Schiff Raises Bribery As A Possible Impeachable Offense

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has caused a stir in suddenly injecting the possible use of bribery as a basis for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Converting the Ukrainian controversy into a bribery theory is both constitutionally and historically unsound. It would undermine the credibility of the impeachment effort by struggling to reshape the facts into a more compelling criminal image. Impeachment cannot be an exercise in creative reconstruction. It is not license for imaginative or untested theories of criminality. The House needs to establish a clear and credible theory of impeachable conduct based on well-established definitions. Ironically, I testified on this issue in the Clinton impeachment hearings but last had this argument (over broadening such definitions for purposes of impeachment) with my opposing counsel in the last impeachment trial: Adam Schiff.

Note: I will be doing commentary today with CBS and BBC on the impeachment hearings.

Schiff told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep “Bribery, first of all, as the founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader. It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you’re offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation’s interest.” He added that you only have to show that the president was “soliciting something of value.”

That limitless definition would convert most of the conversations between presidents and other heads of state into potential bribery cases. Presidents often try to get every concession from aid in such conversations. Some of those concessions may clearly advantage a president as a political matter. Likewise, presidents may perform other acts that would meet such a definition. President Bill Clinton not only pardoned a family member but gave a pardon to a leading Democratic donor. The pardon of fugitive Marc Rich was widely and correctly ridiculed as an absurd and corrupt use of the authority. Was that a thing of value being offered or given in return for favors?

I previously wrote a series of academic pieces on the inclusion and meaning of these terms in the Constitution, including SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE, 49 Duke L.J. 1(1999). In that work, I discussed how the most relevant debate on this standard occurred on a single day and constitutes a couple of pages of record, including an exchange between the main protagonists, Mason and Madison. Mason objected to the use of Treason and Bribery as too limited. For that reason, he wanted to add a broader term “maladministration.” That broader meaning of impeachment was rejected. I also discussed this history as a witness during the Clinton impeachment hearings. As I testified, the trial of Warren Hastings weighed heavily on the forging of the impeachment standard. The former governor of India was charged with “mismanagement and misgovernment in India, including acts of extortion, bribery, corruption, confiscation of property, and mistreatment of various provinces.”  Notably, in light of that trial, people like Mason felt that bribery was not broad enough.

The First Congress criminalized the acceptance of anything of value in exchange for making a favorable judgment or disposition by judges. See Crimes Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 112, 117. That law, which remain in effect, prohibits “being influenced in the performance of an official act.” However, if anything, the Court has limited that definition including the decision in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).

Congress did not pass its first criminal provision on bribery until 1853 that covers both “bribes” and “presents” when they were given “with intent to influence” federal officials. Indeed, things that are barred today as corrupt gifts were not barred under early English and American notions of bribery. See Edward Coke, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Law of England 145 (1670).

 There are legitimate issues concerning abuse of power for Congress to consider. As I have written, this is shaping up as the most narrow impeachment of a president in history. Redefining the same acts as different crimes is an approach that will not broaden that foundation and will only raise questions of the legitimacy of the effort.

347 thoughts on “Schiff Raises Bribery As A Possible Impeachable Offense”

  1. NEWS FLASH FROM 11/14



    keep up the good work Mr Schiff!

  2. Adam Full-of-Schiff knows he needs to take it up a notch in the next round of hearings. Pelosi told him: “Yo Adam, You need more cowbell. And tears. You need some tears. Make sure Marie (the fired U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) brings the fake tears.” Let’s see if Adam Full-of-Schiff can deliver Oscar-worthy performances for Pelosi on Friday.

  3. Was Kent a witness for the Democrats or the Republicans?

    During his testimony before the House on Wednesday, Kent reiterated his conviction that officials in Ukraine ought to be investigated to root out corruption related to Burisma.

    “To summarize, we thought the [CEO of Burisma] had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had take an bribe to shut the case,” Kent said.

    “Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?” asked Minority House Intelligence Committee Counsel Steve Castor.

    “I think, since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe, and how much of it was paid,” Kent said.

    1. Him and Taylor both.

      It is obvious this was yet another coup attempt by those who would not accept the outcome of a lawful election. It won’t matter what the evidence is. Democrats will vote for impeachment no matter what. It’s what they ran on, and the lawlessness of promising to convict someone before this allegation was even made, and before any evidence, did not seem to trouble the Democrats who voted them in on this platform.

      Which means that a segment of the population is perfectly fine with government abuse of power, as long as it supports their own aims.

      1. Oh yes Karen, you are precisely correct about that.

        I would not consider that all Democrat voters, many of them are fine people, and we welcome their support.’

        I would consider that some. The frothing at the mouth haters, and various factions of social parasites, who can detect in Trump someone who may yet clip their wings.

        Good people need to stand up against this naked abuse of power by the Democrat leadership.

