Columns, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics

You Want Impeachment? Find A Quid To Go With The Pro Quo

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of the still developing Ukraine story. The testimony yesterday and release of the information on the complaint still lacks the critical nexus needed for a public corruption crime. If you establish the basis for such a crime, then the use of the separate server becomes a serious problem as covering up a crime. But you still need a crime. Otherwise, Trump can argue that he had been the victim of leaks about diplomatic calls and they took the step to better control access to such information. So, if you want impeachment, find the quid.

Here is the column:

The transcript of the call from President Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is enough to make Edwin Edwards blush. The infamous Louisiana governor once bragged, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or live boy.”

Even after the July appearance of Robert Mueller before Congress to discuss his findings as the special counsel, Trump apparently felt no qualms about calling Zelensky the following day to press him about investigating his main political opponent, Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden. It is breathtaking to read Trump trying to convince Zelensky to do him a “favor” by going after the Bidens and suggesting meetings with Attorney General William Barr and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Yet for those hoping to find a dead promise or a live Russian in the transcript, they will be disappointed again. The transcript lacks a critical element needed for impeachment, which is evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump never connects the investigation with the roughly $400 million in military aid. While he discusses the aid, he never suggests he will not send it. That does not mean a case for impeachment or criminal prosecution cannot be made. Unlike the prior impeachable offenses suggested by Democrats, this allegation of self-dealing could be both an impeachable offense and a federal crime, though neither would be easy to prove.

Past suggested impeachable offenses either have been facially ridiculous, like the comments Trump made about Charlottesville or his criticism of national anthem protest kneelers, or legally flawed, like the Russia intervention or obstruction theories. The closest viable claims are his payments to alleged former mistresses that are in the criminal plea agreement of his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

This is different. If a quid pro quo was proven, it would be self-dealing and an abuse of public office, and that can be a crime. Just ask disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He was convicted after calling other political figures to leverage the appointment of a new United States senator, to replace the newly elected President Obama, for his own political gain. While some of us were highly critical of that prosecution, because politicians routinely use such decisions to their own benefit, Blagojevich was found guilty and his conviction was later upheld.

Yet such cases have a mixed record. Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell was convicted of using his office to benefit a businessman who gave him and his wife various gifts. I was also critical of that prosecution, and it was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Then there was the prosecution of Senator Robert Menendez, who helped a wealthy doctor and donor with various government problems. The doctor in turn spent lavishly on Menendez, who actually pressured officials in cases benefiting the doctor, and helped him secure visas, yet Menendez was acquitted.

So what would Congress need to establish a strong case in light of this transcript? Some have argued that it does not matter if Trump never raised the military funding as leverage with Zelensky, but it does matter. There is nothing illegal in a president complaining about the lack of an investigation into corruption, even by a political opponent. The transcript does not show Trump demanding a political charge but an investigation.

The transcript has material that will help Trump, who has maintained that he held back the aid to try to get other countries to pony up in support of Ukraine. In the call, Trump tells Zelensky, “We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing, and they should be helping you more than they are.” He speaks at length about the need for those countries to contribute, and Zelensky agrees.

Trump further asks for access to a computer server and references Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity company related to the Russia hacking investigation. Former FBI director James Comey referenced Crowdstrike as one of the critical elements in the investigation, and that investigation is being reviewed by United States Attorney John Durham. A computer server and other information connected to the Russia hacking evidence would likely assist Durham in his investigation. The references to Barr in the transcript could be defended on that basis.

The quid may still be out there, but it will not be found in this transcript. The most obvious place to look is with witnesses who may have heard Trump make the linkage. The most intriguing of those possibilities would be former national security adviser John Bolton, who Trump recently fired and then maligned. Bolton reportedly was irate over the freezing of Ukrainian military aid, and he could have the knowledge and motivation to supply information. It also is reasonable for Congress to say that, with a half billion dollars on the table, it is hardly necessary to state the connection. Yet presidents often have such leverage over countries.

The references to Barr can be defended, but they are still a matter of legitimate concern for Congress. Trump repeatedly says he will have Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky, and Zelensky says a new prosecutor is set to look into the matter. Yet the problem for potential prosecution is that nothing came from those referrals. The Ukrainians never contacted Barr, and Barr never had anything to do with the Biden controversy. Barr was also unaware of the call and of Trump making references to him.

Trump is a recidivist in the law of attempt. He often proposes ridiculous actions, like firing a special counsel, but what follows is nothing. Advisers like Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have become masters of listening to his tirades and then going about their business. The chances that Barr would work with Ukrainians to hunt down the Bidens is about as likely as Trump suggesting he would be a shoo in for the Nobel Peace Prize “for a lot of things” if the system was not rigged against him.

As shown by McDonnell and Menendez, these types of cases are difficult to prove, even when actions are taken. This would be an attempt to perform an act that is itself a controversial basis for a criminal charge. Zelensky says the Ukrainians were already looking at all such matters, and Barr was never told, let alone enlisted, to help out. It would be like the McDonnell case in which the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the governor took “official acts” in calling Virginia officials on behalf of the business except, in this instance, the calls to Barr never took place.

Absent a clear quid pro quo, a Senate impeachment trial could be a grotesque scene. The Trump team would certainly point out that the Obama administration directly used a secret court to investigate his political opponents on claims that were based in part on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign. The trial would highlight the dubious money given to Hunter Biden by Chinese and Ukrainian interests while his father negotiated financial and political agreements.

While many in the media have chosen to focus on the narrow question of whether Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its corruption prosecutor to protect his son, there is a more important question of whether the family profiteered during his term in the White House. Few people believe the Chinese and Ukrainians searched the world for a financial or energy genius and came up with Hunter Biden. He happened to be the son of the vice president, who reminded the Ukrainians that he would decide whether they received over a billion dollars in loans and support. Hunter Biden has contradicted his father denying he had no knowledge of and never spoke to him about the Ukraine dealings. That would be a painful Senate trial, culminated by Menendez voting as one of the jurors.

Despite efforts of critics to downplay the underlying allegations, the Biden affair would be relevant to the merits of such a trial. If Trump simply picked up the phone and asked a foreign leader to investigate Elizabeth Warren without any outstanding allegations of corruption, it would be impossible to defend. The problem here is that the Biden contracts do appear to involve corruption, precisely the type that Biden lambasted when he bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

If one agrees that the windfall contracts secured by Hunter Biden were obvious influence peddling, then Trump pushing for an investigation into that possible crime becomes more defensible. It does not, however, make it right. Trump clearly tripped another wire for possible impeachment, immediately after the special counsel made his final report on prior controversies. Congress is justified in investigating, and the transcript is not the entirety of the evidence that might show the intent or act or corruption. All this is why House Democrats still need to find the quid.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He also served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

363 thoughts on “You Want Impeachment? Find A Quid To Go With The Pro Quo”

  2. NYT Now reporting that Ukraine didn’t know the 400 million was being withheld when Trump spoke to Zelensky. If you don’t know about the threat you can be extorted. Another Titanic-style fail brought to you by America’s Communist Party and their press corps. And another “scandal” disproven according to the usual algorithm.

        1. Anonymous……Yes. Today the NY Times is correct. “The Gray Lady” is a fickle thang, with her fog, her amphetamines and her pearls.

          1. mespo…….That too…..and also they have 20 yr olds writing for them, whose elders are happy to let the toddlers make editing decisions. No one has ever said no to them.

            2. Cindy, hi,

              Last night I seen some comments on a thread here I forget where?

              Squeeky/Paul, you, maybe others were commenting on poetry & Squeeky posted a short poem about darkness.

