.

    https://ethics.house.gov/general-prohibition-against-using-official-resources-campaign-or-political-purposes

    The allegation regarding Trump and Ukraine is that Trump was trying to ‘sell’ a highly prized White House meeting with the Ukrainian executive in exchange for (the announcement of) investigations into an electoral rival. Trump is alleged to have twisted the arm of Ukraine to get it to agree to an investigation of the Bidens–which could be considered to be electioneering activity–without any legitimate foreign policy motive or clearance from White House lawyers.

    This is a bit similar to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich being sent to prison for attempting to sell a vacant senate seat to the highest bidder, for which he is still in prison. Interestingly Trump has said that he believes Blagojevich was hard done by, and has considered pardoning him, but has not yet done so.

    Now Trump is perfectly free to defend himself from these allegations by explaining why his actions were legitimate foreign policy dealings and part of a concerted foreign policy to combat corruption in the spending of US aid, and not in any way designed to help him electorally but has chosen not to do so.

    The witnesses from the US embassy in Kiev and from the National Security Advisory team were not able to provide that justification, which is strange, considering that it is their job to know what US foreign policy is.

    Incidentally, as far as I can determine, the Trump department of justice has never sent a letter formally requesting the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, nor has it yet assembled a grand jury to consider the evidence for indicting the Bidens in the USA, which might be a better way to go than calling the Bidens as witnesses at the impeachment trial if you really wanted to get to the bottom of the matter.

    So I would say that Abuse Of Power would be a blanket term that would cover the commission of a defined statutory offense of using official resources for campaign or election purposes, or of using the position of president to incite others to commit illegal actions.

    Because the president is a unique position that can only ever be held by one person at a time, there are not a lot of specific statutes defining what a president can and cannot do in the execution of his duties and what the penalties are. It is understood that a trial in front of a jury of senators, who are the closest thing available to a jury of his peers, with a supermajority required for conviction is the next best thing that protects a president from vicious partisan removal proceedings, but also discourages him from misbehaving.

    I am sure that it was the hope of the Founders that impeachment would never have to be used, but that some process, however imperfect, was needed to make sure that the president did not award himself kingly powers.

    But I am not a lawyer.

  104. J.Ross says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    That one went over your head, look up Ed Buck. All of the things said about Trump there were actually true of Democrats and none were deemed worthy of impeachment or investigation. Trump is being impeached because of a phone call, the transcript of which was near-immediately released.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  105. J.Ross says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    This is a bit similar to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich

    This is a tortured comparison. Blagojevich was a textbook corrupt politician seeking a simple bribe for the traditional reward. Trump is the President dealing with a foreign power with a uniquely hilarious corruption problem (the first time the World Bank took over Ukraine, they ran out of bribe money) so he has massively more leeway than a state governor filling a seat. The word “electioneering” doen’t make any sense here because Biden is so comically obviously and admittedly guilty, and there’s absolutely nothing illegal about investigating such conduct, as Trump is obligated to do under a treaty with Ukraine signed by President Clinton.

  106. @Corvinus

    “Trump malfeasance.”

    LOL. You surely meant to write Biden malfeasance. God bless President Trump’s efforts to spotlight Democratic Party corruption and malfeasance in the Ukraine. This is what draining the swamp looks like.

    And no, sweety, you don’t escape investigations into your vice-presidential corruption because you run for president a couple years later.

    Like President Trump said: it was a perfect call.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  107. Precious says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Considering that the house managers include a slew of experienced prosecutors and attorneys, it would be an amazing slip up on their part if they had simply forgotten to mention that Trump has been violating ‘statues’.

    I did think it was an amazing slip up for Nadler to start hysterically accusing the Republicans in the Senate of being being complicit in Trump’s crimes. But perhaps it is just a bold move by these experienced prosecutors and attorneys to accuse the jury of being co-conspirators in the defendant’s crimes. Stupid…but bold.

    “Abuse of power” is mentioned in the articles of impeachment.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, simply chanting the magic words “Abuse of power” does not actually create a criminal statute (thank you for the correction) violation on the part of Trump or his administration to appear.

    In the US political system there is a very sharp line drawn between what office holders may do in the course of their duties and what they may do in terms of electioneering or running for office and raising funds to support their election campaign. This is a bit like the separation of church and state.

    For example office holders are forbidden to use official resources for campaign purposes. This is a bit like your employer telling you that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    All politicians know this. It is not a secret.

    Another thing about the US and other political systems is that just about everything politicians do in office is positioned to help them get re-elected. All people know this. It is not a secret. If you want to sit here and pretend that Trump fulfilling his moral and constitutional obligations as President was somehow a campaign violation, then I suggest you point to a specific criminal statute violation. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

    The allegation regarding Trump and Ukraine is that Trump was trying to ‘sell’ a highly prized White House meeting with the Ukrainian executive in exchange for (the announcement of) investigations into an electoral rival. Trump is alleged to have twisted the arm of Ukraine to get it to agree to an investigation of the Bidens–which could be considered to be electioneering activity–without any legitimate foreign policy motive or clearance from White House lawyers.

    And yet the Democrats refused to actually list any criminal statute violation. Based on what we have seen so far, it is because they don’t have evidence to support any criminal statute violations. Perhaps that is because if Zelensky were to testify, he would state, as he already has, that there was no arm-twisting or any other form of coercion to get him to investigate the Bidens.

    This is a bit similar to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich being sent to prison for attempting to sell a vacant senate seat to the highest bidder, for which he is still in prison.

    The charge that produced a guilty verdict at the first trial was that Blagojevich had lied to the FBI in 2005, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. As you can see, it wasn’t hard at all for me to look up a specific criminal statute violation that Rod Blagojevich was accused of violating and later found guilty of violating. Would you like to point to the criminal statute violation in the impeachment articles? I will wait.

    Now Trump is perfectly free to defend himself from these allegations by explaining why his actions were legitimate foreign policy dealings and part of a concerted foreign policy to combat corruption in the spending of US aid, and not in any way designed to help him electorally but has chosen not to do so.

    I suspect Trump will be testifying at the Senate trial. We shall see. However, Adam Schiff’s own impeachment report does concede that Trump was concerned about Ukraine corruption and his motive for withholding Ukraine aid was to ensure it wouldn’t be stolen as billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine were stolen previously. Yes, Adam Schiff actually documented a different motive for Trump other than doing it for his re-election campaign.

    The witnesses from the US embassy in Kiev and from the National Security Advisory team were not able to provide that justification, which is strange, considering that it is their job to know what US foreign policy is.

    Wrong, Adam Schiff’s own impeachment report includes a State Department employee detailing how and why Trump became concerned about Ukraine corruption.

    Incidentally, as far as I can determine, the Trump department of justice has never sent a letter formally requesting the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, nor has it yet assembled a grand jury to consider the evidence for indicting the Bidens in the USA, which might be a better way to go than calling the Bidens as witnesses at the impeachment trial if you really wanted to get to the bottom of the matter.

    According to Giuliani, the evidence to incriminate the Bidens has already been collected. We will find out whether or not he is bluffing. Of course, if Giuliani or anyone else made any procedural violations in their investigation, the Bidens can use that to help their defense at any criminal trial.

    So I would say that Abuse Of Power would be a blanket term that would cover the commission of a defined statutory offense of using official resources for campaign or election purposes, or of using the position of president to incite others to commit illegal actions.

    You can say that, but the Democrats aren’t saying that. What they are saying is that Trump acted in a manner that was not consistent with official US policy. That Trump departed from the talking points prepared for him by national security officials so he could act contrary to official US policy. Their position is that official US foreign policy actually exists outside the domain of the president and is not subject to his authority. This is ludicrous.

    There is no such thing as official US foreign policy that exists anywhere outside the purview of the President of the United States. The President of the United States is elected to set foreign policy. The American people don’t elect a president every four years so he can sit in the Oval Office and have State Department bureaucrats boss him around and tell him what to do.

    Because the president is a unique position that can only ever be held by one person at a time, there are not a lot of specific statutes defining what a president can and cannot do in the execution of his duties and what the penalties are.

    After that long-winded justification and explanation, you now concede that I am correct…that there is no criminal statute violation the Democrats included in their impeachment articles. Thank you for admitting that.

    This is why the Democrats are shooting nothing but bricks. Without an actual crime to anchor their accusations, Trump’s defense team is going to have a lot of fun tearing apart the Democrats arguments over the next three days.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  108. @Jonathan Mason

    “Now Trump is perfectly free to defend himself from these allegations…”

    On no planet will 20 repub senators vote to convict. So your fever dream where President Trump testifies before filth like [Schiff] and [Schumer] will never come to pass, your painful and tedious logorrhea notwithstanding.