        1. I wish that moderates woudl retake their party, but perhaps they no longer have the numbers. It is notable that the field of Democrat candidaes has significantly shifted far left. There is significant support for socialism and the removal of individual rights. The more moderate candidates don’t seem to appeal to voters in the polls. Biden has shifted far more left than he ever was.

          One would think that if the Democrat voters were a majority of moderates, with just a few extremists that get all the headlines and ruin speeches, that this field would never have been put up. The vast majority don’t appeal to moderates.

          My favorite of the bunch is Tulsi Gabbard. When she stood up there, all alone, and said there were politicized motivations to the impeachment process, I cheered. That was brave. She says it like it is. But her policies are way too left for me. She qualifies as someone I admire as a person, but whose politics I mainly don’t agree with.

          Can the level headed Democrats out there make their party see reason and stop striving for some dystopian dictatorship?

        2. I note Karen and kurtz’s avoidance of the evidence, which they know almost nothing about. It is clear. He did it.

          PS We democrats are united in our revulsion at Trump and the idiots who still support him. There are more of us than you and independents hate him also. As to moderates in the party, Hillary beat Bernie worse than she beat Trump in 2016, and took the House in 2018 by taking GOP seats in the suburbs. AOC won a seat that has been Democratic since before she was born. She’s not the face of that victory, all the California Orange County representatives are.

          1. CA is as blue of a state as it is possible to be. Successful taxpayers leave the state in droves, according to data.

            That is not a victory for Hillary. It’s the math of high taxes, high spending, in a state that can’t keep the lights on, and wastes money on vacation trains over fire suppression.

            1. You are right. The 2018 House vote was not a victory for Hillary. It was a victory for Democrats and a defeat for Trump.

              1. Anon1

                Because of your continuing violations of the civility policy and specifically due to threats made against another user, your posting privilege on this website is permanently revoked. Do not post further comments.

      2. Which means that a segment of the population is perfectly fine with government abuse of power, as long as it supports their own aims.

        While I certainly agree there are those in the political class that are knowingly attempting this coup, I suspect most in the citizen class have no idea this is not the way it is supposed to work.

        Joe Biden’s truth not facts, or Quigley’s hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, or the Kavanaugh hearing, are all examples of the liberal approach to truth, where what they feel is true outweighs what the facts show to be true.

        For 3 years now we’ve seen time and again things that just leave us shaking our heads in disbelief. Many of us have tried debating these folks with direct evidence, actual quotes, videotape, audio, etc. and nothing has moved the needle. Conversely, they come back with their own evidence, primarily based on what they interpret (feel) the truth to be. And we reject it. I don’t see how this is reconcilable.

        If you look at how Democrat cities are run compared to Republican, border security, illegal immigration, climate change, LGBQT, marriage, religion, rights, and so on through their lens at getting to the truth, the only way any of it makes “sense” is if you ignore facts and go with what feels right.

        I have no data to support this, but I’m 100% confident the 25-30% on either end of the political spectrum are hard core feelings or fact based truth seekers. The middle 40-50% are a mixture of feelings and fact.

        1. Olly name the 5 biggest cities with Republican city governments. Then name the 5 biggest cities with Democratic city governments. Without even looking I will bet the Democratic cities are much, much bigger.

          Republicans generally don’t live in big cities. Their policies aren’t formulated to reach urban voters. No urban voter of sound mind is going to vote for a party that ignores infrastructure. No urban voter is going to vote for a party that wants to limit women’s reproductive choices. No urban voter is going to vote for a party that thinks the solution to urban violence is more guns. No urban voter wants to rollback standards on air & water quality. The list goes on and on.

          So your notion that cities are poorly run because of Democrats is like saying is like saying taverns are known for rowdier crowds than church socials.

          1. So your notion that cities are poorly run because of Democrats is like saying is like saying taverns are known for rowdier crowds than church socials.

            Wow! Your timing couldn’t have been better.

            While there is absolutely no evidence, no facts to support your claim that I said cities are poorly run because of Democrats, you apparently felt the truth of what I was saying, did.

            Thank you for proving my point. 🙂

            1. Olly, in other words you know Republicans cites are mostly small towns and suburbs. So you can’t possibly compare the populations of Republican-run and Democratic-run cities. You know the Democratic cities are significantly bigger with all the problems that come with large, dense populations.

              So instead you’re claiming ‘victory’ because I acknowledge big cities come with big problems. What a simpleton you are!

              1. My oh my, you are a gift.


                For the love of God, take a look at what I wrote, then take a look at what you wrote. Reconcile the posts and eliminate everything you claim I said that you cannot find in my post.

                HINT: If you have anything leftover, we can discuss.

          2. John/Peter:

            Democrats appeal to the poor by promising more expensive benefits and taking away more responsibility. They promise they will receive enough benefits to live better, while taking away work requirements. The emphasis is on adding more programs to address every possible societal ill.

            This has been going on for decades in CA. I can predict a Democrat campaign here using Mad Libs. Just select from the list of key words, and you’re in. Don’t forget to blame the rich and promise to really stick it to them.