              Let me just suggest people shouldn’t allow themselves every to dig further into darkness, but start digging themselves out of darkness.

              Among other things last night I was thinking of this songs lyrics I couldn’t remember.

              But know this is one that shows people one of many ways out of darkness:

              2. Oky1 – poems about darkness are often people working their way out darkness. The nice thing about literature is that all subjects are on the table and you can decide to read it or not. For instance, right now, I am reading a book that seems to be about a woman murdering her husband and then going silent/mute for years.

                  1. Cindy Bragg – at this point of the book, we have two narrators, the patient (murderess(?)) and the psychiatrist. She is in an asylum. He is trying to get her to talk. No success so far.

                    1. Paul C. ….sounds like a good one!
                      I just ordered The Little Princesses, about the childhoods of Queen Eliz and Margaret, written by their nanny.
                      The Royals didn’t know nanny Crawford was writing a book, and when published, they were so furious that they banned her from the family for life! Elizabeth never saw her again. And I thought my parents were strict! 😊
                      Enjoy your read.

                2. Mr. Schulte,
                  You may not want to leave that book in a place where your wife could find it.

                  1. Anonymous – it is for my book club, which now make me wonder about the woman who selected the book. 😉

                3. poems about darkness are often people working their way out darkness.

                  Whenever I’m asked why Southern writers particularly have a penchant for writing about freaks, I say it is because we are still able to recognize one
                  – Flannery O’Connor

                  1. Estovir – my mother introduced me to Flannery and I have been a big fan since. 😉

    2. Okay, Mespo, it’s all over then. That was quick. I guess Congress can take a recess after all.

      1. Hill,
        If it was reported that President Trump told the Ukraine government that they would not receive $1 billion in aid if they did not fire a prosecutor, that may or may not have been investigating a company Trump Jr.. was on the board, would you accept any claim that this was not worth further investigation?

          1. Olly it sounds on the surface like you’re posing a “What About?” Like What About Obama, maybe.

            And honestly I’m just guessing. I haven’t googled this. But I suspect a rightwing media story alleges Obama committed this very deed.

            So no one should even question Trump’s integrity! Like the impeachment inquiry can be slapped down with a ‘What About?’ Like ‘What Abouts are presented in Federal Courts. And scholars like Turley craft ‘What Abouts?’ all day.

            Or maybe Trumpers are consumed by ‘What Abouts’. They become like pack-rats, in fact, letting clutter pile. Junk they should have thrown out years ago. It piles like kindling wood in a small apartment. Becoming a big torch.

            Then one day a fire starts. First Responders are endangered. Entering a smoked filled apartment piled high with clutter. And that’s the Republican party now. First responders risk their lives to save an eccentric old fool.

            1. Olly it sounds on the surface like you’re posing a “What About?”

              Come on Hill, it’s a hypothetical question intended to challenge your objectivity. It’s not a trick question. If you’re intellectually honest, you would not redirect the question to something you feel safe to answer. No mention of Obama, no mention of Biden, just pure Trump.

              Give it a go, if you’re being intellectually honest.

              1. How ’bout Romney as next year’s nominee? That might sound pretty good before this autumn ends. There’s still plenty of time to dump Trump from the 2020 ticket.

                1. Still time for Hillary to jump in the race, too.
                  Plenty of time for the Democrats to give the nomination to her.
                  Hill, you might convince the GOP to dump Trump in exchange for an ironclad promise to run Hillary again.
                  Let the negotiations begin!

                2. How ’bout Romney as next year’s nominee?

                  You’ll notice that the candidates of the Donorist Fredocon element in the Republican electorate won all of 25% of the ballots in Republican primaries and caucuses in 2016. You’ll also notice that in the last 40-odd years, candidates for the presidency could be sorted into the following categories: (1) those who never ran a competitive campaign; (2) those who ran one competitive campaign; (3) those who ran two competitive campaigns; and (4) those who ran more than two competitive campaigns, with the last being as an incumbent president. Hubert Humphrey is the last person who ran without falling into these categories, and three of his four campaigns were under the ancien regime in the nominating process.

                  Peter fancies Republican voters will dump a satisfactory executive (something they haven’t done in four generations) because of a Biden family scandal. Peter eats paint chips.

                  1. Your primaries are being eliminated so I don’t think Republican voters will get that choice.

                    1. I don’t think Romney would win. But he might prevent the GOP from suffering a major wash-out.

                    2. Yeah, Bill Weld would make an awesome opponent. Almost as impressive as Paul McCloskey and Harold Stassen.

                3. Not only does Peter and the left want to make up crimes committed by the present President, they want to say who should be the next Republican nominee. Romney already ran. To you Romney’s greatest acheivement is that he hates Trump. Let him run on the Democratic ticket if you can wipe out all the false claims Democrats made against Romney when he actually did run.

                  It doesn’t matter which person the Republicans nominate. Democrats will behave pretty much the same. The only reason Trump is getting so much more flack is that he didn’t succumb to Democratic slanders. A match between Trump and Romney would lead to a Trump victory.

            2. “Olly it sounds on the surface like you’re posing a “What About?” Like What About Obama, maybe.”

              Peter, I think what Olly and many others are setting is a standard . You don’t have standards so you believe that judgement of wrong doing is purely based on political affilliations. If we all do that there is chaos or war. Why are you against standards? The answer is simple. Those that you believe in can’t live up to standards that change with the wind.

              Question the standards all you want but standards are created to a great part based on past behavior.

      2. And they did that precisely to avoid the blowback. Existential
        Threat they said. Yeah, right. There will never be a vote on impeachment in the House until Trump wins in 2020. Then it will fizzle into a rebuke. Trump is their daddy and Pelosi knows it. She just wants to keep her crime syndicate intact until the squad is vanquished in November.

  3. GIULIANI CANCELS PAID SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT..

    AT SUMMIT HOSTED BY PUTIN

    DENIES HE KNEW PUTIN WOULD BE THERE

    Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose actions as President Trump’s personal lawyer have helped set in motion an impeachment inquiry, abruptly canceled his scheduled paid appearance at a Kremlin-backed conference in Armenia next week.

    Giuliani, who confirmed to The Washington Post on Friday morning that he would attend the event, reversed himself that evening after The Post reported on his participation in the meeting, which Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and other top Russian officials are expected to attend.

    The two-day conference is sponsored by Russia and the Moscow-based Eurasian Economic Union, a trade alliance launched by Putin in 2014 as a counterweight to the European Union.

    According to an agenda for the event posted online, Giuliani was set to participate in a panel led by Sergey Glazyev, a longtime Putin adviser who has been under U.S. sanctions since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine five years ago.

    Giuliani said Friday evening that he was no longer planning to attend the meeting. “I didn’t know Putin was going,” he said in a brief interview, adding in a text: “Discretion is the better part of valor.”

    The agenda for the Eurasian conference showed Giuliani was the only American scheduled to speak at the gathering.

    In an interview Friday before canceling his plans, Giuliani angrily rejected questions about whether it would be appropriate for him to attend the event at which he also appeared last year.

    “I will try to not knowingly talk to a Russian until this is all over,” he retorted.

    The former New York mayor confirmed in the interview that he intended to accept payment for his appearance but declined to say how much he would have received or which group or person was going to pay him.

    “It goes to my company,” Giuliani said.

    The White House and State Department declined to comment.

    The conference is a regular summit of the Eurasian Economic Union, an economic trading union whose members are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia.