  109. I am surprised that Trump has not yet added China to the no-travel list, as that seems a no brainer in the attempts to keep the new corona pneumonia virus out of fortress America. What is the good of having a no-travel list if you don’t use it when it is needed?

  110. Democratic Party loyalists here like Corvinus and J. Mason should laud President Trump’s efforts to expose Biden family connections to and personal enrichment by Ukraine. Do Democrats really want to nominate a man who may be a compromised puppet of Ukraine? Corvinus in particular was gravely troubled that President Trump may be a compromised puppet of Russia and President Putin — and I’m sure Corvi was mightily relieved when Mueller’s extensive investigation found no evidence that our President colluded with Russia or Putin.

    Democrats should be glad that their President is shining a bright light on Biden corruption so they may nominate a clean presidential candidate.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  111. @Jonathan Mason

    Jeez man hire an editor, or use the “more” tag.

    But I am not a lawyer.

    Nor an American. Now shhhh

  112. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “This nutty conspiracy theory has been debunked by the Mueller report and the Horowitz IG report.”

    Actually, both laid out Trump’s favors to foreign nations. You haven’t been paying attention.

    • Replies: @Precious
  113. Corvinus says:
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    “LOL. You surely meant to write Biden malfeasance.”

    Except a former Ukrainian prosecutor stated otherwise.

    “Like President Trump said: it was a perfect call.”

    Then why not allow witnesses to come forward in the Senate, chiefly John Bolton?

    How do you account for the GAO Report, a non-partisan watchdog, stating that Trump’s actions broke federal law?

    Ever NOTICE that GOP senators never say WHY they do mot find the evidence compelling from Trump officials; rather they dismiss it entirely?

    How is it legal and moral for a President to accept foreign intelligence on a political rival by way of Guilliani and Lev Parnas?

    You’re way in over your head here.

  114. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    Actually, both laid out Trump’s favors to foreign nations.

    First of all, when you do a favor for someone, they owe you, you don’t owe them. Second, you probably meant debts, but that is also incorrect. Because what both reports actually do is show that Trump is getting other nations to do a quid pro quo for the benefit of the American people, not himself.

    You haven’t been paying attention.

    ^Your classic copy and paste response when you can’t think of anything else.

  115. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “Another thing about the US and other political systems is that just about everything politicians do in office is positioned to help them get re-elected. All people know this. It is not a secret. If you want to sit here and pretend that **Trump fulfilling his moral and constitutional obligations as President was somehow a campaign violation**, then I suggest you point to a specific criminal statute violation. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.”

    Nice bait and switch**. The fact of the matter is that federal law makes it illegal to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national. The question of whether or not the president ran afoul of that law certainly seems in play in light of what we saw in the transcript. For purposes of this statute, a “contribution or donation” is defined as “money” or another “thing of value.” Moreover, federal anti-bribery statute imposes criminal sanctions on a public official who “corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for … being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

    You’re in over your head here.

    • Replies: @Precious
  116. @Corvinus

    How is it legal and moral for a President to accept foreign intelligence on a political rival by way of Guilliani and Lev Parnas?

    That is the point. In an ideal world Trump would man up and come before the Senate and explain the rationale for his actions and state where the buck stops. But he can’t.

    Unfortunately the sad truth is that this is a man who is obviously cognitively impaired and who is surrounded by toadies who will do anything to keep hold of their positions other than give him good advice.

    Because no one wants to remove him on the grounds of mental incompetency owing to the fact that he is still popular with the proletariat who receive his tweets like oracles and do not have to deal with him face to face, we have to go through this farce of pretending he has behaved badly and illegally when the truth is that the poor bastard has very little understanding of what he is doing at all and none of the consequences of his actions.

    • Replies: @Precious
    , @JMcG
  117. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    Nice bait and switch**.

    ^What you just did, and what I don’t do.

    The fact of the matter is that federal law makes it illegal to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national. The question of whether or not the president ran afoul of that law certainly seems in play in light of what we saw in the transcript.

    Wrong, we know Trump did not solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation from a foreign national during that phone call, because of the transcript.

    For purposes of this statute, a “contribution or donation” is defined as “money” or another “thing of value.”

    ^Bait and switch. Information is not a thing of value under campaign finance laws. But you always lie, so of course you pretend otherwise. Everyone, including Trump and every other politician running for election, has a First Amendment right to dig for dirt.

    Moreover, federal anti-bribery statute imposes criminal sanctions on a public official who “corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for … being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

    This is why, despite all the Democrats hysterical accusations, they abandoned going after Trump using an anti-bribery statute. They had no evidence to back it up. There is no anti-bribery statute violation listed in the impeachment articles.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  118. Precious says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Unfortunately the sad truth is that this is a man who is obviously cognitively impaired…Because no one wants to remove him on the grounds of mental incompetency…the poor bastard has very little understanding of what he is doing at all and none of the consequences of his actions…

    ^The level of delusion here is quite remarkable. Do you pay any attention to media sources outside the USA?

    When the Democrats impeachment fails, and Trump turns the tables on them and Democrats end up being forced from office, will you then accept you were wrong about Trump?

    Should Trump win re-election in a landslide against a very weak opponent and a divided Democratic party, would that be enough for you to accept you were wrong about Trump”

    Should Trump leave office after eight years having completely reshaped how politicians are allowed to conduct themselves while in office, and destroyed the Democratic party’s power at the national level, would that be enough for you to accept you were wrong about Trump?

    Or would you still stick to your story even if all those events happen? Maybe blame it on Putin?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  119. @Corvinus

    “Except a former Ukrainian prosecutor stated otherwise.”

    Then President Trump did us all a solid. Now you can vote for Biden with clear conscience and without fear of creating an immediate constitutional crisis should Biden win the election. Otherwise, if Giuliani or Lev — or, not to mention, President Biden himself bragging on a widely-aired audio recording — provide convincing evidence that Biden is a bought-and-paid-for puppet of Ukraine, the House is constitutionally obliged to begin impeachment proceedings on January 21, 2021 and the Senate remove him posthaste.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  120. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “Wrong, we know Trump did not solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation from a foreign national during that phone call, because of the transcript.”

    He withheld designated financial aid to a nation in exchange for information about a political rival. This action is illegal. Even Republicans questioned his conduct.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/22/new-details-ukraine-impeachment-trump-republican-lawmakers-opposed-withholding-ukraine-aid/

    “Information is not a thing of value under campaign finance laws.”

    The financial aid is a thing of value. The result would be information.

    “There is no anti-bribery statute violation listed in the impeachment articles.”

    Actually, the first article charges him with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign by damaging Democratic rivals by way of quid pro quo, aka a bribe.

    Again, you are in over your head.

    • Replies: @Precious
  121. @Reg Cæsar

    “Donald Trump to become first president in history to attend March for Life rally on National Mall”

    The irony, of course, is President Trump never wins the presidency without millions upon millions of black women exercising their beautiful and sacred Right to Choose.

    God bless Planned Parenthood.

  122. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    Complete and utter avoidance on your part, as well as a concerted effort to change the subject.

    So, how is it legal and moral for President Trump to accept foreign intelligence on a political rival by way of Guilliani–who is not in any official capacity of the government–and his buddy Lev Parnas?

    Remember, Trump said he only knows Parnas by taking photos with him. But now there is an 1.5 hour recording with Trump and Parnas and others, with the subject of firing Yovanovitch being discussed. So how do you address this discrepancy?

    Furthermore, why has not the State and Justice Department launched an official investigation into Biden’s son so as not to directly appear prejudicial, compared to Trump’s maverick move?

    And, of course, Trump said was eager to testify and allow witnesses to “clear his name”, now he does not want them at all, including John Bolton. Why not have transparency and testimony from EVERYONE, including the Bidens, Guilliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and Pompeo?

    • Replies: @Precious
  123. Corvinus says:
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    “Otherwise, if Giuliani or Lev — or, not to mention, President Biden himself bragging on a widely-aired audio recording — provide convincing evidence that Biden is a bought-and-paid-for puppet of Ukraine…”

    You really need to start paying attention about what Lev has to say about Trump, not Biden.

  124. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    He withheld designated financial aid to a nation in exchange for information about a political rival. This action is illegal. Even Republicans questioned his conduct.

