Now that Les Parnas's testimony is a available, Mayor Giuliani and Trump will be further exposed. — Punshhh

The Rachel Maddow interview with Parnas last night was a scorcher. Parnas was very credible and forthcoming...and a hell of a lot more likable than I expected. Not sure why his lawyers allowed him to do the interview, but I am thankful that they did.

Either Trump throws Giuliani under the bus; Giuliani throws Trump under the bus; or the are both gonna do the throwing and landing under the bus. Others who belong under the bus are Barr and Pompeo.

This is the most disgusting administration in our nation's history. I hope we survive it.

If the Senate votes to exclude witness testimony, they will be collectively betraying their oaths of office. If witnesses are allowed they will either have to ignore the evidence, therefore losing any integrity they have, or if they accept it they will have to rule against Trump.

So very true.

I would go further than presume he is innocent. I believe he has done nothing wrong, and more, I think he was right and obligated, morally and as a public servant of the country, to look into possible corruption between US and Ukrainian officials. — NOS4A2

Thanks, but I hope you can clarify a few things.

Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent?

Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?

Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint?

I doubt this will change any minds:

The GAO has determined the administration violated the Impoundment Act.

This negates the claim that Trump committed no crimes. I suppose some might say the crime was committed by OMB, because they failed to defy Trump's order.

Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent?

No, I do not.

Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?

There is always a possibility she could be right.

Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint?

Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma.

Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma. — NOS4A2

"He was clearly." What does "clearly" mean in this context?

"He was clearly." What does "clearly" mean in this context?

Simply that one can infer from his public statements that those particular situations concerned him.

Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there — NOS4A2

He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate?

— NOS4A2

Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?

There is always a possibility she could be right. — Relativist

Ok, but you obviously do not believe she is right. So what's your take on it: Mistake? Lying? Something else?

He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate?

There are no explicit statements regarding benchmarks that I am aware of.

Ok, but you obviously do not believe she is right. So what's your take on it: Mistake? Lying? Something else?

I won’t infer any malicious intent so I will err on the side of mistake or misinformed.

Excuse my tinfoil hat, but I would even argue the CIA or at least the State Department had its hand in the Ukraine revolution of 2014. So I worry they would be more protective of what went on there than otherwise. — NOS4A2

Actually, it was the State Department that was most successful in overthrowing Serbia's Milosevic. CIA didn't have much part in that. And thanks to that Milosevic died in a prison cell in the Hague and Serbia... is a close and loyal friend of Russia!

Of all the factors bearing on the demise of the Milosevic regime, direct democracy promotion assistance in the form of financial support, training and contact with other regional activists was the most influential.

Democracy-promotion assistance from all sources totaled nearly $150 million in the period between 1988 and 2000. Nearly two-thirds of this amount was expended in 1999 and 2000 alone. Some of the largest providers of democracy assistance were the Open Society Fund based in Belgrade, the United States Agency for International Development, the European Union, bi-lateral European donors and a host of other quasi-governmental and private institutions. After 1998, assistance broadened and deepened to include initiatives designed to bolster the survivability of the resistance and engage in confrontation with the regime. There was less of a focus on sustainable development and more on short-term political change in Milosevic's last two years in office.

One thing is to get angry people to the streets. Other is to influence local political actors... as we have seen from the example of Serbia. And also Ukraine, actually.

Yet agent Trumpov has done his utmost to utterly parayize the State Department, in which he has been extremely successful in doing! And Putin is happy! (Fixing my own tinfoil hat here)

Trump to win in 2020 again! — Agustino

we will see soon, though I hope he doesn't win

There are pictures of John McCain standing with the leader of Svoboda, a far-right neo-nazi, during the revolution in Ukraine. Also, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, handed out cookies to protesters. Her leaked phone call, where she discusses possible candidates for the new Ukrainian government, suggests that the US played a little more than a supportive role in regime change. In their hubris we in the West backed neo-nazis in a Ukrainian regime change against a democratically-elected president, giving us the Ukraine we have today.

Familiar names appear throughout this episode: Biden, Brennan, McCain, Nuland (pictured below with the alleged whistleblower).



Nuland and McCain are connected to Steele and his dossier.

I suspect this is all connected to “Russian meddling”, and the current impeachment attempt against Trump is an attempt at a cover up. God forbid someone finds out what went on in Ukraine.

We’re watching Donald. Trump treat the law with contempt, and the Republican Senate aiding and abetting. American democracy is being destroyed from within by a corrupt President and his henchmen. There’s no need for conspiracy theories, it’s all happening in plain sight.