    It is the brainchild of Putin and was created in response to democratic upheavals taking place at the time in former Soviet countries. Putin has aimed to use the group to establish Russia as a bulwark against Europe and a center of gravity in the former Soviet region, describing the EEU as “a new supranational union that could become one of the poles of the modern world.”

    An agenda of the two-day summit says it is focused on transit in the region. The agenda, which was posted online in English, states clearly that Putin is set to take part in the official closing ceremony on Tuesday with Rouhani and leaders of the EEU’s other member countries.

    Giuliani said Friday evening that “I’ve never seen the website,” adding: “I thought I was speaking at an Armenian security conference.”

    In a text, he added that the event “wasn’t that important.”

    “I don’t need to give the Swamp press more distractions,” he added.

    Giuliani had been scheduled to appear on a panel titled “Digital financial technologies — new opportunities for integrating payment systems of the Eurasian continent in transport logistics.”

    Edited from: “Giuliani Cancels Paid Appearance Next Week At Kremlin-Backed Conference”

    This evening’s Washington Post

    1. Regarding Above:

      This looks about as bad as it gets. Giuliani pretends he didn’t know Putin would be there and claims he thought it was an “Armenian Security Conference”..??

      Since when does the president’s lawyer accept paid speaking engagements without knowing what the event is even about?! It certainly calls into question Giuliani’s role as shadow envoy to Ukraine. One doesn’t have to be too cynical to think Trump and Giuliani were cutting off Ukraine as a favor to Russia.

  5. The Fake News Media lies all day long. All the Democrat party does is LIE. Deceive. Obstruct. Resist. And attempt, for nearly 3 years, to overturn the results of the election. This will not stand. The Democrats and their media propagandists are destroying themselves and the country. All to regain power. At any cost.

    This is war.

  8. Pingback: You Want Impeachment? Find A Quid To Go With The Pro Quo – Legal Service for Business

  9. BREAKING: Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

    Intel Community Secretly Nixed Whistleblower Demand Of First-Hand Info
    Federal records show the intel community secretly revised a whistleblower complaint form to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

    1. “BREAKING: The intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblower complaints contain only direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing allegations.

      A new version of the complaint form allowing hearsay was secretly revised last month.”

      What was it Schumer said? The intel community has six ways from Sunday at getting back at you? Indeed. And here we go again.

      There better be indictments and prison time for everything these c*cksu**ers did. Every last one of them from Brennan and Comey on down the line.

        1. If the impeachment process proceeds quickly and fairly, then the damage to the United States as a Republic can be contained.

          If it’s drip drip drip and constant mass media slanders all the way, nonstop “guilty until proven innocent” from the Democrats and their lackeys, along with more Deep State sabotage, then things will start to break loose in an ugly way as the peasants start wanting to grab pitchforks and rope

          the breathless losers on NPR are absolutely orgasmic over these exaggerated developments

      2. “What was it Schumer “said? The intel community has six ways from Sunday at getting back at you? Indeed.”

        And most people don’t know that half of it

        “There better be indictments and prison time for everything these c*cksu**ers did. Every last one of them from Brennan and Comey on down the line.”

        Oh, yeah. If people only knew… We’re seeing the tip of an effing iceberg.

        1. What Schumer and the IC haven’t figured out is that come Sunday, God will get things back on track. So there’s that. 🙂

    2. ah, laying the prep for the plot.

      so hearsay is good for whistle-blowing now. ah, that will cut both ways in the future

      so much for security

      meanwhile all those old whistle-blowers are scratching their heads over this one

      let’s check in with John Kiriakou former CIA agent, the guy who blew the whistle on how they waterboarded one guy like 300 times. and oh, he went to prison for that alright.

      https://twitter.com/JohnKiriakou/status/1176844271007260674

      “Ukraine whistleblower’s lawyers work for group that offers to pay officials who leak against Trump”

      I GATHER JOHN’S NOT IMPRESSED!

  10. WILL FOX NEWS STAY IN TRUMP’S CAMP?

    FORMER SPEAKER PAUL RYAN COULD HAVE A SAY

    Ordinarily, I’m skeptical of the power of media organizations — even Fox News. Though it is the most-watched cable (shall we say) “news” channel in the United States, its average primetime viewership of about 2.5 million people is less than 1 percent of the nation. The audiences for MSNBC and CNN are typically even smaller. Most Americans have better things to do with their evenings than to be harangued about politics.

    As it happens, Trump’s crisis finds Fox News at a turning point. With the sale of his company’s movie arm to Disney, founder Rupert Murdoch has cashed out a large part of his empire while anointing his eldest son, Lachlan, the chief executive of the media business. The death of Roger Ailes, accused sexual harasser and Fox News visionary, opens the way to fresh thinking — which the channel sorely needs, given its median audience age of about 65 .

    Amidst this flux, it is intriguing that Fox News added a veteran politician to its rather compact board of directors earlier this year and placed him in charge of nominating future board members. Paul D. Ryan, former House speaker, has as much reason as any conservative Republican in America to nurse a gigantic grudge against the president. To have him advising the new Fox News leadership on strategy and future directions cannot bode well for the aging star of the Donald Trump Show.

    Let’s recall who Ryan was at the point when the rogue missile from Manhattan locked onto the leadership of the GOP. A strapping fellow from Wisconsin who preached fiscal responsibility and “The Book of Virtues,” Ryan was No. 2 on the Republican presidential ticket in 2012. When he was elected speaker at age 45, he became the youngest person in almost 150 years to hold the third-highest office in the land.

    Arguably, Ryan was the face of the GOP’s future, but after just two years of carrying water for Trump, the budget-busting boor shredded Ryan’s credibility as a fiscal hawk and dented his reputation for decency. In 2018, he declined to run for reelection.

    So Ryan has clear eyes regarding the fates of any who linger too long in the Trump embrace. Vanity Fair magazine’s resident Fox News-watcher, Gabriel Sherman, quoted an unnamed executive at the channel as saying: “Paul is embarrassed about Trump, and now he has the power to do something about it.”

    That said, as long as Fox News is giving prominence to such cynical remoras as Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, embarrassment alone is unlikely to carry much weight. Fox News will need a plausible alternative story line if it is to bring its glorification of Trump to an end. Readers of the political winds should pay close attention to the way Fox News covers Vice President Pence in the next few months. A Midwestern conservative and former House colleague of Ryan, Pence is a readily available narrative twist. If we start hearing stories on Fox News about his brave behind-the-scenes battles to steer a course through the Trumpstorm, I’ll venture that impeachment has gained the upper hand.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Fate Is In The Hands Of Fox News”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Paul Ryan is exactly the last person to listen to about anything. He is weak. He is spineless. He was Mittens Romney’s running mate. Enough said.

      1. But Paul Ryan might get even with Trump by swaying Fox coverage. Old Roger Ails is dead and Murdoch has retired.

        1. that’s NPR all day long, praying for defections

          Republican defectors will never be forgiven. If any dare at this moment.
          They will look over their shoulders forever.

          Let’s see what you guys can come up with. Since men don’t have a place at the Democratic High Table anymore (Sleepy Joe bye bye) I doubt many will be planning it. See you already got the likes of Flake the Flake and Azzman Amash. Not much left for ya now.

          1. Yeah and John McCain and his McCain Institute had a key hand in delivering the “dossier” to key players so as to get the party started to take down Trump. Anyone who respects McCain is dirt in my eyes. Yeah he punched all the holes in his ‘war hero’ card a long time ago. Now? McCain’s circus of a funeral that HE himself planned to be ALL about HIM –including not one but TWO former POTUS’s singing his praises??? OMG. Made me sick to my stomach to watch. My my how highly Senator McCain thought of HIMSELF and his grossly politicized funeral. Nauseating IMO.