    ^Lie #1. The aid was never withheld. It was only delayed. Adam Schiff’s own impeachment report shows Trump’s motive was not to get information on a political rival, it was to ensure that the aid was not stolen like billions of dollars in aid previously. Delaying the aid is not illegal.

    The financial aid is a thing of value. The result would be information.

    ^Lie #2. Ukraine is required by treaty to assist with criminal investigations. Trump could give Ukraine nothing and they would still investigate Biden.

    Actually, the first article charges him with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign by damaging Democratic rivals by way of quid pro quo, aka a bribe

    ^Lie #3. Abuse of power is a vague term, bribery has a legal definition used in criminal statutes. The Democrats have no evidence for bribery because Zelensky has already stated, and would testify, there was no pressure to investigate Biden. Adam Schiff’s impeachment report establishes that any quid pro quo Trump made with Ukraine would be for the benefit of the American people, not his personal benefit.

    Again, you are in over your head.

    ^The last time you recycled that closer you were lying about what the Republicans in the Senate would do in an impeachment, and I called you on it. Now you have backtracked on that position. They aren’t going to convict Trump.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  125. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    Complete and utter avoidance on your part, as well as a concerted effort to change the subject

    ^Projection

    So, how is it legal and moral for President Trump to accept foreign intelligence on a political rival by way of Guilliani–who is not in any official capacity of the government–

    The President of the United States has a moral and constitutional duty to investigate criminal activities of the previous Vice-President. When US State Department officials are defying his orders, the President has the authority to delegate that responsibility to a lieutenant of his choosing.

    Remember, Trump said he only knows Parnas by taking photos with him. But now there is an 1.5 hour recording with Trump and Parnas and others, with the subject of firing Yovanovitch being discussed. So how do you address this discrepancy?

    I don’t know about that one. Trump is still paying Parnas to keep the media distracted with another clown show? I am guessing.

    Furthermore, why has not the State and Justice Department launched an official investigation into Biden’s son so as not to directly appear prejudicial, compared to Trump’s maverick move?

    The State Department bureaucrats are co-conspirators. We don’t know what the Justice Department is doing, but I expect we will find out.

    And, of course, Trump said was eager to testify and allow witnesses to “clear his name”, now he does not want them at all, including John Bolton. Why not have transparency and testimony from EVERYONE, including the Bidens, Guilliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and Pompeo?

    I expect that we will have witnesses testify, including Giuliani. I am not sure about the others. I think Trump saying he doesn’t want witnesses was a lie to encourage the Democrats to impeach him on the battleground of his choosing. We will find out soon enough.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  126. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “The President of the United States has a moral and constitutional duty to investigate criminal activities of the previous Vice-President.

    No, the Justice Department at the behest of the President investigates of alleged criminal activity.

    Furthermore, let us assume President Obama was accused of exactly the same thing as Trump, i.e. making a phone call for a “favor” seeking dirt on a political opponent with strings attached (foreign aid). Would you support this action? Why?

    “When US State Department officials are defying his orders…”

    They were adhering to precedent and their Constitutional duty to report malfeasance. Remember, Gordan Sondland was a Trump financial supporter, a friend (!), who received an ambassadorship, and he eventually admitted that there was a quid pro quo. So how do you account for the GAO report stating the holding of funds to Ukraine was illegal? Remember, it is a non-partisan agency.

    “the President has the authority to delegate that responsibility to a lieutenant of his choosing.”

    NOTICE Rudy Guiliani is representing the president as his personal attorney and as a private citizen, but is not an official member of the administration. He has admitted playing a leading role in the ousting of the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, as well as receiving money from a wealthy Ukrainian oligarch by way of an intermediary, and denying that he has an official capacity. Please explain how it is considered normal presidential practice and offer a past historical example of a similar arrangement.

    “I don’t know about that one. Trump is still paying Parnas to keep the media distracted with another clown show? I am guessing.”

    No. Parnas has the goods on Trump compliments of Guiliani. That is a fact.

    “The State Department bureaucrats are co-conspirators.”

    Sources? Specific evidence?

    You do realize that Trump used intelligence from the State Department as well as the Defense Department and the CIA to order the liquidate an Iranian general on Iraqi soil. I thought each of these entities ought not to be trusted…at all. Sounds like Lucy has some ‘xplainin’ to do.

    “I expect that we will have witnesses testify, including Giuliani.”

    Except McConnell has insisted that NO witnesses be allowed at all. Why is that? Moreover, Trump is on the record saying he will invoke executive privilege in an effort to deny any witness testimony. Why is that if it was the “perfect call”?

    • Replies: @Precious
  127. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “The aid was never withheld. It was only delayed.”

    LOL. Both words mean to “hold back from action, to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing”. That is exactly what happened.

    “Adam Schiff’s own impeachment report shows Trump’s motive was not to get information on a political rival, it was to ensure that the aid was not stolen like billions of dollars in aid previously.”

    Exact citation please.

    “Delaying the aid is not illegal.”

    The GAO report states differently, as well as the testimony of witnesses.

    “Trump could give Ukraine nothing and they would still investigate Biden.”

    So why did Trump withhold aid? Why didn’t Trump ask Attorney General Bill Barr to conduct an investigation into the Bidens and request Ukrainian assistance? That is normal procedure here.

    “Abuse of power is a vague term, bribery has a legal definition used in criminal statutes.”

    Except there has been established context through witness testimony for abuse of power by way of illegal activity called bribery. Try again.

    “The Democrats have no evidence for bribery because Zelensky has already stated, and would testify, there was no pressure to investigate Biden.”

    Again, context escapes you. The current top diplomat to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, underscored Ukraine’s reliance on American assistance in his testimony to House investigators in their effort to combat pro-Russian separatists. He stated, “Even as we sit here today, the Russians are attacking Ukrainian soldiers in their own country and have been for the last four years. I saw this on the front line last week; the day I was there a Ukrainian soldier was killed and four were wounded.” If Zelensky spoke out publicly against Trump, it could have major consequences for him and Ukraine — particularly as he seeks a resolution to the conflict in the eastern part of his country.

    “Adam Schiff’s impeachment report establishes that any quid pro quo Trump made with Ukraine would be for the benefit of the American people, not his personal benefit.”

    Exact citation please.

    “The last time you recycled that closer you were lying about what the Republicans in the Senate would do in an impeachment, and I called you on it.”

    In what thread? Show.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    , @Precious
  128. @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    Democratic Party loyalists here like Corvinus and J. Mason should laud President Trump’s efforts to expose Biden family connections to and personal enrichment by Ukraine.

    I would not describe myself as a Democratic Party loyalist.

    Some people are single issue voters. For a significant percentage of the electorate abortion is the ONLY issue that matters. They will vote for whomever is most opposed to abortion, and that is it for them. I am agnostic on abortion.

    I have a number of issues that interest me. Most of them relate to the world that my children are growing up in. Issues that interest me are affordable health care, education, avoidance of futile overseas wars of aggression, crime reduction and general safety.

    Immigration is not huge for me, but I think that controls should be placed so that illegal immigrants cannot be hired by employers in the US, (and that such employers should be severely punished) and that the US should have a humane, but practical policy on refugees, so that the US will accept those that it can absorb, but no more than other nations with comparative resources (or lack of resources.) I am agnostic on The Great Wall of America.

    I am willing to vote for presidential candidates of either party, depending on what policies they support and on their ability to persuade other politicians to enact their programs.

    I am more than happy to have Biden’s corruption investigated, however this can be done via a grand jury without depending on the good graces of the Ukrainian government. I am unlikely to vote for Biden even if he becomes the candidate for the presidency. As far as I am concerned Biden is Hillary Mk II.

    I do not plan to vote for Trump again (if he runs for re-election). My reasons are mostly that I doubt his mental competency, and because he is incapable of building coalitions to get his agenda enacted on important areas like health care reform, and because he is becoming easily manipulated by others in matters of foreign policy.

    Also, when I voted for him originally, I certainly never anticipated that he would spend much of his time watching Rupert Murdoch’s ridiculous Fox News propaganda station, let alone getting ideas from its commentators when he has access to experts to advise him.

    The articles linked to below contain most of the arguments regarding Trump’s lack of mental competency and ability to provide world leadership that I support.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/anthony-scaramucci-believes-davos-crowd-has-ceo-stockholm-syndrome-trump

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/anthony-scaramucci-interview-trump

  129. @Corvinus

    So why did Trump withhold aid? Why didn’t Trump ask Attorney General Bill Barr to conduct an investigation into the Bidens and request Ukrainian assistance? That is normal procedure here.