            By now, CA should be the best place to live in the world. There should be no poverty. Everyone should be living the high life that was promised, because they said, vote for us, and we’ll make your lives better. We’re all living worse than ever. When will voters stop and think, wait a minute. You told me years ago if I voted for you, things would get better, but they’re worse. And you’re promising me the same thing, thinking I won’t notice.

            Here are the ways in which Democrats have made life far worse based on their policies:
            1. My electricity bill doubled because we were all automatically enrolled in the Clean Power Alliance at the highest level of wind and solar. It’s more expensive than conventional energy. Financial hit to Californians.
            2. High taxes drive out businesses. I’ve posted links before analyzing the exodus. They take jobs with them, leaving behind jobs like fast food. Higher unemployment or people are stuck at low paying jobs.
            3. So Democrats jack up the minimum wage. This drives more businesses under, creating a vicious cycle. More people lose jobs, so they are actually worse off than they were before.
            4. Current welfare policies punish working mothers. If you work, you lose so many benefits that you are financially worse off. They can’t afford to work for enough raises to afford child care alone, which is around $1,000 a month out here.
            5. Democrats support illegal immigration, won’t allow law enforcement to cooperate with ICE. This led to illegal alien rapist and murderers committing more crimes, when they weren’t even supposed to be here.
            6. Illegal aliens compete with poor residents for entry level jobs. They even drive out reputable businesses, because they pay illegal crews under the table, don’t pay work comp, etc. There are entire industries, such as landscaping, that are run almost totally by illegal aliens now, because legal businesses cannot compete with those who pay under the table.
            7. Common Core – in which math now takes myriad steps to do very simple math problems.
            8. Gas taxes – we’ve had several of them. It was supposed to pay to fix the roads, because the previous funds we’d voted for had been snatched for pet projects, like high speed rail. Newsome snatched the gas tax for high speed rail. This makes everything cost more out here.
            9. CARB decreed that heavy vehicles prior to 2010 may not be registered in CA. Retrofits blow up engines. This has raised the price of everything that is shipped. Many businesses are closing. Seizure of assets without compensation.
            10. Onerous permitting regulations – they are just about undoable in some areas. They make it cost as much as a house to put up a small simple barn. This makes law abiding citizens either unable to upgrade their property, or they break the permitting laws. We are not getting our money’s worth. Permits should create some benefit for us, but it’s usually just a fee generator.
            11. Potholed roads – because of the tax revenue snatching
            12. Ubiquitous fires – CA cleared native chaparral, which sequesters carbon, plants water into the ground, and stabilizes hillsides. Invasive alien species of grass and brush took over. This dries out our atmosphere, and causes fires. Result – more fires, landslides, and drier air.
            13. CA politicians refuse to spend money on reservoirs, or fire suppression. Instead, the money goes to high speed rail or other pork products. We don’t even have our own Super Scooper. We borrow Canada’s when they don’t need it.
            14. Toll roads – waste money, use taxpayer funds to build roads that we then have to pay, again, to use. These roads usually stand open, because people are getting squeezed by the government they can’t afford to use them. So instead of easing traffic congestion, it’s just another way to get more money out of us, and are not used to their full potential.
            15. Introducing political theories, such as that gender is fluid, to young children. They are told they can choose to be a boy or a girl any time of day. This creates a mental condition called gender dysphoria that has a high suicide rate.
            16. CA is seizing citizens’ water rights. They are trying to meter our wells. They did not pay to permit the well. Dig the well. Install the machinery. Hire the electrician and the plumber, but they have claimed to own that water and restrict how much of our own water we use. They will ration our own resource that we developed.
            17. New septic regulations that are very expensive.
            18. Blocking trucked in water so if your water goes dry, they try to prevent you from getting potable water. That would render your property, which you pay a mortgage on, worthless and unreliable.
            19. Prop 47 – they worded this so it sounded like they would finally do something about our water supply. Nope. It is a tax on the square footage of hard scape. You pay your property taxes. And now you pay a tax on every square foot of roof – house, barn, shaders, pump head, garden shed. They say they use GOOGLE Earth, but people have caught them taxing them on every square foot of land. It doesn’t matter if you use a cistern, and capture that rainwater runoff, you are taxed as some kind of punishment for hardscape. They want you to pay property taxes on land, but not actually use it. Another way to squeeze us.
            20. They are going after Prop 13. Los Angeles County Unified School Disctrict teachers went on strike, leaving kids without instruction. (That’s becusae they don’t care about the kids. They care about the union.) Their pension system is so underfunded, it will collapse soon.To resolve the strike, politicians agreed to put Prop 13 on the ballot. They will word this as something like, make businesss chip in for the children. However, Prop 13 stopped property taxes from taxing people out of their homes and businesses, which used to be a very common thing. Your tax bill could double year to year, until you sold or lost to foreclosure. Prop 13 stopped the usurious taxing of people until they lost their assets and their livelihood. Dems would have that barrier to their taxing addiction removed. First, they are going after businesses. Most people here do not own their own businesses, so perhaps it might pass. After all, voters are inclined to hurt others before themselves. But they would hurt themselves. As property taxes skyrocket, businesses have to raise prices, or close. That means that the cost of every good and service goes up. This mostly impacts the poor.
            21. Gas is more expensive here, not only because of the recent taxes, but because of a long list of prior regulations and taxes. That makes everything cost more.
            22. It is so hard to run a business here. We are more regulated than anywhere else. Instead of sticking to the regulations that make sense and protect the public, it is like someone on a power trip went insane on power.
            23. We don’t have reliable electricity. Electric utilities are one of the most highly regulated industries here in CA. There is oversight on what they charge, what they can spend their money on. Basically government has a huge say in what the electric companies do. Did we get our money’s worth? Well, PG&E went on a diversity kick and worked on social justice issues. CA forced it to diversify into expensive, unreliable wind and solar. However, it neglected to upgrade its equipment and sparked a deadly fire. Since PG&E got sued into the Stone Age, Edison is doing punishing blackouts, probably to agitate residents to clamor for politicians to throw money at them. Perhaps, instead of focusing on climate change and what color skin employees have, electrical companies should have concentrated on delivering electricity.
            24. Homeless Dystopia. Democrats are pro-homeless. They come up with right to sleep and right to rest laws. They prevent police from enforcing vagrant laws or loitering laws or human sewage laws. The result is a staggering zombie apolcalypse of drug addicts and crazy people pooping all over the sidewalk. They camp out in dry stream beds and litter plastic trash all over the place, to wash down to the beach during the rainy season. LA county alone spent close to $1 billion in 2016 alone on homeless, mostly on rehab and mental health, and the problem is worse, not better. I need a permit for my septic tank, but a homeless person can dump his raw human sewage in the street, and face no consequences. Occasionally, the city sends out trucks to power wash the filth, aerosolizing infectious disease pathogens in the process.
            25. Banned offering free straws because an Asian straw mutilated a poor sea turtle. Most plastic marine waste comes from Asia. In our country, the homeless openly litter with plastic, but their right to do so is defended.
            26. Businesses are prohibited from offering a thin plastic bag for free. Instead, you have to pay $.10 for each thick one. I used the thin ones as waste paper liners, and to clean to litter box. Now, I use thicker bags that put more plastic into landfills than I ever did before. This increases the cost of food for the poor. People don’t realize you have to clean reusable bags, and get food poisoning.
            27. There is a plague of rats, Hepatitis, antibiotic-resistant TB, typhus, typhoid, MRSA, and other diseases due to the unhygienic living conditions of the homeless.
            28. Theft has skyrocketed because Democrats reduced the crime. If you steal less than, I think it’s $500, then you basically get away with it. Theft has gotten out of control. This drives businesses under and increases the cost for everyone else.
            29. Car theft increased after the prisons were emptied.
            30. Since illegal immigration has overflown capacity, schools end up with so many ESL students that it slows down instruction for everyone else. Test scores plummet. Those who can move, do, to get to better schools with fewer ESL students, so their kids can get a better education.
            31.Speaking of which, the Democrat controlled public education system keeps clinging to that debunked blended learning or whole language systems. It leads to around 60% of kids not reading at grade level.