            Bush Sr.’s funeral was a class act by comparison to McCain’s self aggrandizing political circus.

            1. I didnt know Mccain. But I know a guy who was locked up with McCain, in fact I know two. I did ask the one I know better. about his service and in very deep detail for a university project. and I also asked him about mccain. Oh and he was locked up longer than John, too. He respected him as he did all the other aviator prisoners there. That was a little bit like damning with faint praise. But he said they all knew his daddy was huge in the navy. so there was that. He wouldn’t say much more than that even when I prodded him a little. most people who know this guy never knew he went through all the same, because this guy wasnt out there patting himself on the back for it in public about it for decades like McCain, a shameless self promoter of the first order. My friend, just a humble hard working guy. Very conscientious professional, real team player and a gentleman. Same thing the other one I knew, who’s dead now.

              You know who he really respected? Jeremiah Denton

              If you never heard of him look into it. now he was a real leader of men

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

              1. “McCain, a shameless self promoter of the first order.”

                That should be on his tombstone.

              3. Denton put his knowledge of Morse Code to good use.
                He paid a heavy price for that, but he sure got his point acrossed.

        2. Who’s Paul Ryan? The atlas shrugged geek? oh him. LOLZ no you guys got to be kidding me. you pin your hope on a boring guy that you used to mildly dislike. but a wimp so you like him as captive opposition. sorry, wimps are not in style anymore! but you can have him

        3. Fox News will dump Ryan before they ever dump Trump — as Ryan is calling for. What a lightweight.

    2. Got news for ya. Nobody likes Ryan anymore. Not you guys and darn sure not us.

      You can put out your welcome mat for Republican investment bankers like Romney and other system hacks all you want. You can have him! You’ve already got a party crammed full of them. Remember their favorite candidate? Hillary

      Now imagine investment bankers backing Liz Warren. ha, some actually do! talk about fake “resistance”

  11. Biden is probably happy the Dems are falling on their swords inflicting injuries to themselves and hence aborting their impeachment circus

    Cant they do anything right?

    “Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) on Friday introduced a motion to condemn and censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) for performing a fabricated conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his opening statement at a panel hearing Thursday morning.

    “During yesterday’s hearing, Chairman Schiff’s opening statement included a blatantly false retelling of President Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president. Democrats previously initiated an impeachment inquiry, which leads to one of the most serious, constitutional duties of Members of Congress: removal of the President of the United States,” Biggs, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “Through this process, if the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors, Congress may overturn the election of the President and the will of the American people. It is therefore inexcusable to toy with the process and mislead the American public with such a statement.”

    Breitbart

    1. No, it’s not.

      “The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

      Ukraine’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor’s office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft.

      “This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s envoy to Ukraine.

      “There is still a lack of tangible results of investigations into serious cases . . . as well as investigations of high-level officials within the prosecutor general’s office,” he added.

      Mr Tombinski said the EU was also concerned about the resignation or dismissal of several “reform-oriented” prosecutors and reports that Mr Shokin’s office was investigating a “highly-respected” anti-corruption group – an obvious reference to Kiev’s Anti-Corruption Action Centre, which had fiercely criticised Mr Shokin.

      In what appeared to be his last act before dismissal, Mr Shokin sacked his deputy, Davit Sakvarelidze, who had repeatedly called for his boss to be fired.

      Mr Sakvarelidze, a Georgian who was also chief prosecutor in the Odessa region, said his dismissal by Mr Shokin was part of “a cleansing of people who are prepared every day to fight corruption and the old guard without compromise”.

      https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

      1. Well, if Joe Biden was just helping root out “corruption”, and sooo concerned about “honesty”, and doing what was right then how come he didn’t tell his cokehead son to get his a$$ off that board??? That is what an honest person would have done. NOT, carry the cokehead off to China to get in on managing $1.5 Billion.

        You see, that is the problem with MASSIVE F’ING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. That is why people avoid even the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. How come Joe Biden didn’t and how can anybody be sure if he is corrupt or not? BECAUSE, while you point to what people in the EU said – dang if Joe Biden didn’t go and do it again for the cokehead in China.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Im a registered Democrat though I did not vote for Hillary nor Obama, but neither Trump. I was going to vote for Biden over Trump because as a Catholic I saw some semblance of a good Catholic soul in Joe, though a politician at heart ala Clarence Thomas confirmation and Obama’s VP. The issues with his family are his alone, but his lying about Hunter, and enabling Hunter with all of the perks of royalty, connections and extravagant wealth for a loser son, lead me to believe Joe is a snake. They are all snakes. So I’ll be writing in the family dog’s name again for president unless if Romney throws his hat in the ring.

          So yeah, Romney….no muy bueno. Hunter should be in prison

          Time to go home and eat with family….

          g’night

          NB: Peter Shill, ceftriaxone and doxycycline are no longer working against STD N. gonorrhea. Make sure to double glove tonight in WeHo, assuming anyone is stupid enough to think youre a fun time

          😉

          1. Ask Clarence Thomas what he thinks of Joe Biden. Thomas said the lyrics to the song “Smiling Faces Sometimes Tell Lies” perfectly describes Joe Biden. Smile to your face, then stab you in the back.

            Good Ol’ Joe — that’s the version of Joe he sells to the stupid voters. Joe is not the man he sells to the public. He is a corrupt scheming, lying, denying, pocket-lining polititician. We all see that now. In spite of the Media’s best efforts to cover for Joe and his family.

          2. I would go for Joe over Obama, Hillary or Warren. Tulsi Gabbard is their best candidate, and she would have the same problems as Trump – she is an outsider.

            So, I am voting for Trump again. Believe it or not, I was going to vote for Hillary before the stupid email thing, and before Trump got in. I voted for Romney back in 2012, but he has turned into some kind of wimp who thinks he can make the NYTs like him. Nope, never gonna happen.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

              1. Anonymous – I am not zoned for ponies, but Vermin Supreme is a candidate I could support. I would say “get behind” but he has all those ponies. 😉

                  1. Anonymous – AZ used to count all write-in votes, however now they only count declared write-in candidates, so my votes for Mickey Mouse are being discarded. And I am upset with Disney, so I need a new throwaway vote. I suppose I could vote for Voldemort.

                    1. Paul—Good riddance. Mickey Mouse, MM, was a bad dude. Here, you will see in Bimbo’s Initiation (1931).

                      During the fall from grace, MM locks him in. Smh.

            2. I/m a Republican from day one. But I sat Romney out. Always disliked him. I have left federal office boxes blank more than once. I never leave local or state blank.

              Many elections including recent i have voted for a state or local Dem here and there. Nearly every time. Since I know a lot who are quality people. Going back decades. There have been a lot of fantastic Democratic rank and file and leadership in our great nation’s history even within memory. Many I have liked a lot better than silkstocking Republican types.

              I have given money and even worked for them with easy stuff and hard stuff too. I have done a lot more for Dem candidates who wanted to sign me up for what I had to offer than I have for arrogant Republicans and their tight knit cliques. If I ever get invited to events I get invited to Dem ones. They all know I like Trump and welcome me for our shared principles and interests nonetheless. this is the beauty of politics in America in the past.

              I’ll tell you another little spoken fact in the media and that is a lot of Democrats including some good local politicians I have known are humble and decent people who are secretly extremely conservative, and a lot of the haughty Republicans have been snooty, hypocritical liberals putting on a big fake show.