    That is what Trump needs to come before the Senate and explain.

  130. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    No, the Justice Department at the behest of the President investigates of alleged criminal activity.

    You just admitted I am correct with the italics. President decides

    Furthermore, let us assume President Obama blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    I don’t care

    They were adhering to precedent and their Constitutional duty to report malfeasance.

    ^This is a lie. They were covering up crimes and engaged in criminal sedition.

    Remember, Gordan Sondland was a Trump financial supporter, a friend (!), who received an ambassadorship, and he eventually admitted that there was a quid pro quo.

    ^This is a lie. He testified that there was a quid pro quo, and then, under cross examination, he backtracked and admitted he only assumed there was a quid pro quo. That was to avoid a perjury charge.

    So how do you account for the GAO report stating the holding of funds to Ukraine was illegal? Remember, it is a non-partisan agency.

    The Office of Management and Budget pointed out GAO’s opinion is wrong.

    We disagree with GAO’s opinion,” Semmel said. “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”

    NOTICE Rudy Guiliani is representing the president as his personal attorney and as a private citizen, but is not an official member of the administration. Please explain how it is considered normal presidential practice and offer a past historical example of a similar arrangement.

    Many presidents have used close aides, friends, or other insiders to handle crucial international assignments, particularly at times of national stress. Some of these low-profile envoys had official roles. Others, like Mr. Giuliani, have had flexible or unofficial positions. President Woodrow Wilson leaned heavily on Edward House, nicknamed Colonel House, a Texas backroom politician and early Wilson supporter, for political and foreign policy advice. Prior to World War I, Wilson sent House to Europe to try and prevent hostilities. After the war ended, House was quickly sent back to push armistice terms.

    No. Parnas has the goods on Trump compliments of Guiliani. That is a fact.

    ^Wishful thinking. I doubt the Democrats will even call Parnas as a witness.

    Sources? Specific evidence?

    Giuliani is the source, and we will see what evidence he presents.

    You do realize that Trump used intelligence from the State Department as well as the Defense Department and the CIA to order the liquidate an Iranian general on Iraqi soil. I thought each of these entities ought not to be trusted…at all. Sounds like Lucy has some ‘xplainin’ to do.

    I doubt State Department employees assigned to Ukraine had any role in that operation.

    Except McConnell has insisted that NO witnesses be allowed at all. Why is that? Moreover, Trump is on the record saying he will invoke executive privilege in an effort to deny any witness testimony. Why is that if it was the “perfect call”?

    As I said, I think they are lying in order to trap the Democrats. We will find out soon enough if I am right or wrong. I don’t see why Trump hired all those expensive lawyers if they were just going to shut things down and acquit quickly. The Democrats just handed Trump a golden opportunity to be the star of the trial of the century. I will be very surprised if he turns that down.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  131. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    LOL. Both words mean to “hold back from action, to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing”. That is exactly what happened.

    ^This is a lie.
    define witheld – refuse to give
    define delayed – postpone or defer an action, be late or slow

    Exact citation please.

    From Adam Schiff’s impeachment report: He explained that both leaders had extensively talked Ukraine down, said it was corrupt, said Zelensky was in the thrall of oligarchs, the effect of which was negatively shaping a picture of Ukraine, and even President Zelensky personally. The veteran State Dept diplomat concluded, “Those two world leaders, Putin and Orban, along with former Mayor Giuliani, their communications with President Trump shaped the President’s view of Ukraine and Zelensky, and would account for the change from a very positive first call on April 21 to his negative assessment of Ukraine

    The GAO report states differently, as well as the testimony of witnesses.

    The Office of Management and Budget pointed out GAO’s opinion is wrong.

    We disagree with GAO’s opinion,” Semmel said. “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”

    So why did Trump withhold aid? Why didn’t Trump ask Attorney General Bill Barr to conduct an investigation into the Bidens and request Ukrainian assistance? That is normal procedure here.

    Trump’s motive in delaying aid was to ensure that US aid to Ukraine was not stolen as it was previously. You are correct, it is not normal procedure to care American tax dollars are wasted. We will find out if Barr and the DoJ is involved in Ukraine’s investigation soon enough.

    Except there has been established context through witness testimony for abuse of power by way of illegal activity called bribery. Try again.

    ^This is a lie. We have no witness testimony for abuse of power or evidence of bribery. Trump setting US foreign policy is not an abuse of power, it is his moral responsibility and his constitutional duty.

    Again, context escapes you. The current top diplomat to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, underscored Ukraine’s reliance on American assistance in his testimony to House investigators blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If Zelensky spoke out publicly against Trump, it could have major consequences for him and Ukraine — particularly as he seeks a resolution to the conflict in the eastern part of his country.

    Then let the Democrats raise that issue when they cross examine Zelensky, and let the chips fall where they may.

    “Adam Schiff’s impeachment report establishes that any quid pro quo Trump made with Ukraine would be for the benefit of the American people, not his personal benefit.”

    Exact citation please.

    My citation from Adam Schiff’s impeachment report above clearly establishes Trump’s motive, which is looking out for the American people that their tax dollars are not wasted. That means any quid pro quo established between Trump and Ukraine was made for the benefit of the American people, not his personal benefit.

  132. Precious says:

    The articles linked to below contain most of the arguments regarding Trump’s lack of mental competency and ability to provide world leadership that I support.

    I have suspicions that Scaramucci is still working for Trump, deliberately spreading misinformation about Trump in the media to misdirect Trump’s enemies. This is consistent with Trump following the precepts of Sun Tzu and the mentoring of George Steinbrenner.

    • LOL: Jonathan Mason
  133. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “You just admitted I am correct with the italics. President decides…”

    By way of the Justice Department, as in official business. That is important context here that you conveniently ignore.

    “I don’t care…”

    Try again–Let us assume President Obama was accused of exactly the same thing as Trump, i.e. making a phone call for a “favor” seeking dirt on a political opponent with strings attached (foreign aid). Would you support this action? Why?

    “They were covering up crimes and engaged in criminal sedition.”

    No, those who testified noted they were constitutionally obligated to report malfeasance. Moreover, even Republican Senators were concerned about this action taken by Trump.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/22/new-details-ukraine-impeachment-trump-republican-lawmakers-opposed-withholding-ukraine-aid/

    More over, show your sources that prove your statement, rather than saying “Guiliani is the source”.

    “I doubt the Democrats will even call Parnas as a witness.”

    You mean Senate Republicans. Do you not support ANY and ALL witnesses testify? If it was the “perfect call”, what does Trump have to worry about?

    “He testified that there was a quid pro quo, and then, under cross examination, he backtracked and admitted he only assumed there was a quid pro quo. That was to avoid a perjury charge.”

    Sondland admitted there was a quid pro quo. There was no backtracking and assumption.

    “The Office of Management and Budget pointed out GAO’s opinion is wrong.”

    It is other than surprising that the OMB would make this assertion considering the OMB is under the authority of the President! So please show specifically how he GAO is in error here.

    “Many presidents have used close aides, friends, or other insiders to handle crucial international assignments, particularly at times of national stress.”

    Let’s focus on facts. Guiliani is NOT an envoy or special envoy. He is President Trump’s personal lawyer. Persons appointed as such special agents or representatives are considered to be the personal representatives of the President and not “ambassadors” or other “public ministers” within the meaning of the constitutional provision. In such cases these personal representatives have been given diplomatic rank, including that of minister, envoy, and ambassador. Representatives with diplomatic rank are not formally accredited to the foreign governments as official diplomatic representatives of our government. It is customary before making such an appointment for the State Department to ascertain from the foreign government concerned whether the appointment is acceptable. If so, such appointees are accredited informally. They are then customarily accorded the diplomatic privileges and courtesies pertaining to their rank.

    Nikki Haley, the former UN Ambassador under President Donald Trump, stated that she believed the Trump Administration should have named Giuliani as special envoy to Ukraine. In other words, there is a tradition here that has been followed by past presidents, but not by Trump. That is the precedent not followed! Multiple officials who have testified in both closed-door depositions and now public hearings have stated that Giuliani, who is a private citizen, led a back-channel regarding Ukraine policy. Furthermore, Giuliani admitted his role in helping to oust his fellow American from an important position. “I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” Giuliani told reporter Adam Entous. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.”

    So there was NO appointment here by Trump. Giuliani was NOT designated as a special envoy. He was acting on behalf of Trump in an UNOFFICIAL capacity. Obtaining copies of a foreign investigation without recognition as a diplomat by the State Department is a violation of the current American process in place, as stated above. Had Giuliani properly received this appointment, then there is NO issue here.