            Geez, that’s 31. There are so many ways that Democrats screw over our state, but I’ve gotta go.

            Democrats promise all these freebies and a better life, for nothing, to poor voters, who go and plow our state into the ground. Tax revenue leaves, and those who need benefits come here. At some point, it will collapse. We already have conditions worse than third worlds countries. Hollywood already films often outside of CA. If it loses Silicon Valley, that’s it.

            Do not give Democrats a super majority in your state, or the nation, or experience the dystopia that is California today.

            1. Democrats keep telling voters how bad off they are, and that they can fix all their problems.

              But it was Democrat polices who caused their problems.

              Oh, I forgot to mention the high rate of single motherhood that created the pipeline to gangs, prison, gun violence, and the morgue. Democrats punished mothers on benefits financially who lived with the fathers of their children. In fact, you get more money if you claim on the birth certificate that you don’t even know who the father is. You get benefits fasater that way.

            2. 14. Toll roads – waste money, use taxpayer funds to build roads that we then have to pay, again, to use. These roads usually stand open, because people are getting squeezed by the government they can’t afford to use them. So instead of easing traffic congestion, it’s just another way to get more money out of us, and are not used to their full potential.

              Tolls align costs and benefits precisely, so are the most pareto efficient means of financing road maintenance. You can pay for a road in your capacity as a user of the road, in your capacity as a motorist-in-general, in your capacity as a property owner, in your capacity as a consumer, or in your capacity as an earner and investor. You will always be paying.