              Donald’s way above me, I don’t know the guy. I just like how frank and open he is. He’s not fake! And sincerely concerned about trade industrial policy and keeping us out of needless wars. Look at how he avoided the recent provocations when the Saudi refinery got attacked! He’s delivered on a lot of promises. that makes him a rare bird.

              But now the Dem leadership since the election shenanigans and their engineering the covert wiretapping of his campaign with phony FISA warrants just sickens me with disgust. If you understand what was wrong about Watergate then you know what they did to the Trump campaign was wrong too. And since day one it has been pure sabotage and no fair play. The last few overtures I got for help from Dems, I had to turn away out of pure disgust with what the leadership in Washington is doing.

              I even knew people who were in the Hillary and Obama camps who were decent, I knew them going up a lot higher than I’ve known the Republican sides. I’m a nobody pretty much, so nothing impressive about it, just an everyman who’s found himself in interesting companies more than a few times. Just a few things to give me insight that a lot of people in politics really do mean well and try hard including Democrats. But my contacts are all mostly off the stage now, and not one of them struck me as the kind of dirty low down skunk like the kind they have operating in this farce now. The way they have stabbed Joe Biden in the back to cook up this mischief against Donald is despicable! The way they are pandering to “the squad” in this thing is a pathetic and regrettable and very poor choice of direction. Shamefully bad judgment and it will cost a lot of good people hard earned votes as the average joes can see where the wind is blowing.

              I thought Trump was going to lose but I voted for him all the way anyhow. He’s put starch back in Republican sails. They stick together now, they’ll have my support. They fail to back Donald, they’ll never get a lick of anything from me again. Except a gob of spit and a door slammed in the face.

              I’m watching Democrats too. The ones who are responsible are going to be reserved about this troubling stuff like Tulsi. There is a place for Congressional oversight. If it becomes pure sabotage and concealed coup attempts however then it is despicable. And if it’s going to be pandering to extreme left nutjobs like AOC then my associations with them will be severely truncated too very close to zilch. Nobody will miss me too much but I will have nothing left for this political system if it keeps going the way it’s going.

              “judge ye and prepare to be judged” –Ayn Rand

              1. Tulsi:

                “Up to this point, I have been opposed to pursuing impeachment because it will further divide our already badly divided country,” she said in a statement. “However, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukraine’s President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump’s comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent.”

                “If we allow the President to abuse his or her power, then our society will rot from top to bottom,” she continued. “We will turn into a banana republic, where people in positions of power—from the president all the way down to the traffic cop—will feel it’s okay to abuse their power with no consequences.”

                1. “…will feel it’s okay to abuse thier power wtih no consequences.”

                  Like James Comey? John Brennan? Andrew McCabe? Susan Rice, Samantha Power? ETC….right??????

                  There better be indictments and prison time.

                    1. he should have kept his big yap shut about that too. that was loretta lynch’s call. and slick willy compromised her. really pathetic how comey stepped out of his lane on that one. but you can thank bill for pulling her aside and lynch for being caught off guard.

                      now get out your bank account number and get to writing a bounty for your sleazy backstabbing covert slimy CIA coup plotting friends and their lawyer. he needs a new boat and its going to cost a lot more than the $100,000 he already collected.

                      https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-anonymous-intelligence-official

                    2. Just so we’re clear on who’s campaign Comey f….d and who’s he protected.

                      Some Deep State conspirator!

                    3. This is the thing. Comey very well may have intended to attack both campaigns.

                      Look up operation Gladio and the “Strategy of tension.” It’s entirely possible that there is a Deep State and that they precisely intend to unbalance both political parties and keep anybody very strong from getting in charge.

                      That would explain them doing a stunt on Hillary, She was strong in a lot of ways that they may not have liked. It would explain their animus towards Trump, and even their animus towards Joe Biden who has a lot of political capital compared to the other contenders. Well until this thing happened that is.

                      Obama was weak when he won. He had a lot of help to get where he was. they liked that. Once he was in charge, he had a hard time delivering on his peace promises because they were gunning for nonstop war the whole time. He was able to deliver some diplomacy on Iran, only let things get bad to a point in Syria, and then caved in on Libya. I think he was a sincere trier of diplomacy, but he was cunning and wasnt going to go too far.

                      Now Trump is not like Obama. He really think’s hes in charge and he acts like it. The bureaucrats hate that.

                      But I Know. You think the Deep state is a myth. Like I said, look up Operation Gladio and the strategy of tension, the times of lead in Italy. It’s for real.

                      It’s just like cops who pay informants in two different rival gangs at once. They play them off each other to keep them weak. Think about it.

                      It’s the attack on the electoral system as such. the bureaucrats are not elected. they hate the power that the voters still have, to the extent we still do.

                    4. Kurtz, there is no “they”. There might be “theys”, but no one is powerful enough to control everything. Powerful groups – “theys” – might fight it out for control, but that’s it..

                      Too many movies.

                      If you’re concerned about powerful forces controlling our democracy you should be concerned with the GOP closing off primary elections. That’s not secret, it in your face.

                2. That’s ok. She can say that. A fair inquiry is part of Congressional oversight.

                  And we can welcome the process even of impeachment to proceed if the house wants to vote it. But there will be a fair process and a fair trial and vote in the senate.

                  but Trump can confront his accusers and out the dirty tricks. He can engage in discovery and investigation too. He can pitch his own defense, and it’s up to those who make an assertion to prove their case. Always as a matter of pure logic, even in impeachment.

                  And at every juncture there will be hands to be played. We’ll see how it turns out.

                  And when he wins in the Senate, then it’s on to the election. And we can see how that works too.

        2. http://www.detective-ukraine.com/

          The going rate to hire these guys is said to be $35 an hour.
          Best to hire them first, before Perkins Coie or Fusion GPS grabs them first for the 2020 campaign.
          The Trump-Russia bit didn’t work out too well, so these guys might hammer out a “Trump-Ukraine Dossier”, at a fraction of cost of the Trump-Russia Dossier.

      2. The fact that the EU and Ukraine’s parliament would be opposed to Viktor Shokin doesn’t support your argument. On the contrary, they would have every reason to want Shokin out of the way to protect their own corrupt activities. Also proving your assertion false is that there have been zero negative statements or comments about Shokin prior to his investigation of the Biden affair. Zero. If any of the claims about Shokin had any merit whatsoever, there would have been a record of them prior to Shokin’s abrupt termination. But there were no records whatsoever remotely suggesting that Shokin did not do a good job. Shokin had a personnel file so clean you could eat off it. The fact that $1 billion was on the line because of Biden’s admitted threat against the Ukraine–based solely on the benefits to his son–is obviously far more compelling evidence of what actually happened here. Only a deluded fool or someone suffering from acute TDS, or some combination thereof, would conclude otherwise.

        1. That’s wrong:

          ” The Wall Street Journal reports, is that “Shokin had dragged his feet into those [Zlochevsky] investigations, Western diplomats said, and effectively squashed one in London by failing to cooperate with U.K. authorities.” In fact, Shokin was widely viewed as corrupt and ineffective. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden,” says Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

          Zlochevsky’s allies were “relieved” by Shokin’s dismissal, The New York Times reports, because while “Shokin was not aggressively pursuing investigations into Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma,” he “was using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team.” Zlochevsky has never been convicted of any wrongdoing, despite “a push by Obama administration officials for the United States to support criminal investigations by Ukrainian and British authorities, and possibly for the United States to start its own investigation, into the energy company, Burisma,” and Zlochevsky, the Times adds. Biden never did anything to deter those efforts, his former colleagues say…..”

          https://theweek.com/speedreads/866959/trumps-allegations-about-joe-hunter-biden-dont-seem-have-merit-even-make-much-sense

          1. So maybe Trump and Giuliani were barking up the wrong tree. So what? I’ll bet they got a lot of other facts wrong, too, you guys never tire of reciting Trump’s errors’

            It doesn’t prove that there was any corrupt intent. You have only innuendo and no proof corrupt intent and that’s what’s needed to bring a massive process like impeachment into play responsibly.