    “The Democrats just handed Trump a golden opportunity to be the star of the trial of the century.”

    Don’t be naive. There isn’t any surprise here. He is NOT going to testify and he is blocking testimony from witnesses close to him by way of “executive privilege” considering that he withheld, not delayed, allocated funds to the Ukraine. If it was the “perfect call”, why is he hiding? Let’s have EVERYONE testify, even the Bidens. Get this thing out in the open. Why is Trump and the Republican Senators afraid?

    “From Adam Schiff’s impeachment report…”

    gives background into the Trump phone call about an initial concern of Ukrainian corruption, then shifts into his insistence that in order to root it out, Ukraine must do him a favor. So it was for Trump’s benefit ultimately, as the report states. Try again.

    “Trump setting US foreign policy is not an abuse of power…”

    But extracting political information about a political rival constitutes that charge. Remember, Sondland testified that Trump did not give a sh– about Ukrainian corruption and only cares about “big stuff”.

    “My citation from Adam Schiff’s impeachment report above clearly establishes Trump’s motive…”

    No, it does not. It shows the pretext under which Trump sought to benefit personally.

    You’re in over your head here.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    , @Precious
  134. @Corvinus

    Let’s have EVERYONE testify, even the Bidens. Get this thing out in the open. Why is Trump and the Republican Senators afraid?

    Exactly. Since there is no way the impeachment will ever get rid of Trump due to the Republican majority in the Senate, let’s turn the process into a constructive bipartisan Truth and Reconciliation Commission to determine what mistakes were made and how they can be avoided in the future.

    Let’s hear from the Bidens and their accusers and if there is enough evidence, then a grand jury can be convened later to deal with them and indict them.

    Let’s hear from Trump about all the issues that concerned him.

    What date did the official embassy photographs arrive at Kiev? How much delay was there before they were posted? How do we know that ambassador Yovanovitch withheld the issuance of a work order to the maintenance department to hang these photos?

    These issues are not important in themselves, but they will give valuable insight into how Trump makes decisions, and he will have a great opportunity to show the world that he is not crazy and that he is the king of all media.

    If he testifies before the Senate, Trump can only come out totally vindicated by explaining how his decisions served the American people.

    While he is under oath, he may also wish to explain exactly what the US’s policy is on Ukraine and whether we still have the backs of this fragile democracy or not. Or are we now allies with Russia, and opposed to the EU?

    “The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” — George Orwell, 1984

    In the George Orwell classic 1984, there is a state of perpetual war between the nations of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. The enemy in the conflict is ambiguous, and the battlefield exists in an elusive and distant land. The enemy could be Eurasia one day, and Eastasia the next, but that location is really insignificant.

    That is what the world has come to when Ukraine and Bangladesh are interchangeable spots on a blank map.

  135. @J.Ross

    That one went over your head, look up Ed Buck.

    I know who Ed Buck is. Your claim is still bizarre.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  136. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    By way of the Justice Department, as in official business. That is important context here that you conveniently ignore.

    Wrong, you ignore the President doesn’t have to go through the Justice Department. The DoJ derives its authority from him, not the other way around. He has the authority to delegate or do it himself.

    Try again–Let us assume President Obama was blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

    I don’t care

    No, those who testified noted they were constitutionally obligated to report malfeasance.

    ^This is a lie. They were covering up crimes and engaged in criminal sedition.

    Moreover, even Republican Senators were concerned about this action taken by Trump.

    We will see if they are still concerned.

    You mean Senate Republicans. Do you not support ANY and ALL witnesses testify?

    [MORE]

    Wrong, I mean the Democrats won’t even bother to call Parnas as a witness.

    Sondland admitted there was a quid pro quo. There was no backtracking and assumption.

    ^This is a lie. He testified that there was a quid pro quo, and then, under cross examination, he backtracked and admitted he only assumed there was a quid pro quo. That was to avoid a perjury charge.

    It is other than surprising that the OMB would make this assertion considering the OMB is under the authority of the President! So please show specifically how he GAO is in error here.

    You can review the OMB’s statement and the citation in Adam Schiff’s report I already provided. Trump was making sure the aid would not be stolen.

    Guiliani is NOT an envoy or special envoy….blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Nikki Haley, the former UN Ambassador under President Donald Trump, stated that she believed the Trump Administration should have named Giuliani as special envoy to Ukraine…blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…So there was NO appointment here by Trump. Giuliani was NOT designated as a special envoy…blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    You asked for an example, I gave you Colonel House. Your opinion and Nikki Haley’s opinion aside, Trump has the authority to use people unofficially for international assignments. No amount of gainsaying changes that.

    He is NOT going to testify and he is blocking testimony from witnesses close to him by way of “executive privilege” considering that he withheld, not delayed, allocated funds to the Ukraine. If it was the “perfect call”, why is he hiding? Let’s have EVERYONE testify, even the Bidens.

    I say you are wrong. I think Trump wants to testify. I think they will have witnesses testify. I don’t know if EVERYONE will testify, but I expect witnesses. If I turn out to be wrong, I am confident you will remind me often.

    gives background into the Trump phone call about an initial concern of Ukrainian corruption, then shifts into his insistence that in order to root it out, Ukraine must do him a favor. So it was for Trump’s benefit ultimately, as the report states. Try again.

    ^This is a lie. That text establishes Trump’s motive for delaying the Ukraine aid. His primary concern is making sure Ukraine aid is not stolen and that is looking out for the benefit of the American people, not his own personal benefit.

    But extracting political information about a political rival constitutes that charge.

    ^This is a lie. Zelensky has stated, and will presumably testify, there was no coercion, and thus no “extracting”. Gathering political information and digging for dirt is not an abuse of power, it is a First Amendment right.

    Remember, Sondland testified that Trump did not give a sh– about Ukrainian corruption and only cares about “big stuff”.

    ^And now we know this is a lie, thanks to Adam Schiff’s impeachment report. We will see if Sondland is charged.

    No, it does not. It shows the pretext under which Trump sought to benefit personally.

    ^This is a lie. It shows Trump’s actual motive, which is making sure the American people’s tax payer dollars are not stolen again in Ukraine.

    You’re in over your head here.

    ^The second time you recycled this closer here, and you also recycled that closer back when you were lying about what the Republicans in the Senate would do in an impeachment, and I called you on it. Now you have backtracked on that position. They aren’t going to convict Trump.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  137. J.Ross says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    It’s not a claim, Adam Schiff palled around with Buck and another Californian Democrat donor pervert. There’s photos and videos of public appearances.

  138. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “Wrong, you ignore the President doesn’t have to go through the Justice Department. The DoJ derives its authority from him, not the other way around. He has the authority to delegate or do it himself.”

    That’s not how it works. The Justice Department receives word from the President to conduct a formal investigation. That keeps it above board. If Trump was so concerned about corruption in the Ukraine, that would be the first place to start—the Attorney General gets the ball rolling.

    “Try again–Let us assume President Obama was blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…I don’t care”

    

Of course you care. You have to avoid answering the question. If you respond “Yes”, then you give Democrats the advantage if they win the presidency to engage in the same action. And that would not a good thing, right? If you say “No”, then you admit that Trump’s actions are other than presidential and other than legal.

    “They were covering up crimes and engaged in criminal sedition.”

No, the officials were doing their job protecting the integrity of the Office and the Constitution, including Sondland.

    “I mean the Democrats won’t even bother to call Parnas as a witness.”



    No, you mean Republicans. Four moderates have to agree with the Democrats to have witnesses. It looks like with Bolton’s statements made in a future book that will be printed this year that increasing numbers of the GOP will want witnesses. Let’s have Giuliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, Pompeo, and others testify.

    “Trump was making sure the aid would not be stolen.”

    

That is what Trump says. But Schiff lays out how and why Trump is lying.

    “Your opinion and Nikki Haley’s opinion aside, Trump has the authority to use people unofficially for international assignments.”


    
If there is the proper protocol. You are conveniently leaving out the context.

    “I say you are wrong. I think Trump wants to testify.”



    LOL, no. If that be the case, he would be jumping at the chance.

    “Zelensky has stated, and will presumably testify, there was no coercion, and thus no “extracting”.”

    Because he has to publicly make that statement.

    “And now we know this is a lie, thanks to Adam Schiff’s impeachment report.”

    It’s not a lie what Sondland testified to.

    “The second time you recycled this closer here, and you also recycled that closer back when you were lying about what the Republicans in the Senate would do in an impeachment, and I called you on it. Now you have backtracked on that position.”