And don't forget the leaked Nuland-Pyatt phonecalls when the revolution happening (two of them discussing future Ukraine leadership), or the leaks of the Estonian foreign minister and Catherine Ashton about the confusion of the Maidan snipers ...all brought to you by the same guys that were annexing Crimea and instigating a civil war in Ukraine successfully.

And it worked!

That Maidan revolt was just a bunch of fascists was accepted and worked as charm ...as can be noticed even today.

I suspect this is all connected to “Russian meddling”, and the current impeachment attempt against Trump is an attempt at a cover up. — NOS4A2

No wait? It isn't anymore the 400 pound guy on the bed? Ohh... It's the 'Steele dossier'. Ah yes, Russia is totally innocent. Poor, poor Russia. They wouldn't hurt even a fly.

You know, on this issue I just base my view just on Trump's obscene adulation of Putin, the utterly crazy propositions Trump has made (and has had to quickly backtrack) and the sheer devotedness on NEVER EVER saying one critical thing about his best friend Vlad. Listening through a Donald and Vladimir press conference was like listening to a leader of a Great Power and a proxy puppet government giving a press conference. Hence I reason that yes, we really can talk of Agent Trumpov in the White House. It's the biggest intelligence coup ever in the history of intelligence work.

God forbid someone finds out what went on in Ukraine. — NOS4A2

God forbid you would find out. Washington can keep secrets so well, as we all know.

Ignorance is a precondition for successful media manipulation.

Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint? — Relativist

Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma. — NOS4A2

He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate? — Relativist

There are no explicit statements regarding benchmarks that I am aware of. — NOS4A2

OK, but the point is that going after Biden wasn't the only thing he could do about Ukraine corruption. A process was in place, and if he deemed this was inadequate he could have addressed it. He didn't. Which gets us back to this:

Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent? — Relativist

No, I do not. — NOS4A2

Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?
2) Under what circumstances is it OK for a President, acting as President, to push an investigation of a political opponent? For example, is it always OK? OK if there's an objectively good reason to think the opponent committed a crime? OK if he has hunch that the opponent committed a crime?

You know, on this issue I just base my view just on Trump's obscene adulation of Putin, the utterly crazy propositions Trump has made (and has had to quickly backtrack) and the sheer devotedness on NEVER EVER saying one critical thing about his best friend Vlad. Listening through a Donald and Vladimir press conference was like listening to a leader of a Great Power and a proxy puppet government giving a press conference. Hence I reason that yes, we really can talk of Agent Trumpov in the White House. It's the biggest intelligence coup ever in the history of intelligence work.

That’s hilarious. There are, of course, more simple explanations for reserving criticism of a world leader, but sure, Trump’s the Manchurian candidate.

Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?
2) Under what circumstances is it OK for a President, acting as President, to push an investigation of a political opponent? For example, is it always OK? OK if there's an objectively good reason to think the opponent committed a crime? OK if he has hunch that the opponent committed a crime?

1) it doesn’t look bad to me. In fact, to me, it looks like the president is doing his job.

2) It is always ok to ask another leader to look into possible corruption between two countries no matter who is involved, but especially when it involves the conflicts of interest of high-ranking officials, their family, and corrupt energy companies paying vast sums of cash.

Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?

1) it doesn’t look bad to me. In fact, to me, it looks like the president is doing his job. — NOS4A2

OK, do you think reasonable people could think it does look bad (on the surface, at least)? Bear in mind that a September poll showed that 63% of Americans (including 32% of Republicans) considered it wrong (source)

)
2) It is always ok to ask another leader to look into possible corruption between two countries no matter who is involved, but especially when it involves the conflicts of interest of high-ranking officials, their family, and corrupt energy companies paying vast sums of cash. — NOS4A2

That's not what I asked. I asked when it is OK for a President, utilizing his office, to push for the investigation of a political opponent.

That’s hilarious. There are, of course, more simple explanations for reserving criticism of a world leader, but sure, Trump’s the Manchurian candidate. — NOS4A2

I don't know what candidate he is, but really, have listened through a Putin-Trump press conference?

It's REALLY different (like Twilight Zone different) from let's say Trump speaking with an "NATO ally", who Trump can pummel all he wants.

But just listen to him speaking to his followers. Then Trump make sense and is consistent. It's a great Witch hunt against him lead by the Obama-Hilarites of the deep state.

You know my answer. No, he is not a murderer. No, he is not a criminal. — NOS4A2

They’ve been trying to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. It’s an unjust affair. There was no crime. There was no wrong doing. — NOS4A2

Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. It is therefore an error to engage with him. The real clues are in his language. All of his arguments are fallacious. Not least because of their frequent categorical nature.

The trial is starting. And it is completely clear that the only reason it's happening is because Trump has caused it to happen. Putin must have been having trouble sleeping most nights because of all the laughing he's been doing.

But there's an interesting side effect. Putin cannot like the measured but inexorable ceremony that now is unfolding. Who knows, some Russians might get ideas. But Putin has also been at work. He's got his government to resign, and is working on amendments to the Russian constitution that will allow him to keep power one way or another - some variation on what he did before. He and Xi Jinping. The XXth century had Stalin, Hitler, Mao and a host of lesser despots. The XXIst, so far, Vlad and Xi. But is there really under the surface any difference?

OK, do you think reasonable people could think it does look bad (on the surface, at least)? Bear in mind that a September poll showed that 63% of Americans (including 32% of Republicans) considered it wrong (source)

Plenty of reasonable people do think it looks bad, so yes.

That's not what I asked. I asked when it is OK for a President, utilizing his office, to push for the investigation of a political opponent.

When that political opponent may have abused his office for personal benefit by letting his son reap vast sums of money from a corrupt company in a destabilized country he just helped destabilize.

Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. It is therefore an error to engage with him. The real clues are in his language. All of his arguments are fallacious. Not least because of their frequent categorical nature.

Tim Wood’s hysteria has polluted his reason, so much so that he see’s enemies in everyone who disagrees with him. His borderline McCarthyism reeks of paranoia and fear, and this while he touts justice from the other side of his mealy mouth.

I don't know what candidate he is, but really, have listened through a Putin-Trump press conference?

It's REALLY different (like Twilight Zone different) from let's say Trump speaking with an "NATO ally", who Trump can pummel all he wants.

But just listen to him speaking to his followers. Then Trump make sense and is consistent. It's a great Witch hunt against him lead by the Obama-Hilarites of the deep state.

Trump speaks the world goes wild. I’m well aware of the word-politics, mostly because that is all some people have.

When that political opponent may have abused his office for personal benefit by letting his son reap vast sums of money from a corrupt company in a destabilized country he just helped destabilize. — NOS4A2

If I take you literally, and extrapolate to any serious wrongdoing (you were too specific to the Bidens; makes it sound like a special pleading), it suggests you think a President can investigate anyone because anyone "may" have done something seriously wrong. Can you provide a reasonable, nonpartisan generalized standard that you'd be fine with applying to someone of either party?

If I take you literally, and extrapolate to any serious wrongdoing (you were too specific to the Bidens; makes it sound like a special pleading), it suggests you think a President can investigate anyone because anyone "may" have done something seriously wrong. Can you provide a reasonable, nonpartisan generalized standard that you'd be fine with applying to someone of either party?

It applies to any public official or employee of the government. Conflict of interest investigations are routinely applied to members of Trump’s administration (Scott Pruitt or Ryan Zinke for example, both of whom resigned). If it uncovers corruption then justice should be served, if it doesn’t then so much the better.

Phase 1 of China deal. Done.
USMCA. Done.

Pretty amazing.

You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?

I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?

You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?

I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?

The basis is the evidence. Hunter Biden was put on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company making vast sums of cash while his father, the Vice President, just finished supporting a recent coup in the country. That’s at the very least a huge conflict of interest, and I think it should be investigated in case corruption was involved.

If any president did what Trump did I would be OK with it because he did nothing wrong. It’s just that simple.

Do you believe Trump is being impeached for political gain?

You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?

I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?

— Relativist

The basis is the evidence. — NOS4A2

I'm asking you do define a principle you would apply - in general. The principle should apply to this case, of course, but I'd like to know what that is. If you don't have a general principle, it just seems a partisan judgment. One possible principle might be the same sort of standard that would be used to decide to conduct a criminal investigation. Would that work for you? i.e. A president should only use the power of his office to directly influence a foreign power to investigate a political opponent if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed to warrant an investigation. You don't have to agree with that, but I'm asking you to provide the standard you consider appropriate.

He didn’t do anything wrong seems a sufficient standard to me. There was an congressional inquiry and the accusations were not supported by the facts.

Perhaps a similar inquiry will do the same for Biden.

He didn’t do anything wrong seems a sufficient standard to me — NOS4A2

That's not a standard, that's a judgment. If you can't show that your judgment is based on some objective standard, then it would appear to be purely partisan.

That's not a standard, that's a judgment. If you can't show that your judgment is based on some objective standard, then it would appear to be purely partisan.

Fair enough. Do you have an objective standard?