            But the Dem leadership was milking the rah rah resistance for its energy and promotion and dollars for years and so it had to deliver.

            Oh, the thing may run off the rails before the House votes. But they’ve bitten off more than they can chew.

            However, YOU CAN HELP THE GALLANT HEARSAY QUOTING CIA WHISTLEBLOWER. HE HAS ALREADY COLLECTED $100,000 FOR HIS FANCY EX CIA LAWYER AND YOU CAN HELP MAKE MORE MONEY FOR HIM TOO. DON’T SLACKEN IN YOUR ENTHUSIASM NOW ANON PUT YOUR $ WHERE YOUR HOPES LIE

            WITH A COTERIE OF CIA SPOOK SABOTEURS, SAD!

            https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-anonymous-intelligence-official

            1. Error? You mean they didn’t mean to use $.4 billion in federal funds to wreck Biden’s 2020 election prospects?

              Say what?

              1. not what i said but why would they bother. biden was obviously going to be stabbed in the back by the screeching harridans and civil rights fanatics ere long. if i could see that, they were smart enough too.

                it was clear the way Kamala viciously attacked him, biden, in a debate, before this thing happened, that he was going to get hammered by those who presume to control the black vote with sensational commentary, in spite of biden’s previous solid support from blacks, and service for obama. well, they’ve done him in good now. you will see. he has zero chance of winning the nomination now.

                also. trumps the top LEO anyhow, if he called for investigation it was not prima facie wrong. maybe the local cops are investigating you too and they’re wrong. they can be wrong, it’s part of the job.

                1. Whether you think they should have bothered or not, they did.

                  PS There is no conspiracy of cigar chomping pols deciding anything, though there are money bag guys spending millions on campaigns but also millions of small contributors spending $50. Ultimately the primary voters decide, not Tammany Hall.

                  1. It’s Tammy Hall now man. Know full well from now on who wears the pantsuit in the Dem family.

                2. joe was guilty of not being enthused about climate change too. they were beating him up on npr about that before this story broke.

                  sleepy joe, the guy who could appeal to those blue collar voters who liked trump., no wonder they hated him! they hate those voters so why wouldnt they hate a guy they might like too

                  see this is the logic of tribalism in play. it’s called group forming consciousness. it has its own blood level power. complicated stuff like principles and policies are not the primary factors in the POTUS election. it’s about who will get to pick the one who calls more important discretionary shots than anyone.

                  it’s always been in play. as soon as massa tom put down his quill yakking all that equality stuff, he had a black slave fetch his dinner. we can’t get away from it. equality before the law is a good ideal and worth trying for in a justice system, but when you get into elections all that individualism stuff goes out the window.

                  Your new Amazonian Pantsuit Masters, or should we say Mistresses, they dont want anybody even remotely like trump up there. the mere fact joe biden is a successful old gropey hetero cisgendered white guy with northern european ancestry is enough to DQ him. too much like trump, man. it was only a matter of time.

                  1. Who’s “they”? You’ve got some conspiracy with Pelosi and “the Squad” on the same team. They hate each other. Biden has been leading polls recently and that’s due to the debates where being less than sure footed has cost him votes, not climate change.

                    The most centrist candidate in the field – Klobuchar – wears pants suits and I’ve been for her for 8 months.

                    2. Tulsi wears pantsuits too but you should see her exercise. Check her out on instagram. She’s swell. I wont hold the pantsuits against her. I wonder if I could tell her she had a great bod, would she hold it against me? ha

                      Pelosi and the Squad do hate each other but Pelosi is caving in to them. Who knows if she has decided to try and turn them into allies or what. Clearly Pelosi was chary of this approach. And they were not.

                      Because Pelosi remembers how it failed against Bill Clinton. And you should too. I do. I wonder how many regular Joes ended up liking Bill Clinton more and more as the whole debacle played itself out. Yes we shall see if Donald does not end up walking the same trail.

                    3. Pelosi was reluctant until her swing suburban district members went for it, not the squad.

                      For me – and I assume partly for her – at some point you have to damn the torpedoes and do what’s right and not become laughing stock for avoiding it. Trump left no room to maneuver.

                      Remember that Clinton sported a 60% approval rating by the time he was impeached and his dick cost Gore an easy election. Trump is at 40% at best and will take a regular, constant, and detailed beating during the hearings.

                      For a balanced view of what may happen Ramesh Ponuuru writes:

                      https://www.omaha.com/opinion/ramesh-ponnuru-impeachment-is-no-longer-a-political-loser-for/article_7f738112-b56d-5e3d-9da5-e7dff3912f40.html

            2. it’s amazing that Democrats have their nose so firmly planted in the crack of the CIA. I never met a bunch of Democrats that wanted to brown-nose the CIA so ardently. It’s truly pathetic. Now I find the agency impressive as an organization but keep in mind it’s an expert in toppling governments from its very inception right on up to today. And I think they’ve had a hand in domestic politics in a way they shouldn’t have from day one. right on up till now.

              Here’s what a couple earlier prominent Democrats had to say.

              “In examining the CIA’s past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.”

              Read more at https://www.quotetab.com/quote/by-frank-church/in-examining-the-cias-past-and-present-use-of-the-us-media-the-committee-find#6eAcRB7WWagS7fT7.99

              “The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation.” — Prof G. Robert Blakey, said long years after the HSCA did its investigation of the JFK assasination and issued its report.

                1. oh, you can think whatever eases the pain of this farce. I wish you well. let’s chat again soon.

                  2. Agree with Kurtz.

                    The CIA is involved in some wicket sh*t that needs to be exposed and stopped — including activities on US soil, again. No f*cking oversight.

                    2. I like RT but have been wasting too much time here yakking with you to keep up on the Kremlin’s press releases.

                      I’m also studying a treatise on PRC army’s theories of conflict. Translation’s not that good, tough slog.

                    3. Ignorance is bliss, as it’s said, and Anon1 would know.

                      Though Anon1 doesn’t know as much as he (she?) believes he does.

                    5. A couple of comments by Anon1

                      “See that on Russia Today?”

                      “What I don’t know I try to not talk about until I do.”

                      Well, Anon1, you might want to think twice about running your mouth because — believe it or not — there are clearly some things you don’t know.

    2. Thank you for posting that, Squeeky Fromm, GR. I don’t think the media will be interviewing Viktor Shokin anytime in the foreseeable future, even though he is a real whistleblower, and is one of the key people responsible for exposing Biden’s corruption. The Democrats and their media allies instead want to rocus on the fake one assigned by the CIA (or some other government agency led by operatives opposed to Trump).

      The following are several important passages from Shokin’s statement:
      ———————–

      The official reason put forward for my dismissal was that I had allegedly failed to secure the public’s trust. [Ukraine President] Poroshenko and other state officials, including representatives of the US presidential administration [i.e., Obama and Biden], had never previously had any complaints about my work, however. There were no grievances against me or any allegations that had I committed any corruption-related (or, indeed any other) criminal offenses. Biden never stated anything of the kind either.