    What thread? Show please.

    • Replies: @Precious
  139. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    That’s not how it works. The Justice Department receives word blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.—the Attorney General gets the ball rolling.

    Wrong, it works the way the President decide to do it. He can start it, or the DoJ. The DoJ derives its authority from the President. What Trump can do directly, he can also do indirectly.

    Of course you care. You have to avoid answering the question.

    Wrong, I don’t care about Obama at all. I don’t have to avoid answering the question, I don’t answer it because I just don’t care. My eyes glaze over when I see the word Obama.

    No, the officials were doing their job protecting the integrity of the Office and the Constitution, including Sondland.

    ^This is a lie. They were covering up crimes and engaged in criminal sedition.

    “I mean the Democrats won’t even bother to call Parnas as a witness.”

    No, you mean Republicans.

    Wrong again, I mean Democrats won’t bother to call Parnas as a witness. You are too stupid to understand plain English and that the Democrats no longer want Parnas to testify. As soon as the Democrats learned the Republicans would allow Trump’s defense team to cross examine him, they dropped Parnas like a hot potato.

    “Trump was making sure the aid would not be stolen.”

    That is what Trump says. But Schiff lays out how and why Trump is lying.

    ^This is a lie. Schiff’s own impeachment report laid out Trump’s motive was concern about corruption and that the aid to Ukraine would be stolen. Schiff didn’t want to prove that, he just screwed up and included the exculpatory evidence that establishes Trump’s motive.

    If there is the proper protocol. You are conveniently leaving out the context.

    ^This is a lie. Many presidents have had unofficial lieutenants, I already proved that. They don’t need a “proper protocol”.

    “I say you are wrong. I think Trump wants to testify.”

    LOL, no. If that be the case, he would be jumping at the chance.

    You can keep arguing about it if you wish, we will know one way or another. The Senate decides if they will hear more witnesses and then Trump will, I expect, testify at the right moment to maximize drama. I hope the Republicans don’t shut things down early.

    “Zelensky has stated, and will presumably testify, there was no coercion, and thus no “extracting”.”

    Because he has to publicly make that statement.

    Because you say so? Let the Democrats prove it.

    It’s not a lie what Sondland testified to.

    You lied about Sondland’s testimony, and I called you out on it. Sondland only assumed there was a quid pro quo. He admitted that under cross examination, and backtracked that there actually was a quid pro quo. Of course, Schiff already established that any quid pro quo was for the benefit of the American people, not Trump’s benefit.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  140. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “Wrong, it works the way the President decide to do it.”

    No, it doesn’t. You’re being other than truthful here.

    “I don’t have to avoid answering the question, I don’t answer it because I just don’t care.”

    You do care, you just don’t want to be honest about it.

    “Wrong again, I mean Democrats won’t bother to call Parnas as a witness. You are too stupid to understand plain English and that the Democrats no longer want Parnas to testify.”

    LOL. Lev Parnas made his way to Washington, D.C. today. He wants to serve as a witness. His plane ticket was provided by Chuck Schumer. Democrats WANT him to testify, as do four moderate Republicans. Why hasn’t Trump and McConnell honor his request? More importantly, why hasn’t Trump declared his intention to also testify…and show up?

    “Many presidents have had unofficial lieutenants, I already proved that.”

    Through the protocol, which you deny the history and context, as I conclusively showed.

    “Schiff’s own impeachment report laid out Trump’s motive was concern about corruption and that the aid to Ukraine would be stolen.”

    Alleged concern, as Schiff noted, and then he laid out how it was a quid pro quo. One of Trump’s lawyers, Patrick Philbin, was asked by Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski today if Trump had ever complained about the Bidens BEFORE he got into the race AND if Trump was concerned about Ukrainian corruption prior to Biden entering the race. Philbin said he could not point to anything specific. You would think that he would have an exact answer.

    Furthermore, Philbin made the argument that Trump had a good-faith basis to believe a criminal investigation of Hunter Biden was warranted in 2018…before Biden entered the presidential race. So why did Trump wait an entire year? Of course, the problem is that all of those allegations were retracted in June 2019 before Trump’s July 2019 call. Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office not once but twice, i.e. two different people. Why?

    “The Senate decides if they will hear more witnesses and then Trump will, I expect, testify at the right moment to maximize drama.”

    You mean if four moderate Republican Senators vote with Democrats. You are expecting wrong to think that Trump will testify. So, why is he blocking his own White House staff and possibly John Bolton? If it was the “perfect call”, let’s have EVERYONE testify–even the Bidens and Guiliani!

    “You lied about Sondland’s testimony, and I called you out on it.”

    I did no such thing. That’s you being stubborn. 🙁

    Please note you have Senator Braun (R-IN) stating on TV that he is not opposed to Bolton testifying, but that he would not change his vote. When asked why not vote to have witnesses come forward, he dodges and evades.

    Please note that Trump has massive business interests in both China and Turkey, so when you hear that Bolton was concerned that Trump was doing personal favors for the leaders of China and Turkey, you know Bolton is talking about quid pro quos. Why not enable Bolton to tell the Senate his side? Remember, Attorney General Barr had discussed with Bolton his concerns about potential Trump quid pro quos here. Barr then denied that conversation took place. Why not have Barr testify?

    Please note that Alan Dershowitz said yesterday that IF there is a corrupt quid pro quo, you have Bribery and it’s impeachable. Guess what? That is EXACTLY what Bolton is saying, and Trump’s lawyers and McConnel want to block his testimony? Again, if it was the “perfect call”, why be fearful?

    Please note that Dershowitz also said in 2016 “When you compare that to what Trump has done with Trump University, with so many other things, I think there’s no comparison between who has engaged in more corruption and who is more likely to continue that if elected President of the United States.”

    Again, you are in over your head.

    • Replies: @Precious
  141. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    No, it doesn’t. You’re being other than truthful here.

    The President of the United States doesn’t get to decide what the executive branch does? Who does POTUS report to on that?

    “I don’t have to avoid answering the question, I don’t answer it because I just don’t care.”

    You do care, you just don’t want to be honest about it.

    Ok Corvinus, you win. I finally forced myself to read past the word Obama. In answer to your question, yes Obama has a First Amendment right to dig for dirt on his political opponents. If he finds information that causes the American people to not vote for his opponent, then the American people obviously appreciated the favor because that information was important to them. It would also be a rare instance where tax payer dollars sent as foreign aid actually benefited the American public. Of course, Obama would probably release the information long after it would be too late to select another Republican candidate. Which is why we know Trump digging for dirt on Biden is about justice and Biden is running as a desperate attempt to protect himself. The Democrats have plenty of time to pick someone else.

    LOL. Lev Parnas made his way to Washington, D.C. today. He wants to serve as a witness. His plane ticket was provided by Chuck Schumer.

    ^This is true. When the Democrats thought they could get his testimony without cross examination.

    Democrats WANT him to testify,

    ^This is no longer true. Parnas is already discredited. He doesn’t work for the State Department, he can’t fire anyone in the State Department. Neither could the waiters and the chefs at that dinner. If Trump had turned to the bus boy and told him to fire the Ukraine ambassador, it would be just as much a joke as telling Parnas. The Democrats know his story won’t survive cross examination.

    More importantly, why hasn’t Trump declared his intention to also testify…and show up?

    I assume because he is setting a trap and he likes keeping people off balance. I know, I know, you will tell me again he doesn’t want to testify.

    Through the protocol, which you deny the history and context, as I conclusively showed.

    I conclusively showed Trump has a precedent for Giuliani, you didn’t show anything.

    “Schiff’s own impeachment report laid out Trump’s motive was concern about corruption and that the aid to Ukraine would be stolen.”

    Alleged concern, as Schiff noted, and then he laid out how it was a quid pro quo.

    Schiff failed to lay out any quid pro quo. There was no investigation announcement, which would be the quid. There was no denial of aid, which would be the quo. All Schiff managed to do was establish that any quid pro quo, if it does exist, was for the benefit of the American people.

    One of Trump’s lawyers, Patrick Philbin, was asked by Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski today if Trump had ever complained about the Bidens BEFORE he got into the race AND if Trump was concerned about Ukrainian corruption prior to Biden entering the race. Philbin said he could not point to anything specific. You would think that he would have an exact answer.

    Biden entered the race before Trump heard about Ukraine corruption from Putin, Orban and Giuliani. You mixed up the chronological order.

    Furthermore, Philbin made the argument that Trump had a good-faith basis to believe a criminal investigation of Hunter Biden was warranted in 2018…before Biden entered the presidential race. So why did Trump wait an entire year?