        2. That hearsay can be better than first hand evidence was a Freudian slip. Sometimes, all you have is hearsay, such as when someone claims that the husband of a missing woman told him he’d killed her.

          But it’s not “better” than first hand. How can it be? How can “he told me he killed her” be better than “I saw him kill her”? Answer – it can’t.

          The lack of justice and abuse of power is absolutely horrifying.

          Over and over again, Democrats are guilty of what they accuse Trump of doing. It’s Biden, not Trump, guilty of a quid pro quo. It was Hillary, not Trump, who paid a foreign British spy to pay Russian spies for spurious information against her opponent, using it to launch an FBI investigation. How many times have we seen people lie to Congress and get a job with CNN? It’s Democrats guilty of abuse of power, not Trump. None of this is an impeachable offense. They are just getting sound bites for the election campaign for 2020. Socialists aren’t going to win, so they’re trying to give them a boost at taxpayer expense.

          1. That hearsay can be better than first hand evidence was a Freudian slip.

            Whether Freudian or strategic, the net effect is it plants within the mind of the listener a belief that it is a legitimate path to the truth.

    2. Since that cretin Darren has scrubbed another of my posts – so much for free speech on JT’s blog – I’ll repeat:

      Olly’s opinion article fails to note Kent’s Comments on Biden’s work as the US’s point man in the Ukraine. Enjoy, especially you Karen:

      Himes then asked Kent, “Is what the president did in his phone call and what Joe Biden did in terms of Mr. Shokin, are those exactly the same things?”

      “I do not think they are the same things,” Kent replied. “What former Vice President Biden requested of former President of Ukraine Poroshenko was the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, who had undermined a program of assistance that we had spent, again, US taxpayer money to try to build an independent investigator unit to go after corrupt prosecutors.”

      Shokin is the prosecutor Biden bragged about firing and who Karen keeps lying about as a hero who was after Hunter.

      1. Anon – point out exactly where I said the prosecutor was a hero. I said that he was investigating Burisma.

        Of course Trump and Biden did not do the same thing. There was no quid pro quo with Trump, as Taylor admitted.

        Biden said, fire this prosecutor, or I leave in 6 hours, and I’ll take $1 billion in aid with me. It’s not Obama’s call. It’s mine. Quid. Pro. Quo.

        I don’t care how many times you pick out a couple of people who claimed Biden did nothing wrong. The fact of the matter is that Demcorats are impeaching Trump because he asked Ukraine to cooperate with an investigation into allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens.

        You have vehemently argued that Joe Biden should not be investigated, because doing so might benefit Trump. Ergo, any allegations of criminal misconduct may not be investigated if it’s a Democrat candidate, because it would help Republicans. Your party is blocking an investigation into Joe Biden with everything they have, including the power of impeachment. This is all to prevent us from finding out if any criminal activity occurred. Is he using this time to smash his phones and laptops with a hammer? Using Bleachbit on his servers?

        This is utter and total lawlessness. People like you prop up dictators. When are you going to get that it’s Democrats who are trying to usurp power?

      2. Anon, Darren said you threatened someone. That means the cretin would be you, for threatening violence, rather than Darren, for removing your comment.

      3. “Shokin is the prosecutor Biden bragged about firing and who Karen keeps lying about as a hero who was after Hunter.“

        I never called him a hero. I said he was investigating Burisma, and that his firing was part of an open quid pro quo.

        Which means I just caught you lying about me, again. This is ironic, as Democrats are guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing. Here, Anon keeps calling me a liar, but is proven to have actually lied himself.

  4. Seems reasonable. Is this timeline of events accurate? Here’s a portion of it:

    At Wednesday’s debut of the impeachment hearings there was one issue upon which both sides of the aisle seemed to agree, and it was a comic-book caricature of reality.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff led off the proceedings with this: “In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation’s embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s desire to rebuild a Russian empire…”

    Five years ago, when Ukraine first came into the news, those Americans who thought Ukraine was an island in the Pacific can perhaps be forgiven. That members of the House Intelligence Committee don’t know — or pretend not to know — more accurate information about Ukraine is a scandal, and a consequential one.

    As Professor Stephen Cohen has warned, if the impeachment process does not deal in objective fact, already high tensions with Russia are likely to become even more dangerous.

    So here is a kind of primer for those who might be interested in some Ukraine history:

    1. But in the meantime, here’s the good news: We did solve at least one nagging mystery — Trump’s crime. It’s never been clear exactly what Democrats believe is the impeachable offense here. But now we know. It’s this:

      Donald Trump: Wouldn’t it actually be wonderful if we could get along with Russia? Wouldn’t that be nice?

      If we get along with Russia, we’d go out together with others and we knock the hell out of ISIS. Wouldn’t that be great?

      So that was August of 2016. “Wouldn’t it be great if we got along with Russia?” It turns out that voters agreed with that view. They elected Donald Trump president just three months after he said that.

      But permanent Washington was appalled — scandalized, really. Getting along with Russia isn’t simply considered an alternative view here. It’s a crime.

      1. Now you know why the Dems & the Rinos like Romney are trying to censor/ban Memes…. Because they’re tone deaf morons that can’t meme! LOL;)

    1. ‘Mind reading’ doesn’t mean what you fancy it means. He asked him a simple question with an obvious answer. That he wouldn’t give the answer is telling.

    2. Anon1 – some info was dropped on Kent last night that changes everything on how Kent treats corruption in Ukraine.

              1. 🙂 Hmm, not sure that would qualify as objective or biography. Seriously though, how has Soros evaded prosecution? To use the Left’s standard; I feel he has committed crimes. Is there no evidence he has?

                1. this book has an extensive study of Geo Soros and his methods.

                  read this and you can understand why millions of hong kongers have been rioting for months now and only three have been shot. this time the Chicoms were mentally prepared for the conflict.


                  the funny thing is that Steve Bannon has this much in common with the Chicoms he hates– they both hate Geo Soros. Maybe Steve should roll that around in his head some.

                  here’s a tip. Soros is all about “overcoming sovereignty.”

                  1. here’s a tip. Soros is all about “overcoming sovereignty.”

                    My original opinion of him over the years has been exactly that. And his exclusive relationship with Democrats is a tell. We are about to learn from Barr, Horrowitz and Durham what the Democrats, the alphabet soup of agencies and the media have been up to regarding our own sovereignty.

            1. Olly – since the man is moving money through corporations and foundations to other corporations and foundations, it is hard to keep a handle on him. However, I have started a habit of looking at the major donors of groups and his foundations or subfoundations often show up.

    3. Oooooh, mind reading arts.

      Once again Shill Jr, you’re projecting. I’m sure you recall Schiff’s parody of the call transcript. This entire impeachment theater is based on the Democrats ifforts at mind-reading, leading to the feeling that President Trump deserves to be impeached. FAIL!

  5. Unless Supreme Court Intervenes..

    Trump Will Have To Show Congress 8 Years Of Tax Returns

    A full federal appeals court on Wednesday let stand an earlier ruling that President Trump’s accounting firm must turn over eight years of his financial records to Congress, bringing the case to the threshold of a likely Supreme Court battle.

    In the latest of a string of court losses for Mr. Trump over his uncompromising vow to fight “all” subpoenas from Congress, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected his request that it rehear a case in which he challenged the subpoena to the firm, Mazars USA. A panel of the court had sided with lawmakers in that earlier ruling.

    The president will now appeal to the Supreme Court, said a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Jay Sekulow. If the justices take the case, as seems likely, it would add another blockbuster case over separation of powers to the court’s current term, which ends in June — in the middle of the presidential election campaign.

    “In light of the well-reasoned dissent, we will be seeking review at the Supreme Court,” Mr. Sekulow said in a statement.

    Lawyers representing Mr. Trump had argued that Congress had no legitimate legislative authority to seek his business records because the panel seeking them, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, was primarily trying to determine whether he broke existing laws — not weighing whether to enact a new one.

    Lawyers for House Democrats rejected that argument, maintaining that it was well within Congress’s constitutional authority to seek the records — both as a matter of oversight and as it considered whether new presidential ethics and financial disclosure laws are necessary.

    A three-judge appeals court panel in October rejected that sweeping argument and upheld Congress’s authority to issue the subpoena by a 2-to-1 vote. But Mr. Trump petitioned the full court to erase that ruling and reconsider the case. The court on Wednesday rejected his request, 8 to 3.

    The case was set in motion before House Democrats announced and then voted to say that they were engaged in an impeachment inquiry, so their constitutional authority to investigate potential presidential misconduct for the purpose of considering whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office has not been part of the legal arguments in the case.

    The committee sought the records after Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, and after it came to light that Mr. Trump had failed to list on his ethics disclosure forms a debt that he owed and then repaid to his former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen.

    Mr. Cohen had fronted a hush payment to a pornographic actress, Stormy Daniels, just before the 2016 election to induce her to keep quiet about an affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. He has denied the relationship.

    Mr. Cohen also testified before Congress that Mr. Trump fraudulently changed the value of his assets for different purposes, like inflating their value on loan applications but deflating them on tax filings. (Mr. Cohen was separately convicted of lying to Congress in earlier testimony.)

    Edited from: “Court Rejects Trump’s appeal In Fight To Keep Financial Records From Congress”

    The New York Times, 11/13/19

    1. Peter – this was expected to go to SCOTUS anyway. Now, here is their problem. They cannot expose his taxes to public since they claim holiness in all things having to do with getting dirt on opponents. I really do not see this working out for them.

      1. Paul, I can’t understand, for the life of me, why Trumpers don’t want to see Trump’s tax returns. Is there ‘no curiosity’?? If Bloomberg were to become the Democratic nominee, I would be very, very interested in seeing his tax returns.

        But Trumpers steadfastly express disinterest in seeing information that could tell us ‘who’ Trump partners with. And it’s part of a larger tendency of Trumpers; ‘a willingness to give Trump a pass on every rule that should apply to normal presidents’.

        That tendency to give Trump a pass is fully on display with the Ukraine scandal. There’s no acknowledgement that presidents should go through normal channels with regards to diplomacy. No acknowledgement that Guiliani was on Trump’s own payroll and ‘not’ the government’s. No acknowledgment that Trump was pursuing a debunked conspiracy theory.

          1. Paul, show me that article!! I read The Times every day. They reported the theory had been thoroughly debunked.

            1. If you limited your NYT reading to their daily crossword puzzle, the exercise the left-half of your brain would receive would be far better than your current exposure.

            2. Peter – according to Kent, the Ukrainians are reopening the investigation to make sure it was handled properly.

    2. Why do people (you shills) keep posting comments that are irrelevant to the issue at hand?

      Are you trying Pavlov’s conditioning? Posting anything you can about the president, that appears in a negative light, to condition the masses to believe …

      “Orange Man Bad”?

      Why do you do this? What is your justification? What is your agenda?

      1. Hysterical quote by Rep Jim Jordan says it all:

        00:51 I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this


      2. Anti: why are Trumpers so adverse to bad news? Attacking the messenger comes all too naturally for supporters of Donald Trump.

        1. Attacking the messenger comes all too naturally for supporters of Donald Trump.

          Let’s go to the way back machine, shall we?

          Estovir, think Jordon wears a comb-over? Who’s he’s fooling, anyway?

          In a matter of 2 minutes, you managed to provide a great example of how you Lefties project your own behavior onto others. Damn.

    3. John Burgoyne:
      Well after last night’s proof debacle about the made up Republican pollsters and their advice, you’ve changed gears to give us at least some sources flimsy and unreliable as they may be. Bravo — that’s growth.

          1. Olly, are you a lawyer as Mespo claims?

            As I was saying to Mespo last night, we never see any evidence from him of lawyerly abilities to make persuasive arguments.

            And Olly, we never see persuasive arguments from ‘you’. In fact you and Olly both quote from the same Ann Coulter book, “How To Talk To Liberals If You Must”.

            It’s amazing what an impact Miss Coulter has had on mediocre people like yourself; middling minds incapable of any creative thoughts. They can reach for Miss Coulter’s book (next to their computer) and look up an insult to zap the liberal with. And ‘yes’, it is perfectly dreary, but that’s who Trumpers are.

            1. Olly, are you a lawyer as Mespo claims?

              I wasn’t aware that Mark claimed I was a lawyer.

              we never see persuasive arguments from ‘you’.

              I’m not sure who your collective we is, but considering my posts typically require the functional use of the left-half of the brain, I’m not the least bit surprised you never find them persuasive.

              I appreciate the compliment regarding Ann Coulter. I probably should pick up a copy of whatever book you’re talking about so I can properly cite any accidental quotes.

  6. the PRC has deployed eighteen nuclear-armed CSS-4 ICBMs, with a substantial number of these missiles targeting the United States. The PRC is also developing a new generation of
    more advanced mobile ICBMs, which would enhance its ability to target the United States.

    And President Clinton assured them that they would receive our best, classified technology. One day our troops may be fighting the finest military assets that he sold to our enemies.

    The missiles with the world’s heaviest payloads, the Russian SS-18 and Chinese CSS-4, are liquid-propellant ICBMs,

  7. And what was Bidens threat withholding funding to the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his drug addicted sons company ?

    Obama overthrows a democratically elected government in the Ukraine with NAZIS and Biden brags about withholding funding to them until they fire the prosecutor investigating his drug addicts sons company for which he magically was paid more then 15 K a month…..
    It’s amazing how little knowledge these testimonies reveal about Hunter
    Biden and Burisma, which should be the subject of this hearing.
    Democratic VP involved in corruption: no problem. Trump trying to spark
    action to expose it: IMPEACH TRUMP!! (and don’t mention anything else)

    Only democrats could make Trump look decent

  8. Select Committee on Intelligence
    United States Senate
    Report on Impacts to U.S. National Security of Advanced Satellite Technology
    Exports to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and Report on the PRC’s Efforts to
    Influence U.S. Policy
    On May 15, 1998, the New York Times reported that Johnny Chung, a Democratic Party fundraiser being investigated for improprieties during the 1996 presidential campaign, told Department of Justice investigators that an executive with a PRC aerospace company gave him $300,000 to donate to President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. These reports came against a backdrop of earlier reporting and prior congressional investigations of a PRC Government plan to influence the American political process.
    Gosh, NYTs, where was your insistence that slick be impeached based on this story you wrote?
    Trump, you’ve got precedence on your side.

    1. that guy has a law degree from a good school but he followed it not with legal practice but getting a master’s degree in “public policy”….. which means he probably unlearned whatever good things he picked up in law school. he was also a member of the Crook County board of Commissioners and that says a lot about him too

      the neighborhoods he represented as a commish says something too.

      i noticed wiki says he’s llisted in the Chicago Gay Hall of fame. for what I’m not sure. afraid to ask!

      I see that he dropped his law license in 2018

        1. His biographies are fuzzy about what he did for a living prior to 1998. It appears he was an aide to a Chicago alderman and he had a solo practice which he started in 1990 (which he does not admit to having closed). I did find one case where he filed an appeal:

          The decision was issued 26 years ago. I remember an interview over the radio with Jerry Springer many years ago about why he got out of politics (he’d been Mayor of Cinncinati at one point). He says, “I didn’t want to do it as a career. If you’re doing it to put bread on the table, you’ll say anything. Most of these guys haven’t practiced law in 25 years. They’d be incompetent. They leave office and get work as lobbyists, because that’s what they know.”

      1. He got the MPP degree before he went to law school. Be interested to know if he had to learn stats in that program. (I should hope so). He attended Roosevelt University. When Morton Kondracke met his late wife, she was enrolled in the social work program at Roosevelt. Per Kondracke, it was a decidedly leftoid institution at that time, rather like the New School for Social Research in New York. (Looking at some of the metrics, it appears to be a mediocre private college at this point).

  9. “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

    – Rep. Al Green (D)

    Translation: Democrats must impeach the Republican President or the Republican President will win the 2020 election.

    Yep. That is precisely why the American Founders incorporated the impeachment process in the U.S. Constitution; so that democrats

    could win an election and overturn the previous result.

    The ends, generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, endless benefits, generous entitlements and the “white man’s money,” justify

    the means.

    The inmates have taken over the asylum.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves

    largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from

    the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

    – Alexander Tytler

    1. Rep. Green stated that in the midst of the Mueller report; he was right then and he is right now. Though you are trying to suggest that this is an expressed desire from tRump’s election, comrade, up your game. LOSER.

      1. The Mueller report found nothing

        Muller found NOTHING in fact made Trump look like a more honest businessman than most even imagined.
        The same US intelligence that helped Bush LIE the world into WARS?…….Anyone who doesnt want WW3 is now a Russian asset now.

        PATRICK LAWRENCE: The Impeachment Pantomime
        Now that “Russiagate” has failed and “Ukrainegate”
        neatly takes its place, many questions arise. Will the Democratic
        Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus,
        succeed in its second attempt to depose President Donald Trump in what
        might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the
        thus-far-farcical impeachment probe, which is to be conducted publicly as
        of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in
        behalf of his own personal and political interests? Did Trump, in his
        fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky,
        Ukraine’s president, put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged?
        Ten days ago Real Clear Investigations suggested that
        the “whistleblower” whose “complaint” last August set the impeachment
        probe in motion was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella.
        And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned
        Democratic Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.
        has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter’s days as veep;
        with Susan Rice, Obama’s recklessly hawkish national security adviser;
        with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as
        with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born Democratic National Committee
        official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on
        none other than candidate Donald Trump.
        For good measure, Paul Sperry’s perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations
        reveals that Ciaramella conferred with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff,
        the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to
        filing his “complaint” to the CIA’s inspector general.
        information comes after Schiff stated on the record that the staff of
        the House Intelligence Committee, which he heads, had no contact with
        the whistleblower. Schiff has since acknowledged the Ciaramella
        good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading
        contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, get away with
        what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of
        office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio while serving as vice
        president under Barack Obama?


    Even mainstream media gave only middling coverage to the Roger Stone trial in Florida this week. Trump’s longtime friend was accused of lying to investigators regarding his connection to Wikileaks. But according to coverage, Stone was quite likely the conduit for channeling DNC hacks to Wikileaks’ Julian Assange.

    1. Shakespearean Aside to Audience:

      Peter is switching topics because he realizes the Democrat Star Chamber is imploding


      1. Anonymous, rightwing media might be giving a different spin than mainstream. Or perhaps you were fooled by Jim Jordon’s shouting. But nowhere have I seen a headline with ‘implosion’ in it.

          ( Now you’ve seen it in a headline).

    2. But according to coverage, Stone was quite likely the conduit for channeling DNC hacks to Wikileaks’ Julian Assange.

      You’ve got the directionality mixed up. While we’re at it, why do you fancy the FBI never got a look at that server?

      1. Why did the FBI take the DNC’s word for it that their server was hacked when, as you said, they were not granted access to it?


    “What we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance staged by the Democrats,” Nunes concluded.

    “Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent, I’d like to welcome you here, I’d like to congratulate you for passing the Democrats star-chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the Capitol. It seems you agreed, witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama. The main performance, the Russia hoax, has ended and you have been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.”

    – Rep. Devin Nunes, CA

Leave a Reply