      The circumstances of my dismissal were that I tendered my resignation to the Rada at the request of President Poroshenko. Poroshenko asked me to resign due to pressure from the US Presidential administration, in particular from Joe Biden, who was the US Vice-President. Biden was threatening to withhold USD$ 1 billion in subsidies to Ukraine until I was removed from office. After I yielded to the President’s request and submitted my voluntary resignation, Poroshenko commented about it in the media.

      The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings (“Burisma”), a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors. I assume Burisma, which was connected with gas extraction, had the support of the US-Vice President Joe Biden because his son was on the Board of Directors.
      ————————-

      Of course, the Democrats and the anti-Trump Republicans not only don’t care about this story–the real one that should be investigated–but they want it covered up. Trump’s “crime,” if you want to call it that, was that he wanted to expose Biden’s actual corruption. Once again, Trump’s opposition is engaging in the classic psychological defense mechanism known as “projection.” They deflect their own treacherous acts onto someone else.

      1. I am glad you liked it. I think Shokin made a good point too about how if FR was really guilty, they would have facilitated his re-entry into Ukraine so he could be arrested. NOT, try to keep him from coming back. I think somebody(s) in the Democratic Party stood to make big bucks off the Ukrainian regime change. Just like in Libya, with the ouster of Khadafi. Little Sydney Blumenthal was over there trying to score something.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  14. The real crime is the amount of out of work cigarette in one hand jacket sleeves rolled up comedian wanna bees trying to use the ridiculous to break into the beeznuzz. But perhaps maybe we have discovered the source of ‘Why the Loser Party is so unsuccessfu.”

    1. https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1177261315670384649

      Steve Scalise
      @SteveScalise

      We have the transcript.

      So why did Schiff make up his own version of the call in a Congressional hearing?

      Because he knows the transcript shows no quid pro quo or crimes.

      Dems are literally making stuff up now because they have no legitimate reason to impeach @realDonaldTrump.

      Brit Hume
      @brithume
      If the conversation were as damning as Schiff et al would like, he would have simply read directly from it, instead of making up dialogue. Probably not surprising in light of the extravagant collusion claims he made for 2 years.

      1. Pretty weak when the best you’ve got is complaining about a sarcastic paraphrase. Of course Trump followers are known for their linguistic fastidiousness.

        1. Mark Levin wants Adam Schiff to release 90 days worth of his text messages, emails, phone calls. Splendid idea

          —-

          “When it comes to Trump, Democrats and the media are like drug addicts looking for their next fix…Their eyes are popping out of their head. The sweetbreads are coming down their face.

          They’re really freaking out… I can tell you that a CIA agent can’t write something like this, this is a legal brief,” said Levin.

          First of all, as a practicing lawyer, I went through this. And I can tell you that a CIA agent, who is a policy guy for Ukraine can’t write something like this. This is a legal brief. This was vetted through lawyers. I want to know who wrote this. I want to know who this man spoke to…

          In the New York Times today which, of course, runs cover for the Democrats and goes after the President of the United States, they say today that this man’s lawyer, who by the way, worked for Schumer and Clinton, doesn’t want the identity of this man known.

          Too bad pal. Too late. You want to impeach our President using this BS. We want to know all about your guy. And I love today’s hearing where they wrap this guy in the whistleblower statute…

          He knew nothing, he heard that certain people at the White House were upset…Isn’t it funny that not a single person with first-hand knowledge filed a whistleblower complaint?

          This guy files one. This guy’s represented by Democrats. I want to know if Adam Schiff, the Democrat staffers or any of the Democrats were involved in orchestrating this. This leak and coupe campaign. Did it in Russia, did it with Kavanaugh, it’s the same damn thing.

          This is a rogue CIA agent. People might say, but it’s the CIA. Look what they did to the FBI. Look at this guy Brennan, a complete reprobate.

          You know, when the CIA overthrew the Iranian government years ago, the liberal Democrats were upset. When they overthrew Allende in Chile, a socialist marxist, the Democrats were upset. When they tried to overthrow Castro, the Democrats were upset…But when they try to overthrow our President, they’re whistleblowers. They’re heroes. They’re courageous. Mr. Schiff, why don’t release 90 days of your phone calls? 90 days of your texts. 90 days of your emails. Cause I know something pal. You’re a leaker. You’re devious. Same with your staff.”

          Mark Levin
          redstate.org

          1. Oh, the puny one who tries to sound tough but sounds like a girl?

            Too stupid to know it’s irrelevant who the WB is?

            That Mark Levin?

    2. Thanks for sharing that. And I appreciate the memorable quotation from H.L. Mencken in that blog where he says, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” Mencken always had a wonderful way with words.

    1. Either on Alex Jones show or the War Room today, one or both of them had USC law expert Robert Barns on explaining what looks to be the crimes by those involved in attempt to change the regs on what a whistle-blower is.

      Anyway, lots of those videos posted daily at the site

      banned.video

    2. I would recommend the Republicans keep an eye on the Democrats other hand, because this impeachment hand is a dead end. They will be looking for better election insurance than they got last time.

  17. The article is a bit of a “squid”. Any President has the right to inquire of another President or leader of a foreign country if an American is engaging in some kind of squid deal. Biden’s son was getting paid a fortune. For what?
    Also. Is Ukraine a member of NATO?

    1. He didn’t “inquire” about an event which occurred 2 years prior, he asked for an investigation.

      The Ukraine is not a NATO member.

      1. “He didn’t “inquire” about an event which occurred 2 years prior, he asked for an investigation.”

        Typical BS from Anon. He is telling another that the word “inquire” is wrong and says Trump asked for an “investigation”. One has to laugh at this joker Anon. He is pretending to know what was said and berating another individual for using an alternative word which was more correct than the one Anon suggested. No formal *investigation* was being requested requested.

        The words used are copied below.

        “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole si�uation with Ukraine, they s_ay Crowdstrike…”

          1. Anon, you are just providing more BS to cover the earlier BS tracks. You talk without knowledge except for the knowledge being pumped into your head by left wing hit sites. You said Solomon lied about providing documents to back up what he said, but the documents were provided. You only read the hit pieces and never read what Solomon wrote. Typical of you. Nothing you say can be trusted.

  18. The treaty that Oky1 referred to is “Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.” It was submitted by President Clinton and ratified by the Senate.

    If you combine that with the constitutional requirement that the president must take care that law is faithfully executed, wouldn’t the current resident be obligated to ask Ukraine for help in getting to the bottom of that country’s involvement in the collusion fiasco as well as weather or not Hunter Biden’s position and his father’s demand that a prosecutor be fired violated US law?

    Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.

    1. I made several attempts to post articles about this firm but none of them would stick. Funny how that goes. But it would seem that Trump is heavily influenced by urban legend here. However this firm has been used by the Republican National Committee according to USA Today. But again, I couldn’t post that story.

      Still it is strange that a U.S. president was pursuing conspiracy theories with a foreign leader. That aspect of this story has been under-played.

        1. The above validates what I’ve always said about youtube videos with regards to political discussions. Any nutcase can post a youtube and they’re generally a waste of time in the course of serious debates.

          1. If he wasn’t a nut, HE’D POST IN ALL CAPS BETWIXT AND BETWEEN BOUTS OF TOILET TRADING.

            2. Tabby, you’re out of the closet and projecting on me. What a sleazy scumbag you are. Typical of Trumpers.

              1. Peter Shill talks like that, not that Peter Shill would use sock puppets but in your case socks full of loads from your WeHo hoes

                1. Estovir, you’re more ridiculous than Absurd.

                  Today you claim ‘students wanted you as a mentor.’.?? What a joke! Who, in the name of God, would want a boor like like you mentoring their kid? A coward who resorts to homophobic taunts because he can’t win an online debate. Like ‘you’ would ever qualify as a mentor?? ..Give me a break..!!

                  Then the other night, for no particular reason, you posted some long boring article on religion just to remind us how pious you are. A homophobic coward posing as pious! No one is more ridiculous than Estovir. And it goes to show why Trumpers are known as Deplorables.

            3. Absurb, you’re out of the closet and projecting on me. What a sleaze bag! Typical of Trumpers.

      2. This Crowdstrike crap is an effort to try to create evidence to support a bogus claim that the DNC hacked its own computer–part of Trump’s obsessive need to try to redeem himself over the Russian scandal by creating a set of Kellyanne “alternative facts”. Hill says it is “strange that a U.S. president was pursuing conspiracy theories with a foreign leader.” That’s not what was going on at all–Trump was trying to get the Ukrainian president to manufacture fake evidence he could use in his campaign by dangling military aid appropriated by Congress. The Ukrainians had already investigated the Bidens, finding no evidence of wrongdoing, and there’s no evidence that they had any information regarding the hack of the DNC’s computers. He simply wanted them to gin up something he could use. His staff knew he had committed a crime, so they hid the proof in the most secure server that exists, and the DOJ tried to squelch the entire matter. So, if you understand what a total crook Trump is, none of this is strange or hard to understand at all. Now, he’s making veiled death threats against the whistleblower, calling him a ‘traitor”, and reminiscing about when traitors were executed.

        2. As I said, Natasha, this aspect of the story is under-reported. Either Trump was expecting Ukraine to manufacture, or he honestly thought they had some involvement. Either way it reflects conspiracy theories worthy of Alex Jones.

  20. Speculation of identity of Whistleblower: Michael Barry?

    “The outlined profile, in combination with the political motive, have led many people to begin searching through: (1) current CIA operatives; (2) who come from the era of Brennan; and (3) were previously assigned to the White House (NSC); and (4) then removed; and (5) then returned to the CIA. That profile has led to suspicions of identity.

    A strong possibility for the identity, a person who checks all the boxes of known attributes, follows a trail to Michael Barry…

    Though it is speculation, the known profile fits this specific individual. Given the ‘whistleblower’ hired a well-known partisan political lawyer to represent his current accusations; and given the political nature of his claims with no direct evidence to support them; the motive of the deep state also matches the profile of Michael Barry.”

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/26/gossip-blower-is-male-cia-operative-formerly-part-of-white-house-nsc/

    1. CIA Michael Barry fits the bill…Politico article 2017

      https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/national-security-council-michael-barry-trump-243548

      CIA vet replaces controversial official for national security post

      10/06/2017

      President Donald Trump has placed a Central Intelligence Agency veteran in a key White House post that has been a point of friction with the CIA.

      Michael Barry took over as the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence programs in recent weeks, sources in and outside the Trump administration said. He replaces Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a controversial official who left in August after clashing with some CIA officials, as well as national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

      Barry’s responsibilities include helping to shape U.S. intelligence policy and decisions governing its 17 intelligence agencies. It can be an influential role given its proximity to the president. CIA, by far the most powerful spy agency in the U.S. government, prefers to see one of its own hold it.

      While in the role, Cohen-Watnick — a former Defense Intelligence Agency official hired by Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn — was seen as a CIA critic. His appointment inflamed sore feelings within the CIA’s ranks toward Trump, who once likened U.S. intelligence officials to Nazis and has dismissed their conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf.

      NSC spokesman Michael Anton would not confirm or deny Barry’s appointment. But two other officials in the Trump administration, two former intelligence officials and a fifth person with knowledge of Barry’s new role confirmed it.

      One of the former intelligence officials has been in touch with current intelligence community members who described Barry’s background and position to him. The former official said Barry has an Air Force background but declined to say if he has had intelligence experience.

      But the other former intelligence official said he knows “for a fact” that Barry has served in the CIA. It’s not clear whether Barry is still affiliated with the CIA or has formally left the spy agency. The CIA declined to comment on Barry’s appointment.

      A sparse LinkedIn profile that appears to be that of the correct Michael Barry says he served in the U.S. Air Force between 1982 and 1992, including as a special agent in its Office of Special Investigations. The profile indicates he was based in Europe for at least part of that time.

      According to the vaguely worded profile, Barry has been a “senior executive” in the U.S. government in the years since. A veteran of the U.S. Air Force, Barry also lists himself as an “executive leader” in the same profile and includes the State Department under his “interests.”

      Terminology such as “senior executive” is often how people who have served in the U.S. intelligence or other sensitive national security government posts describe their work on platforms such as LinkedIn.

      A message sent to the Michael Barry of the LinkedIn profile was not returned. A voice mail left on Barry’s work line at the White House also did not elicit a response.

    2. a friend of ours listens to Rush Limbaugh who apparently stated on his radio show that the so-called whistleblower is a CIA holdover from William Brennan. Seems very likely considering the CIA, FBI and Obama’s DOJ people have been attempting a Coup d’etat de since Trump’s inauguration in January 2017.

      Reports: Whistleblower Is CIA Plant, One of Brennan’s Men
      https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/09/26/the-deep-state-coup-hasnt-ended-its-just-taken-a-turn-toward-ukraine/

      1. https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/09/27/were-in-the-midst-of-a-cold-civil-war/

        There Is No Whistleblower, Just a Leaker! We’re in the Midst of a Cold Civil War

        Sep 27, 2019

        RUSH: There really is no whistleblower. This is just a leaker who followed procedures that have been established to give whistleblowers protection.

        The whole thing is a sham. It’s nothing more than the Steele dossier 2.0, as I have been saying all week. A couple people now have come to this conclusion. It’s the same people, it’s the same scam, it’s the same objective, and I’m gonna add a name to potential Democrat presidential nominees coming up soon.

      2. It doesn’t matter who he is.

        The IC IG is a Trump appointee and he made the determination that the complaint was credible and urgent. Since then the WH released a memo of the conversation and it contains all the necessary evidence of criminality Congress needs.

        1. the ICIG’s preliminary review found “some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate,”

          https://www.justice.gov/

          Credible that a CIA operative from Bill Brennan’s days personallt witnessed nothing…zip…nada

          Criminal is Adam Schiff lying to Congress

          Lying is what you and the trolls do on here 24/7 for your income

          1. It’s irrelevant Est, but knock yourself out.

            The IC IG is a Trump appointee and he declared the complaint credible and urgent,

            The WH released memo on the phone call in question contains all the evidence necessary for Congress impeach the President.

            Who the WB is is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.

            1. Yet here you are using all Caps sweetheart to make sure you
              a. make your point
              b. earn your salary trolling for dollars by the character including spaces

              😉

              Alachua County has nothing to offer you but an IP address to justify your existence? Would UF not hire you? Maybe you should bring back the Purple Porpoise…

              1. I feel your pain Est.

                No answer except personal attacks. You’re a scumbag so that is your default position.

                Who the WB is is absolutely irrelevant, a fact even you now dimly acknowledge.

          1. Holy Cow! What is it about all of the Democrats Coup D’etat wannabes who run to gofundme to make a buck?
            Clearly they lack the support they claim to have

            Christ I miss the cold war! LOL

        3. There is no criminality even suggested in the memo. Anon must be referring to the phony memo as read by Adam Schiff in front of the Intelligence Committee. Would Adam Schiff had to make up a memo as he did if the real memo contained the evidence of criminality. Adam Schiff is a bit crazy and seems to be getting his Schiff all over Anon.

Comments are closed.