    Why rush? Hunter Biden isn’t going anywhere. You and the Democrats would be making the exact same accusations if Trump had started earlier.

    Of course, the problem is that all of those allegations were retracted in June 2019 before Trump’s July 2019 call. Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office not once but twice, i.e. two different people. Why?

    It doesn’t matter, the allegations are back on, and Giuliani says he has all the incriminating evidence.

    “The Senate decides if they will hear more witnesses and then Trump will, I expect, testify at the right moment to maximize drama.”

    You mean if four moderate Republican Senators vote with Democrats. You are expecting wrong to think that Trump will testify.

    You have made your position abundantly clear, and so have I. Should we keep arguing about it through the Senate trial or set that aside until we find out for sure?

    So, why is he blocking his own White House staff and possibly John Bolton?

    He wasn’t blocking anyone. The Democrats never issued real subpoenas which require compliance. They rushed to court to withdraw one of their fake subpoenas when a administration official went to court to challenge it, so the judge couldn’t rule on it.

    “You lied about Sondland’s testimony, and I called you out on it.”

    I did no such thing.That’s you being stubborn. 🙁

    Sondland backtracked his claims of a quid pro quo, admitted he only assumed it, and even admitted Trump told him he didn’t want a quid pro quo. You didn’t mention any of that.

    Please note you have Senator Braun (R-IN) stating on TV that he is not opposed to Bolton testifying, but that he would not change his vote. When asked why not vote to have witnesses come forward, he dodges and evades.

    Instead of going on and on and on about witnesses when neither of us has changed our position, maybe we should just wait for them to vote on it.

    Please note that Trump has massive business interests in both China and Turkey, so when you hear that Bolton was concerned that Trump was doing personal favors for the leaders of China and Turkey, you know Bolton is talking about quid pro quos.

    Is this real or anonymous sources?

    Why not enable Bolton to tell the Senate his side? Remember, Attorney General Barr had discussed with Bolton his concerns about potential Trump quid pro quos here. Barr then denied that conversation took place. Why not have Barr testify?

    You sure you want Barr to testify that your talking point is made up?

    Please note that Alan Dershowitz said yesterday that IF there is a corrupt quid pro quo, you have Bribery and it’s impeachable. Guess what? That is EXACTLY what Bolton is saying, and Trump’s lawyers and McConnel want to block his testimony? Again, if it was the “perfect call”, why be fearful?

    Bolton didn’t say anything. Anonymous sources are saying he said something. I will wait to hear what Bolton does say, or the book. Whichever comes first.

    Please note that Dershowitz also said in 2016 “When you compare that to what Trump has done with Trump University, with so many other things, I think there’s no comparison between who has engaged in more corruption and who is more likely to continue that if elected President of the United States.”

    Obviously Dershowitz has learned a lot about fake news since then. And how dishonest the Democrats are. If Trump was so corrupt, there would be a criminal statute violation in those impeachment articles, and Dershowitz wouldn’t be on defense. There isn’t any such violation, so Dershowitz is standing on principle and fighting for truth, justice, and the American way.

    Again, you are in over your head.

    Fourth time again with that closer. You going to switch that closer up with “You aren’t paying attention” closer? Or have you misplaced that closer?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  142. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “The President of the United States doesn’t get to decide what the executive branch does?”

    That is a strawman on your part. The executive branch follows protocols when it comes to criminal investigations, and Trump did not follow those procedures like past presidents.

    “In answer to your question, yes Obama has a First Amendment right to dig for dirt on his political opponents.”

    Except it’s not a First Amendment issue. Moreover, Trump was not digging dirt on Biden for justice, he was doing it for political purposes first and foremost.

    “Parnas is already discredited.”

    Actually, he has credibility. Remember, he was taking his marching orders from Giuliani.

    “I conclusively showed Trump has a precedent for Giuliani…”

    In your own mind, yes. But not in reality.

    “Giuliani says he has all the incriminating evidence.”

    Allegedly. So let him testify. Why won’t he come forward?

    “He wasn’t blocking anyone. The Democrats never issued real subpoenas which require compliance.”

    Actally, Trump has blocked administration officials from testifying and the Democrats issued subpoenas that were “real”.

    “You sure you want Barr to testify that your talking point is made up?”

    I just want him to testify period. And, no, it’s not a made up talking point.

    “Bolton didn’t say anything.”

    Actually, he said several things. Again, why not let him testify?

    “Obviously Dershowitz has learned a lot about fake news since then.”

    First, he hasn’t. Second, Fake News is a myth.

    “If Trump was so corrupt, there would be a criminal statute violation in those impeachment articles…”

    Actually, the president can commit an impeachable high crime without violating the federal criminal law OR with a basis that there were laws broken. To conclude otherwise would be to ignore the original meaning, purpose and history of the impeachment power; to subvert the constitutional design of a system of checks and balances; and to leave the nation unnecessarily vulnerable to abusive government officials.

    Again, you’re in over your head here.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Precious
  143. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    The executive branch follows protocols when it comes to criminal investigations,

    Most of the time.

    and Trump did not follow those procedures like past presidents.

    Because he doesn’t have to. If he wants to go outside procedure, he has the authority, because he is President. If going outside procedure means the investigation violates constitutional safeguards, then the defendant can use that at trial. The procedures do not bind POTUS, they are there to assist POTUS in avoiding mistakes. The US Constitution binds POTUS.

    Except it’s not a First Amendment issue.

    Wrong, digging for dirt is a First Amendment right. Information is protected under the First Amendment.

    Moreover, Trump was not digging dirt on Biden for justice, he was doing it for political purposes first and foremost.

    I already proved that is false, thanks to Adam Schiff’s impeachment report.

    [Parnas] has credibility. Remember, he was taking his marching orders from Giuliani.

    Wrong, Parnas will get destroyed by Trump’s defense team if he takes the witness stand. No one is going to believe government business is conducted at those expensive dinners. Let Schumer grandstand by inviting Parnas to watch the trial. I am not fooled by Schumer’s posturing. Giuliani couldn’t fire State Department employees either.

    “I conclusively showed Trump has a precedent for Giuliani…”

    In your own mind, yes. But not in reality.

    Wrong, Colonel House is the reality, and he isn’t the only unofficial lieutenant of a past president. You asked me for a precedent from a past president. I gave you one. You then ignore it and pretend that Trump had to follow “proper protocol”. You lied to me when you asked for evidence, and made me waste my time looking it up, because the evidence you asked for wasn’t important to you at all.

    “Giuliani says he has all the incriminating evidence.”

    Allegedly. So let him testify. Why won’t he come forward?

    He is coming forward. It is up to the Senate if he releases it at the trial.

    Actally, Trump has blocked administration officials from testifying and the Democrats issued subpoenas that were “real”.

    Wrong, the fake subpoenas were never real. This was covered during the Senate trial. The House never used real subpoenas because they didn’t have the full House vote to authorize impeachment proceedings until later. They could have reissued the subpoenas after the impeachment was authorized, but they didn’t. Trump didn’t block anyone from testifying, the House has to follow the law and they did not.

    I just want [Barr] to testify period. And, no, it’s not a made up talking point.

    Absolutely a made up talking point.

    Actually, [Bolton] said several things. Again, why not let him testify?

    He has not said what you claimed he said. Bolton is staying mum. You made a claim based on an anonymous report that can’t even provide a single sentence from the book as a citation. We will find out what was really said.

    First, he hasn’t. Second, Fake News is a myth.

    You are such a worthless liar. Fake news is all over the place, and you yourself have told people in other posts that what they said was fake news when responding to them.

    Actually, the president can commit an impeachable high crime without violating the federal criminal law OR with a basis that there were laws broken. To conclude otherwise would be to ignore the original meaning, purpose and history of the impeachment power; to subvert the constitutional design of a system of checks and balances; and to leave the nation unnecessarily vulnerable to abusive government officials.

    ^Another common lie used as a talking point. In 1805, the US Senate made an important precedent: it rejected politically motivated impeachment in acquitting Justice Samuel Chase because his conduct violated no criminal law. In 1868, they repeated that precedent in acquitting Andrew Johnson. As Benjamin Curtis said for Johnson’s trial, “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor, without a law.”

    Again, you’re in over your head here.

    You aren’t fooling anyone with that continually recycled closer.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  144. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    So it looks like the GOP are voting NOT to have any witnesses, even as Bolton reveals more relevant information and one of Trump’s lawyers in his defense has played an integral role. So much for Trump wanting to testify and having EVERYONE come forward–the Bidens, Mulvaney. Parnas. It’s not about the rule of law, it’s not about political party.

    “Because he doesn’t have to. If he wants to go outside procedure, he has the authority, because he is President.”

    Not unless that authority leads to impeachable offenses and illegal acts.

    “digging for dirt is a First Amendment right. Information is protected under the First Amendment.”

    Except if the means by which that information obtained was unlawful.

    “I gave you one. You then ignore it and pretend that Trump had to follow “proper protocol”.”

    Except with Colonel House, he was not seeking dirt, but rather he was involved in the Paris Peace Conference. Furthermore, the Secretary of State and Congress was informed about his involvement. Again, protocol was followed here, NOT with Guiliani. Remember, Schiff’s report has stated that he was engaging in deception and conduct that put the presidency in peril, i.e. impeachable offenses. Why do you constantly misrepresent what Schiff says?

    “He is coming forward. It is up to the Senate if he releases it at the trial.”

    Except the Senate does NOT want ANYONE to testify. Why is that if they want the truth to be revealed about corruption in the Ukraine?

    “You made a claim based on an anonymous report that can’t even provide a single sentence…”

    Actually, there are several credible reports about Bolton’s knowledge about the matter. Why not have him speak?

    “Wrong, the fake subpoenas were never real. This was covered during the Senate trial.”

    No, the subpoenas were real, as uncovered during the Senate trial.

    “Wrong, Parnas will get destroyed by Trump’s defense team if he takes the witness stand. No one is going to believe government business is conducted at those expensive dinners. ”

    First, Parnas worked for Guiliani. Second, Parnas was following Guiliani’s orders. Third, that government business was recorded. Fourth, Trump does NOT want him to testify. You are WAY out of your league here.

    ” Fake news is all over the place, and you yourself have told people in other posts that what they said was fake news when responding to them.”

    LOL, no Fake News is other than real and not all over the place. What you are doing here is being a slave to confirmation bias. It’s much easier to dismiss anything entirely from an opposing side. That way you don’t have to think.

    “In 1805, the US Senate made an important precedent: it rejected politically motivated impeachment in acquitting Justice Samuel Chase because his conduct violated no criminal law.”

    Here is the proper context that once again you lack. And, of course, the situation is not analogous to the Trump case.

    https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.htm

    Keep it up being way in over your head!

  145. Precious says:

    So it looks like the GOP are voting NOT to have any witnesses, even as Bolton reveals more relevant information and one of Trump’s lawyers in his defense has played an integral role. So much for Trump wanting to testify

    Well, you were right, no witnesses, and I was wrong.

    Not unless that authority leads to impeachable offenses and illegal acts.

    We will see if the Senate finds those impeachable offenses to be real. Illegal acts are a criminal statute violation.

    Except if the means by which that information obtained was unlawful.

    And if it is, Biden can use that in court.

    Except with Colonel House, he was not seeking dirt, but rather he was involved in the Paris Peace Conference.

    Irrelevant. Digging for dirt is a First Amendment right.

    Furthermore, the Secretary of State and Congress was informed about his involvement. Again, protocol was followed here, NOT with Guiliani. Remember, Schiff’s report has stated that he was engaging in deception and conduct that put the presidency in peril, i.e. impeachable offenses.

    Schiff has yet to show that. Wilson was having Colonel House work in diplomacy, so everyone could know. Giuliani was investigating criminal actions of government officials, informing everyone tips off the criminals.

    Why do you constantly misrepresent what Schiff says?

    I am not, I am pointing out exactly what Schiff’s impeachment report does, which is introduce the exculpatory motive for Trump’s behavior.

    Actually, there are several credible reports about Bolton’s knowledge about the matter. Why not have him speak? First, Parnas worked for Guiliani. Second, Parnas was following Guiliani’s orders. Third, that government business was recorded. Fourth, Trump does NOT want him to testify. You are WAY out of your league here.

    It doesn’t matter Parnas was following Giuliani’s orders, neither can fire anyone in the State Dept. Government business is not conducted at those political fundraising dinners. And the Democrats don’t want Parnas to testify because he has nothing to offer them. But, if I am wrong, then the Democrats can open up another impeachment and call Parnas and Bolton to testify, we will see if they do. I thought Trump would want witnesses in part so that the Democrats would not be able to go back for a second round of impeachment. As far as I know, nothing stops them from doing that after acquittal.

    No, the subpoenas were real, as uncovered during the Senate trial.

    ^This is a lie. The House impeachment managers had no answer when they were asked why they didn’t let a judge rule on that very question. The subpoenas were fake. You can see that in the letters themselves, which contain no penalty for non-compliance. By definition, a subpoena has a penalty for non-compliance.

    LOL, no Fake News is other than real and not all over the place. What you are doing here is being a slave to confirmation bias. It’s much easier to dismiss anything entirely from an opposing side. That way you don’t have to think.

    Wrong, there is still plenty of fake news and it is one of the reasons Dershowitz defended Trump. I am not dismissing anything without addressing it, I am countering your talking points with the facts.

    Here is the proper context that once again you lack. And, of course, the situation is not analogous to the Trump case.

    Of course you would say that. You won’t admit that Trump’s impeachment is politically motivated like Chase’s impeachment was. As was Johnson’s impeachment.

    Keep it up being way in over your head!

    You aren’t fooling anyone.

  146. Corvinus says:

    “Digging for dirt is a First Amendment right.”

    Not if the means by which to collect that dirt are illegal.

    “It doesn’t matter Parnas was following Giuliani’s orders, neither can fire anyone in the State Dept.”

    Except Giuliani was not working for the State Department, and Guiliani was usurping its authority.

    “Government business is not conducted at those political fundraising dinners.”

    Of course it is, as evident by Parnas and the recordings.

    “You won’t admit that Trump’s impeachment is politically motivated like Chase’s impeachment was. As was Johnson’s impeachment.”

    There will be political motivation…to follow the rule of law.

    • Replies: @Precious
  147. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    Not if the means by which to collect that dirt are illegal.

    Obviously.

    Except Giuliani was not working for the State Department, and Guiliani was usurping its authority.

    Wrong, Giuliani was acting as an independent lieutenant for the President, so he derives his authority from the same source as the State Department.

    Of course it is, as evident by Parnas and the recordings.

    Baloney. Let Parnas play the recordings at the next impeachment hearings and testify if the Democrats want. He will get discredited by cross examination…if the Democrats allow cross examination at all.

    There will be political motivation…to follow the rule of law.

    If following the rule of law had been the motivation of the entire jury at the Senate trial, Trump would have been acquitted by a vote of 100-0.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  148. Corvinus says:
    @Precious

    “Giuliani was acting as an independent lieutenant for the President, so he derives his authority from the same source as the State Department.”

    Doesn’t work that way as I stated earlier. And, again, Parnas worked for Giuliani, helped to dig dirt up, and said that their means were other than legal. This angle will continue to be looked at by the House and by federal investigators.

    “Let Parnas play the recordings at the next impeachment hearings and testify if the Democrats want.”

    Not if, Democrats WANT him to tell his story. Republicans do NOT want him to testify.

    “He will get discredited by cross examination…if the Democrats allow cross examination at all.

    There will be cross examination, and Parnas will implicate Giuliani for malfeasance, regardless if there is another impeachment.

    “If following the rule of law had been the motivation of the entire jury at the Senate trial, Trump would have been acquitted by a vote of 100-0.”

    LOL. You really are in over your head here.

    • Replies: @Precious
  149. Precious says:
    @Corvinus

    Doesn’t work that way as I stated earlier.

    You erroneously stated that earlier, and I refuted you. You don’t understand the US Constitution.

    And, again, Parnas worked for Giuliani, helped to dig dirt up, and said that their means were other than legal. This angle will continue to be looked at by the House and by federal investigators.

    Not federal investigators, just the House. The federal investigators are putting the case together against Parnas for his illegal activities that have nothing to do with Trump. The reason Parnas is talking to the Democrats is because the DoJ doesn’t believe him.

    Not if, Democrats WANT him to tell his story. Republicans do NOT want him to testify.There will be cross examination, and Parnas will implicate Giuliani for malfeasance,

    ^Wishful thinking. Senator Blumenthal already contradicted Parnas at the Senate trial. But I am sure if the Democrats keep working with Parnas they will all eventually get their stories straight…until Republicans cross examine Parnas and catch him in another lie.

    LOL. You really are in over your head here.

    You aren’t fooling anyone.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS