Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 02, 2019

Just 4 in 10 Republicans say they think President Trump discussed an investigation into Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden during a phone call with Ukraine's president, despite Trump acknowledging having done so, according to a new Monmouth University poll.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"All lies and jests--
Still a (Republican) hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
lie la lie lie la lie lie lie lie lie"
"

-Paul Simon

#1 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-10-02 09:44 AM | Reply

Can't these people read or are they just that lazy?

After all, the transcript of the Ukrainian call, released by the White House, is ONLY five pages long, and on page four alone, Trump mentions the Biden name THREE times. It's all there in plain English and black & white. How is it that 69% of Republicans surveyed are either not convinced or think that maybe Joe Biden and/or his son's name was mentioned.

JUST READ THE FRIGGEN DOCUMENT, IT'S ONLY FIVE PAGES LONG!!!!!!

www.nytimes.com

OCU

#2 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-02 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can't these people read or are they just that lazy?

Cult45 just doesn't care.

They are the ones that believed Hillary ran a sex trafficking ring with Obama out of the basement of a pizzeria that HAS NO BASEMENT.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-02 10:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2 Caduser,

I read the phone call transcript twice. I didn't find much there.

Democrats should be focused on obstruction outlined in Volume II of the Mueller report.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 10:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

I read the phone call transcript twice. I didn't find much there.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 10:21 AM | Reply

This is profoundly interesting and, to be honest JEFF, more than passing strange.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 10:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I read the phone call transcript twice. I didn't find much there."

Signed, Useful Idiot.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-02 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Zed,

Trump could come out and say, "Puppies are cute." and you'd find something nefarious about it.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Signed, Useful Idiot.

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI

See #7. It applies to you too.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 10:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump could come out and say, "Puppies are cute." and you'd find something nefarious about it.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019

You're right, JEFF. Because I know Trump doesn't like dogs. Which is another interesting and suggestive thing.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 10:34 AM | Reply

Trump could come out and say, "Puppies are cute." and you'd find something nefarious about it.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019

You're model of Trump is what? That he's something else than a crazy person pursuing one-man rule? That's my model and I've made no secret of it. Now you tell us your theory.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 10:35 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

My model of Trump allows me to make certain predictions concerning his behavior which, strange as it is to say, have so far all come true.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 10:37 AM | Reply

#11 | POSTED BY ZED

Well predict something then. ....

Go on put your "model" out there and prove it.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-02 10:38 AM | Reply

"#11 | POSTED BY ZED
Well predict something then. ....
Go on put your "model" out there and prove it.

#12 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS "

Zed is an "after the fact" prognosticator

#13 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 10:39 AM | Reply

Well predict something then. ....

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris

I've been doing that right along. All it takes to know is some real interest in me or my ideas.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 10:39 AM | Reply

But JEFF was invited to hold forth, and I'm curious to see what he thinks. In my perception, he often defends Trump in a backhanded way, and I'd like to know why.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 10:41 AM | Reply

But here we go, ANDREA. And just for you: Trump will attempt some form of coup out of personal ambition and more immediately a need for personal survival.

I think we're actually already in the middle of that. What does he have to do to prove it to you?

Let me tell you something, friend. If you can't think of even one single red line he might cross that as far as the world is concerned you're in on it with him.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 10:43 AM | Reply

Jeff is correct though, if I heard Trump say "puppies are cute" I would immediately think he's got something nefarious going on with puppies.
That's what happens when you create a reputation that is so deplorable. People have a tendency to assume the worst of you.

#17 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-10-02 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Being a purported germaphoebe, I suspect that Trump doesn't like any pets of any kind, except perhaps those who have graced the pages of 'Playboy'. In fact, it was reported that he was a bit taken aback when he learned that the Pence's were bring with them to Washington a virtual zoo, consisting of two cats, a rabbit, and a snake (one of the cats has since died), and that perhaps he should have considered someone less 'pedestrian' for the VP spot.

OCU

#18 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-02 10:50 AM | Reply

Jeff is mostly a troll. He has few true convictions, except anti regulation and separation of powers. Beyond that his posts often are just transparent attempts at trolling.

I find that type of poster tiring and distasteful. When all you have is pissing off your opponent, that just makes you an -------. There are some true believers here on the DR, but most DR righties are simply here to troll.

And honestly it gets boring, having to regularly refute ---- like there was nothing to the Russia story and now the obvious corruption in the Ukraine call; its just tedious. Not interesting, not profound, not even hypocritical since it is so insincere most of the time.

Not necessarily in Jeff's case but the level of efforts some posters go to defend the indefensible does lend credence to this being a foreign government disinformation campaign.

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 10:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 10

NEVER trust anyone who doesn't love dogs.

Simple fact of life.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

NEVER trust anyone who doesn't love dogs.

Agreed, Who .. Who doesn't like dogs?

Trump will attempt some form of coup out of personal ambition and more immediately a need for personal survival. ~ Zed

Define "coup" please a little vague .... when will it occur? If you have a model you must know the input, you can't just throw something like that out there without time.

If you are incorrect ... will you change your model?

#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-02 10:58 AM | Reply

"Jeff is mostly a troll. He has few true convictions, except anti regulation and separation of powers. Beyond that his posts often are just transparent attempts at trolling.
POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS "

Congratulations! You have joined the likes of pinchaloaf, speaksoftly, and a few others who shriek "TROLL!" when they are confronted with views and opinions different than their own. I guess it's part of that "tolerant" thing liberals claim to possess and state makes them better than the right.

#22 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 10:59 AM | Reply

Trump loves dogs ....
www.mcall.com

Y'all are liars!

#23 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-02 11:00 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Zed,

I will throw in my prediction, to match, Pelosi will guide this "impeachment process" into the 2020 campaign, it will come up with GooseEggs, and Trump will win in a blowout in 2020.

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-02 11:01 AM | Reply

-Jeff is mostly a troll. He has few true convictions, except anti regulation and separation of powers. Beyond that his posts often are just transparent attempts at trolling."

Translation: No one could possibly have an honest difference of opinion with someone as brilliant as myself, so they must be trolling.

It's a popular argument with the DR Left. Arrogance on steroids.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-02 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Jeff is mostly a troll. He has few true convictions, except anti regulation and separation of powers. Beyond that his posts often are just transparent attempts at trolling.
POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS "

LOL Calling Jeff a Troll ... thats got to be the post of the week.

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-02 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump loves dogs ....
www.mcall.com
Y'all are liars!
#23 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Who puts a framed copy of pornography on their wall?

#27 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 11:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

LOL Calling Jeff a Troll ... thats got to be the post of the week.
#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Jeff himself admits as much

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I read the phone call transcript twice. I didn't find much there.

Okay, but your opinion of the transcript is not the point of the thread.

The point of the thread is that just 40% of Republicans are aware of a reality that the White House itself has acknowledged.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Being a purported germaphoebe, I suspect that Trump doesn't like any pets of any kind...
#18 | POSTED BY OCUSER"

You or Trump is the germaphobe? Watch those dangling participles! :)

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:08 AM | Reply

"Who puts a framed copy of pornography on their wall?
POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS "

I give up. Who?

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:10 AM | Reply

"Jeff himself admits as much

#28 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS "

I never saw him say that, but if he did I'm guessing it was in the context of self-deprecating humor.

#32 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:21 AM | Reply

Goat,

Troofy no longer knows what humor is.

I can't imagine carrying that much anger.

He's become a humorless scold.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 11:26 AM | Reply

Actually, I'm not all that much of a fan of having pets in the house myself (when I was a kid we had hunting dogs). Unfortunately, my wife doesn't feel the same way. At one point, we had six cats, none of which were ours, we just ended-up 'inheriting' them from other family members; one from one son, two from another (they kept marrying girls who were allergic to cats) and three from her mother (it was in her will). We're down to two, one from her mother and one from a son. However, she has agreed that once they're gone (they're 15 and 16 years old), that that's it when it comes to pets.

OCU

#34 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-02 11:27 AM | Reply

Jeff explain the humor in not seeing anything wrong in the Ukraine phone call.

Again, tedious.

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 11:32 AM | Reply

There is no humor in it because I wasn't trying to be funny.

I read the transcript twice. Very little there.

You've reached a point where most of your posts sound like you're on the verge of tears.

It makes me concerned that you have something sad going on in your personal life.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 11:35 AM | Reply

now you try the concern troll

boring

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 11:40 AM | Reply

"Troofy no longer knows what humor is.
I can't imagine carrying that much anger.
He's become a humorless scold.

#33 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-10-02 11:26 AM "

On that, I've noticed after being gone for 2.5 years much of the left on the DR has become meaner and more rabid. I was surprised.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed the change since it presumably happened slowly, but I sure did.

#38 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#37 No, I am being serious.

You sound like you are absolutely miserable. I don't wish that on anyone especially someone who has been posting here for so long.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 11:48 AM | Reply

I don't know if anyone else has noticed the change since it presumably happened slowly, but I sure did.

#38 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I've noticed it too.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 11:49 AM | Reply

Jeff, I have also read the transcript and I can see what is there. You have been the worst fence sitter on this site when it comes to Trump. You keep saying that if something comes up you will acknowledge it but the curtain has dropped and the man is exposed. This wasnt even a full transcript of the call and it was bad enough. He clearly made it sound like 'we do a lot for you, do this for me' and it is amazing you are still on the fence. Rudy says he is going to be the hero. They are clearly both off the rails. I get it, you dont want a Democrat to win. Okay, what do you hope to see? I would personally like to see you get off the fence and stand for something other than a bbq recipe...

#41 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-02 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Dude life has never been better, 5 years ago I left a 60 hour a week 7 day a week job to open my own business giving me lots of free time to spend with family and friends.
Not sure if you have noticed but I post a lot less now, partly because I grow tired of the same transparent --------.

So no my life is not problematic, in fact, pretty darn good.

That doesn't change the fact that you have to either lying or ignorant to not see even a potential of a problem with the POTUS soliciting an investigation of his political rival.

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 11:51 AM | Reply

--much of the left on the DR has become meaner and more rabid. I was surprised.

They could afford to be civil when their guy was in office and they expected 8 more years. Then they lost, and bared their fangs.

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-02 11:51 AM | Reply

Dude life has never been better, 5 years ago I left a 60 hour a week 7 day a week job to open my own business giving me lots of free time to spend with family and friends.

That is great to hear. Seriously.

potential of a problem with the POTUS soliciting an investigation of his political rival.
#42 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Carter Page, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, etc.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 11:54 AM | Reply

Perhaps you all don't notice how much meaner and more callous the right has become under Trump. That's not a deflection, just an observation. Some people become more generous in victory, Trump & Team not so much.

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-02 11:54 AM | Reply

I get it, you dont want a Democrat to win.

If the election were tomorrow I'd vote for Biden.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 11:55 AM | Reply

Perhaps you all don't notice how much meaner and more callous the right has become under Trump. That's not a deflection, just an observation. Some people become more generous in victory, Trump & Team not so much.

#45 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

There is truth to that but not so much on this site.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 11:56 AM | Reply

Carter Page, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, etc.
#44 | Posted by JeffJ

Miley Cyrus, Dow Chemical, Canaris, etc.

See I can post non-sequiturs too

#48 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 11:59 AM | Reply

#46 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You would vote Biden now with the Hunter allegations surrounding him? Do you think this will take him down, or expect a rebound?

#49 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-02 12:04 PM | Reply

See I can post non-sequiturs too

#48 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

This is what you said:

potential of a problem with the POTUS soliciting an investigation of his political rival.
#42 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

I then cited concrete examples, not of solicitation, but of actual actions whereby POTUS investigated a political rival.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 12:05 PM | Reply

You would vote Biden now with the Hunter allegations surrounding him?

Yes. Even if it was a corrupt act (plenty of evidence says it wasn't), it's less than the overall corruption of Trump and it's not like Biden has used his office to enrich himself.

Do you think this will take him down, or expect a rebound?

#49 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

I think it only hurts him if his primary opponents make an issue of it, and so far they aren't. By the time we reach the general it will be old news.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They are non-sequiturs because Obama did not call up Zimbabwe to request that they reopen an investigation.

I see that I may not have been clear that the solicitation was of a foreign government, which in my defense, should be obvious from the context.

#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 12:10 PM | Reply

#51

Agreed as to the current effect, but as the Dems push further into the Ukraine call, more will come out about Hunter Biden and you know that Trump's political operatives will push back hard using Biden as their counterpoint. His primary opponents are staying away for now, but politics is an extremely dirty game, and more things like Rep. Gaetz resurrecting the prank call where Rep. Schiff agrees to take fake "dirt" on Trump from faux Ukrainian politicians will surface.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-02 12:28 PM | Reply

Define "coup" please a little vague ....

#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris at

Only a vague concept to the disingenuous and those who root for it.

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 12:42 PM | Reply

Donald Trump is actively pursuing these goals:

1) To eliminate or forestall all Congressional oversight on his activities

2) To be able to evade Congressional control of the budget by taking the money he wants anyway

3) To establish that the president is beyond even investigation in regards to criminal activity

4) To undermine any government agency with the power to contradict or check him, most notably the intelligence services and Justice.

5) To purge government agencies, like State, of all but Trump loyalists.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the elements of a coup. These are steps in support of one-man rule.

You waiting for something more "dramatic"? I submit that the Ukraine scandal is an example of that. You want him to go for more than one term in office, as he has often said he wants to?

What's your red line? ANDREA doesn't have one; he's on board with Trump's behavior and ambitions and welcomes their logical outcome.

And so, I'm afraid, is JEFF.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Trump loves dogs ....
www.mcall.com

Y'all are liars!

#23 | Posted by AndreaMackris

I would love to have one of those, short hair with a nice coat that doesn't require a lot of maintenance like those fluffy breeds. And the floppy ears are cool.

#56 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-02 01:04 PM | Reply

Obama did not call up Zimbabwe to request that they reopen an investigation.
I see that I may not have been clear that the solicitation was of a foreign government, which in my defense, should be obvious from the context.
#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-02 12:10 PM

Trump also did not ask Ukraine to reopen an investigation. He asked for them to provide information to the Dept of Justice.
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Monday that President Trump contacted foreign countries at Attorney General William Barr's request to ask them for assistance in an ongoing investigation"
thehill.com

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-02 01:44 PM | Reply

#57 | Posted by Avigdore

Transcript.

My suggestion? Collect all copies of what Trump released and burn them. Then burn anyone who read them.

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 02:08 PM | Reply

Carter Page
#44 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Just yesterday you went out of your way to claim you see no irregularities with the Page FISA warrant applications.

Which is it?

#59 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 02:19 PM | Reply

The headline is wrong. Republicans are not illiterate. They are just dishonest in the extreme. They have no use for truth.

#60 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-10-02 02:19 PM | Reply

"Republicans are not illiterate. They are just dishonest in the extreme. They have no use for truth.

#60 | POSTED BY MODER8 "

Are you implying Democrats aren't dishonest?

Do you and Donnerboy get your blinders from the same tack shop?

#61 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 02:24 PM | Reply

Your knee jerk "whataboutism" response is very telling. I'm not saying anything one way or another about Dems. It is only your desire to change topics via whataboutism which even leads you to ask the question. So dishonest. At least acknowledge your own tactical dishonesty.

#62 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-10-02 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"At least acknowledge your own tactical dishonesty.
#62 | POSTED BY MODER8 "

I will when you acknowledge your "tactical dishonesty" by telling only half the truth.

Deal?

#63 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 02:42 PM | Reply

Translation: No one could possibly have an honest difference of opinion with someone as brilliant as myself, so they must be trolling.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian

Saying the mueller report debunked russiagate isn't a difference of OPINION. It's a lie about FACTS.

#64 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-02 02:57 PM | Reply

The topic of this thread is whether Republicans don't believe Trump said and did things (that he already admitted saying and doing) because they illiterate. There is nothing off point or in any way tactically dishonest to point out within the context of this thread that a more likely explanation is their own dishonesty. Only a partisan blowhard unwilling to confront the actual topic of the thread would drag in the Dems.

#65 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-10-02 02:59 PM | Reply

Trump also did not ask Ukraine to reopen an investigation. He asked for them to provide information to the Dept of Justice.
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Monday that President Trump contacted foreign countries at Attorney General William Barr's request to ask them for assistance in an ongoing investigation"
thehill.com
#57 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yes, that's what Trump's DOJ says. What's your point? We have the transcript where Trump literally asks Ukraine to look into Biden and Crowdstrike and then share the information with Barr. And Guiliani has said it repeatedly!

How hard is this to understand?

#66 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-02 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are you implying Democrats aren't dishonest?

Do you and Donnerboy get your blinders from the same tack shop?

#61 | Posted by goatman

When you're the worse side, all you can do is point to the other side's imperfections.

It's a soviet propaganda technique now fully adopted by republicans. The only valid criticism can come from a fictional political party that is FLAWLESS, or else the criticism should be ignored.

Set an impossible barrier for entry for critics, and you'll have no valid criticism.

Trump lies about everything, but obama said you can keep your health plan. Therefore it's fine that trump lies about everything. Makes sense if you're a moron.

#67 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-02 03:01 PM | Reply

potential of a problem with the POTUS soliciting an investigation of his political rival.
#42 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS
Carter Page, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, etc.

#44 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

As background... I have already posted a few times saying how I don't think it is necessarily inappropriate for Barr to contact foreign governments in pursuit of his inquiry over the Russian investigation. I question his motives, but just the actions are not enough to say he is acting inappropriately. But, that is mainly because he is acting within the framework of our system to do so. An inquiry has been opened (I assume) and he is just doing his job to further the inquiry. The inquiry brings with it transparency and limits (oversight, warrants, subpoenas) that ensures that he acts within the bounds of the law and that it is documented so that his actions can be reviewed in the future.

Contrast that with Trump. Where is the inquiry? Where is the investigation? Where are the protections on the civil rights of private citizens (which is what Hunter Biden is)? Where is the oversight?

All of your examples listed for comparison are ACTUAL FBI investigations. Performed within the framework of the system, meaning that there are checks in place to ensure that rights are not abused (too much) and that there are oversight mechanisms in place to bring to light and deal with anyone going outside the bounds of the system.

If you can show where the appropriate US investigating authority (FBI, DOJ, State, ...) REQUESTED that Trump or his administration assist them in procuring information or cooperation from Ukraine, then I would grant that impeachment would be shaky. Still justified because Trump should not be getting involved AT ALL, but conservatives are pretty good at playing the "we were too stupid to know any better" card because you have given people reason to believe you are that stupid. But I would not support impeachment because I think there would be too much doubt about whether Trump actually INTENDED to go after his opponent as opposed to fulfill the duties of his office.

But, without that, he is ONLY going after his opponent because there is no "fulfull the duties of his office" in this situation.

If Obama did this, Republicans would be crying bloody murder. They were ALREADY crying bloody murder over the examples you cited above, in which cases he did EVERYTHING above board and by the book.

Is this behavior you want to set in precedent as "acceptable"? Because that is what you are saying. That is what you are building. Do you want the next Democratic president to be able to call up foreign leaders and basically say "Open an investigation within your country into my Republican opponents"?

#68 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-02 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"When you're the worse side, all you can do is point to the other side's imperfections.
POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

I see you are growing weary of my pointing out your "imperfections" (read: lies)

Don't lie, and I'll have nothing to point out. Duh.

#69 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 03:07 PM | Reply

Don't lie, and I'll have nothing to point out. Duh.

#69 | Posted by goatman

Dont act like you care about lies. You spend all day every day defending the most famous liar in the world.

#70 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-02 03:10 PM | Reply

"Dont act like you care about lies. You spend all day every day defending the most famous liar in the world.

#70 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

Easily said, but hard to prove, unlike my proving you wrong on your "Bayou Steel employees are Trump supporters" lie.

You bore me.

Bye!

#71 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 03:11 PM | Reply

On that, I've noticed after being gone for 2.5 years much of the left on the DR has become meaner and more rabid. I was surprised.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed the change since it presumably happened slowly, but I sure did.

#38 | POSTED BYGOATMANAT2019-10-02 11:45 AM|REPLY| FLAG:

It's not just you, it's not just on the DR, and if this place is like most others, it didn't happen slowly. The left absolutely lost their ---- overnight the moment Trump won. The next day on, it was every Republican is a racist, and Russia had not, at the worst, dug up some dirt on Clinton they should have been mad she had rather than at the messenger, but might as well have hacked the ballots themselves, for all they were concerned.

I took a couple years away myself. The left had gotten so rabid, angry, and hyperbolic I found myself not wanting to be associated with it or affected by their toxicity online. When a few short months before that, I remember Corky lecturing me for always having to be "more lefty than thou."

A few years later, and without changing any of my views, I'm now apparently another fascist right-winger. Which oddly enough, doesn't bother me a bit, as they seem the only ones left with any positivity or capability for rational discourse or debate. I just find myself hoping I didn't sound as cringey and ready to wet the bed over every difference of opinion as the left does now. Or at least grew out of it lol.

#72 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-10-02 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

unlike my proving you wrong on your "Bayou Steel employees are Trump supporters" lie.

Unless you have their voting records, you didn't "prove" anything, liar.

Stop lying, you lying liar.

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 03:16 PM | Reply

#72 | Posted by zeropointnrg

Unfortunately I can give that only one newsworthy flag.

#74 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-02 03:18 PM | Reply

"I would personally like to see you get off the fence and stand for something other than a bbq recipe...
#41 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO"

JeffJ can't even acknowledge Republicans poisoned Flint's water. A town that's right down the street from him.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-02 03:21 PM | Reply

#72 | Posted by zeropointnrg
Unfortunately I can give that only one newsworthy flag.

#74 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Well, I helped out with a NW flag of my own.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 03:22 PM | Reply

"I would personally like to see you get off the fence and stand for something other than a bbq recipe...
#41 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO"

I've got to admit, that was a pretty good line.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 03:23 PM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

That clears up crowdstrike (kinda, but I will let it pass). Was the DOJ also investigating Hunter Biden? I have seen no reference to that. Only an inquiry into the Russian interference investigation. Which has no bearing whatsoever on Hunter Biden.

Please explain why Trump mentioned Hunter Biden during the call in relation to an investigation. If there was no official investigation into Hunter Biden (which I have heard NO ONE claim there was) then what was Trump doing soliciting one from Ukraine?

I have no problem with our government investigating politicians. Regardless of what Republicans may think should be the case, being a politician does not make you above the law. But, in the case that the government investigates politicians it has to be VERY CAREFUL to ensure that it does not look like it is trying to tip the scales one way or the other. So, EVERYTHING has to be done "by the book". Do you think that what Trump did here was "by the book"? If not, just how close to "by the book" do you think it was?

#78 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-02 03:25 PM | Reply

"On that, I've noticed after being gone for 2.5 years much of the left on the DR has become meaner and more rabid. I was surprised."

Did you notice any changes on the right?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-02 03:29 PM | Reply

Yah trumps uncle was a dunce.

"Together with Robert J. Van de Graaff, he developed one of the first million-volt X-ray generators. He was the paternal uncle of Donald Trump, who would later go on to become the 45th president of the United States."

en.m.wikipedia.org

2 more terms since you invalidated his first.

#80 | Posted by mutant at 2019-10-02 03:30 PM | Reply

"Just 4 in 10 Republicans say they think President Trump discussed..."

That's not illiteracy.
That's willful ignorance.
It's probably worse than simply being illiterate.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-02 03:32 PM | Reply

Easily said, but hard to prove, unlike my proving you wrong on your "Bayou Steel employees are Trump supporters" lie.

You bore me.

Bye!

#71 | Posted by goatman

Bye #1. Trump's biggest deflector runs away when you point out if he actually cared about lies he wouldnt support trump.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-02 03:36 PM | Reply

Regarding the article - most Republicans have probably simply stopped following the news on Trump after 3 years of lefties with Russia under their beds.

Nor are they likely to be overly concerned. The head of the executive branch asked someone to look into the possibility of a crime having been committed. Had Trump demanded evidence, real or not, that certainly would have been corrupt. But an investigation? Surely if Biden did nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear, and the results wouldn't affect anything.

To be fair, after years of watching his father sniffing fat rails of dandruff off kid's heads, Hunter didn't stand a chance against the other powdery white stuff and everything he'd screw up on it. So Joe did kind of owe the kid a little help.

#83 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-10-02 03:37 PM | Reply

Did you notice any changes on the right?

#79 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Amazing in their total lack of self awareness aren't they? The Democrats just suddenly and for no apparent reason just became angry! No one knows why!

It's a mystery why they do not accept Trump as their duly elected lord and master.

I say let Trumpy be Trumpy! Please!

The sooner the better! The Perfect Call might just do the trick!

That was pretty damn Trumpy.


#84 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-10-02 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I read the phone call transcript twice. I didn't find much there"

that's because the Memo you read was 20 minutes short of being an actual transcript

stupid

#85 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-02 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The left absolutely lost their ---- overnight the moment Trump won.

#72 | Posted by zeropointnrg

I wont deny that. Decent people lose their ---- when they realize there's a fascist uprising in their country.

We realized it was time to stop telling the morons that the news should be "fair and balanced" to reflect their delusions alongside actual facts. Treating them as equals and worrying about their opinions was what got us here. Spending months covering their paranoid fantasies about hillary and giving them validity so they wouldnt call the news "biased" led to trump being elected.
To please these morons, the media went soft on trump and hard on hillary, and trump got elected.

My patient tolerance for republican stupidity and dishonesty ended when trump was elected.

Stupidity is cute until it becomes so widespread that it grabs the wheel of the bus we're all on. It's not funny any more and shouldnt be tolerated or treated as a valid alternate opinion.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-02 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But an investigation? Surely if Biden did nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear, and the results wouldn't affect anything.

This seems awfully insulated from the reality that Trump would latch onto any such investigation and, round it up to proven corruption, spin it into a theme in his campaign against Biden, and repeat lies about it 50 times a day for the next 18 months.

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 03:48 PM | Reply

To finish my thought, an investigation itself would be a benefit to the Trump campaign because of how loose Trump is with the facts, and how skilled he is at misdirecting media coverage.

#88 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 03:49 PM | Reply

"JeffJ can't even acknowledge Republicans poisoned Flint's water. A town that's right down the street from him."

Really?

Can we assume the Democratic mayor(s) fought it tooth and nail?

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-10-02 03:49 PM | Reply

Can we assume the Democratic mayor(s) fought it tooth and nail?

You mean the Republican-appointed city managers who took the place of the mayor at the Republican governor's behest?

No.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#83 | Posted by zeropointnrg

Trump is yet to get half of what his behavior deserves.

But if you want to keep defending the corrupt, crazy man then I guess you will.

#91 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump could come out and say, "Puppies are cute." and you'd find something nefarious about it.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ

Trump could curb stomp a puppy on live TV and you'd find some reason to wait for more information as to whether he's unfit for office.

#92 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-02 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And when the water turned bad, that same Republican Governor told the residents of Flint that there was nothing to worry about, even though the governor had just sent a memo to all state employees working in the city that they should start to drink only bottled water and that the state was soon going to have water coolers installed in all of the state offices in the city.

For the record, my wife used to live in Flint and she still has several cousins living in the area.

OCU

#93 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-02 04:07 PM | Reply

That's what happens when you create a reputation that is so deplorable. People have a tendency to assume the worst of you.

#17 | Posted by TFDNihilist

Well...except those who are deplorable enough to support said deplorable POTUS.

#94 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-02 04:11 PM | Reply

Trump could curb stomp a puppy on live TV and you'd find some reason to wait for more information as to whether he's unfit for office.

#92 | POSTED BY JPW

That's just dumb.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-02 04:12 PM | Reply

My patient tolerance for republican stupidity and dishonesty ended when trump was elected.

Stupid people are dangerous.

Law 1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
Law 2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

"Essentially stupid people are dangerous and damaging because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person may understand the logic of a bandit. The bandit's actions follow a pattern of rationality: nasty rationality, if you like, but still rationality. The bandit wants a plus on his account. Since he is not intelligent enough to devise ways of obtaining the plus as well as providing you with a plus, he will produce his plus by causing a minus to appear on your account. All this is bad, but it is rational and if you are rational you can predict it. You can foresee a bandit's actions, his nasty maneuvers and ugly aspirations and often can build up your defenses.

With a stupid person all this is absolutely impossible as explained by the Third Basic Law. A stupid creature will harass you for no reason, for no advantage, without any plan or scheme and at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if and when and how and why the stupid creature attacks. When confronted with a stupid individual you are completely at his mercy."

#96 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-02 04:20 PM | Reply

#86 | POSTED BYSPEAKSOFTLYAT2019-10-02 03:42 PM|REPLY

Civil discourse, reaching across the aisle, engaging in rational debate sans hyperbole, having a positive position of one's own not defined purely by opposition to an opponent are in reality rarely done to win over the opposition. They are the show one performs to win over the undecideds, the all important swing states in politics, for example.

Your arrogance and unwillingness to understand your opponent, your black and white good vs evil politics reminiscent of the evangelical right but now endemic to the left however, is a truly effective way of driving away any centrist. If Trump wins a landslide in 2020, he'll probably need to send you a thank you letter.

#97 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-10-02 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Trump could curb stomp a puppy on live TV and you'd find some reason" for jeffyj to insist OBAMA did it too

but OBAMA was way worse. cause he stomped on aborted puppies

#98 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-02 04:26 PM | Reply

#96 | Posted by chuffy

That sure was stupid.

#99 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-02 04:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

That sure was stupid.

#99 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

My exact thoughts, just about every time I read one of your comments.

#100 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-02 04:34 PM | Reply

#97 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG

"You had me hello LOCK HER UP"

#101 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-02 04:40 PM | Reply

But if you want to keep defending the corrupt, crazy man then I guess you will.
#91 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-10-02 04:02 PM | FLAG:

I wasn't defending Biden!

Oh, Trump. I'm not defending Trump either. Just attacking Dem stupidity. Trump is just what the Dems get for embracing a corporatist neo-con in a Democrat's pantsuit in 2016, and if he wins in 2020, he'll be what the Dems get for shrieking, wetting the bed over every perceived slight and conspiracy theory, and embracing identity politics over economic populism. He himself I find just to be a boorish narcissist, but that makes him a typical politician, only lacking the social graces to cover it. I don't support him. I simply support the religion of Woke even less. True Believers are the only thing worse than sociopathic narcissists.

#102 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-10-02 04:40 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by JeffJ

A long way back I know... But Jeff - it isn't even a transcript. It was a summary created by Trump's team. It was NOT the actual language used.

#103 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-10-02 04:53 PM | Reply

#102

Looks like Bernie's out, and Biden is fading. Warren stands a good chance of winning the nomination. If it's not Bernie, and your comment sure does carry the Bernie-or-Bust tune in full effect, then what reason are you going to give for the inevitable re-election of Orange #45?

#104 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-02 04:56 PM | Reply

That's just dumb.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ

No it's not. You guys have only gotten worse as you've demanded higher and higher bars of misconduct to criticize him.

And if you can implicate a Dem in something at least close to what Trump did, even if you have to squint a little, then your responsibility to criticize Trump is absolved!

#105 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-02 04:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Trump wins a landslide in 2020, he'll probably need to send you a thank you letter.

#97 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-10-02 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump may win, but this landslide business is just weird.

#106 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 04:59 PM | Reply

Accusation fatigue...so many things you look into Trump doing and it turns out he was telling a joke, aka the MSNBC ----- autism caused her to miss breathtakingly obvious social cues.

#107 | Posted by dialate at 2019-10-02 04:59 PM | Reply

He (Trump) himself I find just to be a boorish narcissist, but that makes him a typical politician, only lacking the social graces to cover it.

#102 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-10-02 04:40 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

By his behaviors he classes himself as something entirely different. The country is in crisis because of him, perhaps existential in nature.

#108 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 05:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Obama and Hillary ate babies ate that pizzaplace, FACT!

how's the anthony weiner laptop investigation going?

#109 | Posted by mutant at 2019-10-02 05:01 PM | Reply

Trump doing and it turns out he was telling a joke

#107 | Posted by dialate at 2019-10-02 04:59 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

He's not telling jokes.

As that "----" says, look at what Trump does and not what he says. The man is serious as a heart attack and heart attacks are better, for offering the chance of recovery.

#110 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 05:03 PM | Reply

Accusation fatigue...

#107 | Posted by dialate

Does anyone ever really tire of being warned a dog is rabid?

#111 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 05:04 PM | Reply

We love wikileaks and transparency in America's government, said nobody

#112 | Posted by mutant at 2019-10-02 05:05 PM | Reply

--The country is in crisis because of him, perhaps existential in nature.

Another existential crisis! There's so many I've lost count. The Democrats' response is to go on vacation. Not surprising since they've ignored the "existential climate crisis" all year.

#113 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-02 05:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

It's a meme that has sprung up that if we don't handle Trump with kid gloves we'll all be sort come November, 2020. This is the sort of meme which comes from a certain city with Saint in its name.

You may not live and work in that city but you're a reliable consumer of its crap.

I can't think of a better way to hand Trump 2020 than by not confronting the man with what he does and says.

#114 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's so many I've lost count.

#113 | Posted by nullifidian

Trump's your man, NULLI. You've lost the honesty to count.

#115 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-02 05:11 PM | Reply

Is this how the nazis behaved when they lost the eastern front?

#116 | Posted by mutant at 2019-10-02 05:13 PM | Reply

Is this you, Saint Zed?

juliepr.files.wordpress.com

#117 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-02 05:17 PM | Reply

Your arrogance and unwillingness to understand your opponent, your black and white good vs evil politics reminiscent of the evangelical right but now endemic to the left however, is a truly effective way of driving away any centrist. If Trump wins a landslide in 2020, he'll probably need to send you a thank you letter.

#97 | Posted by zeropointnrg

The evangelical right bases it's positions on ancient mythology. I base mine on recent history and facts.

Treating the lunatics like they're just reasonable people with views that should be considered only helps them win the middle. Trump was treated as a rational candidate in 2016 instead of a lifelong crook and he won a lot of the middle. The middle needs to see that the right is so insane that the should be beyond the consideration to anyone who isn't similarly insane.

I understand my opponent. They're a union of evil geniuses and flocks of suckers and angry morons.
Acting like the left is behaving irrationally when they are trying to stop a fascist uprising doesn't speak to highly of you either.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-02 05:37 PM | Reply

I'm not defending Trump either. Just attacking Dem stupidity.
#102 | Posted by zeropointnrg

And attacking those who attack FAR GREATER republican stupidity.

#119 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-02 05:39 PM | Reply

"unlike my proving you wrong on your "Bayou Steel employees are Trump supporters" lie.
Unless you have their voting records, you didn't "prove" anything, liar.
Stop lying, you lying liar.

#73 | POSTED BY JOE "

Hey, it was speaksoftly who insisted on using statistics, and I did:

Statistically union members vote Democrat.

St. John the Baptist Parish voted blue (61%) for Hillary in 2016.

So taking her advice and using statistics, it is highly improbably that Bayou steel workers are Trump voters.

I'm using speaksfoftly's metric: Statistics. Take your complaint up with her.

And unless you have voting records, you can't call me a liar, can you? Oh wait -- your aliberal. Do as you say, not as you do and all that.

#120 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 06:00 PM | Reply

"Your arrogance and unwillingness to understand your opponent"

Who is his opponent, and what understanding do you think is lacking?
Are you his opponent?

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-02 06:13 PM | Reply

And unless you have voting records, you can't call me a liar, can you?

You said you "proved" his claim wrong. You can't "prove" it without voting records. Liar. Stop lying.

#122 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 06:56 PM | Reply

So taking her advice and using statistics, it is highly improbably that Bayou steel workers are Trump voters.

Bayou Steel workers are not a random or representative sample of the voters in that parish. By your logic, since there are less than 10,000 steelworkers in Louisiana and 2.1 million total workers it is unlikely any steelworkers work at the steel mill.

#123 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-02 10:59 PM | Reply

"Bayou Steel workers are not a random or representative sample of the voters in that parish. "

Citation needed.

#124 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:01 PM | Reply

-Bayou Steel workers are not a random or representative sample of the voters in that parish.

Because they had jobs in the first place?

#125 | Posted by eberly at 2019-10-02 11:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You said you "proved" his claim wrong. You can't "prove" it without voting records. Liar. Stop lying.

#122 | POSTED BY JOE "

I did prove it using the metric that speakeasy made: Statistics. Did I prove it as in court of law proof? No. But Speakeasy said she proved her case with statistics (which she never showed, much less linked to)

So I proved with statistics (union members, the parish being blue) that she was wrong.

So again -- if you have an issue, take it up with speaksoftly. She set the rules. I played by them. She lost.

#126 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:33 PM | Reply

"Bayou Steel workers are not a random or representative sample of the voters in that parish. "
Citation needed.

#124 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-10-02 11:01 PM | REPLY

citation not needed. you need to learn how statistics work. to get a representative sample of the voters in that parish you must randomly choose from all of the voters in that parish. In addition to get a level of confidence above 95% from a group of 2.1 million you need a sample size of 2399 to get 95% confidence with a 2% error margin. If you want to make any statement based on the whole you have to pull your sample from the whole.

#127 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-02 11:36 PM | Reply

citation not needed. you need to learn how statistics work. hole.
#127 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 "

I do know how statistics work. Statistically union members vote democrat. The parish voted solidly blue in 2016, and elections before.

But you claim that since hatter said so, these things don't matter.

So yes, citation neeeded.

#128 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#127 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 "

Let me ask you this: If given the fact that union members tend to vote democrat (they do) and that St. John the Baptist Parish voted 61% for Hillary in 2016, (the did) and that historically it is a blue parish (it is) would you bet $1,000 that the employees of Bayou Steel voted for Trump as speaksoftly claimed?

#129 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-02 11:45 PM | Reply

So are you suggesting that Trump's tariff polices are hurting the intended group, that is Democratic union members? That fact that an American company had to shut down to accomplish this was a small price to pay to further the destruction of the liberal Left in this country, eh?

OCU

#130 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-03 12:47 AM | Reply

"You mean the Republican-appointed city managers who took the place of the mayor at the Republican governor's behest?"

No. I was referring to the Democratic Mayor, who drank the water on camera to demonstrate to the population that the water was safe for drinking.

#131 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-10-03 02:46 AM | Reply

Trump loves dogs ....
www.mcall.com
Y'all are liars!

#23 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Crappy rag.

"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."

#132 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2019-10-03 06:50 AM | Reply

If you can show where the appropriate US investigating authority (FBI, DOJ, State, ...) REQUESTED that Trump or his administration assist them in procuring information or cooperation from Ukraine, then I would grant that impeachment would be shaky. - #68 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-02 03:05 PM

I already cited precisely that in #57

#133 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 07:28 AM | Reply

Please explain why Trump mentioned Hunter Biden during the call in relation to an investigation. If there was no official investigation into Hunter Biden (which I have heard NO ONE claim there was) then what was Trump doing soliciting one from Ukraine? ... Do you think that what Trump did here was "by the book"? If not, just how close to "by the book" do you think it was? - #78 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-02 03:25 PM

DoJ is looking into whether the previous administration acted improperly. The improper action may be VP Biden stepping in to prevent an investigation into a company that employed his son by forcing the removal of the prosecutor assigned to the case and using the withholding of Congressionally approved funding to the Ukraine government until the demanded firing took place. Mentioning Hunter Biden identified to Zelinskyy what matter Trump was requesting Zelenskyy talk to our DoJ about.
That is a possible theory of the outcome, which may not pan out to be the reality of what occured. Lots of evidence shows that Biden's son being employed was an unfortunate happenstance, not an act of protectionism by the VP, but an investgation into the credibility of that evidence and the a full review of the occurence is certainly a credible function of our DoJ. If it had been Obama who made the request, it still would be just as credible and reasonable for the DoJ to handle this investigation. The fact that Democrat polling had the person who actually did this deed in their #1 slot is in no way (and should not be) a protection from any investigation of wrongdoing.

Do I think that it is by the book for President's to request that allies work with our DoJ, FBI, CIA, etc. to assist those US government investigations? Most assuredly absolutely yes.

#134 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 07:52 AM | Reply

To finish my thought, an investigation itself would be a benefit to the Trump campaign because of how loose Trump is with the facts, and how skilled he is at misdirecting media coverage.
#88 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-02 03:49 PM

Is your solution then to stop any investigation of any potential wrongdoing because Trump could lie about it?
Or should it just be to point out falsehoods when, and if, they happen?

#135 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 08:18 AM | Reply

DoJ is looking into whether the previous administration acted improperly. The improper action may be VP Biden...

#134 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

"May be"???? Here is the quote from your article. It mentions nothing about a wide ranging investigation that could encompass Hunter Biden. Instead, all references in YOUR article mention intelligence and the Russia investigation.

"As the Department of Justice has previously announced, a team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the origins of the U.S. counterintelligence probe of the Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Durham is gathering information from numerous sources, including a number of foreign countries," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

"At Attorney General Barr's request, the President has contacted other countries to ask them to introduce the Attorney General and Mr. Durham to appropriate officials," Kupec added.

...

Barr said earlier this year that he planned to investigate the intelligence collection on the Trump campaign to determine whether it was "adequately predicated."

You are making stuff up to provide cover for Trump. Whether you are doing it intentionally, or just because you are submerged in the "kool-aid" is hard to say.

#136 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-03 09:02 AM | Reply

Do I think that it is by the book for President's to request that allies work with our DoJ, FBI, CIA, etc. to assist those US government investigations? Most assuredly absolutely yes.

#134 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Can you remind me which institution (DoJ, FBI, CIA, etc) Giuliani works for? Also, any evidence that one of these institutions actually had an open investigation into Biden at the time of the call?

Since you say that they are "assuredly absolutely yes" going by the book, then I would assume that you should be able to actually give me answers to my questions above.

#137 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-03 09:07 AM | Reply

#137 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

And, to take it a step further, any person in one of those institutions willing to say, or even better written documentation, that they REQUESTED that Trump get information or cooperation from Ukraine on Hunter Biden. Which should have come about because they ALREADY ATTEMPTED to get the information or cooperation from Ukraine and were rebuffed (documentation on that first attempt without involving the President of the United States would also be useful).

#138 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-03 09:40 AM | Reply

#136 Again, the investigation isn't about Hunter Biden other than he would be the reason for any improper actions that his father may have committed. He was mentioned to identify the subject for which information was being requested - wrongdoing by VP Biden in the Hunter Biden siutation-. If you're asking if I have information on any preliminary investigation that the DoJ may be conducting for which Trump requested Zelinskyy provide information to Barr...I obviously don't have that. The other side of that request for proof would be -why would Trump attempt to put Zelinskyy in touch with the DoJ other than DoJ business?- Whether you agree with it or not, I see Trump's attempt to connect Zelinskyy with the DoJ is most likely to assist the DoJ with some DoJ business. I do not see any political gains to be made from connecting Zelinskyy with the DoJ.

#137 - You asked if it were ok for the us government to investigate politicians, and was that by the book. As Giuliani is not a part of the government, I'm not sure how it fits into the question that I answered. Perhaps you meant to ask another question.

#138 - I don't know. We'll have to wait for that evidence to show up or not. Your expectation that a request for information must have been already rebuffed before Trump made the request doesn't really make sense. You don't wait to be told no before making an introduction with someone. It would be foolish to waste the opportunity to broach the subject with Zelinskyy while he was already in direct communication with him.

#139 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:21 AM | Reply

T"rump also did not ask Ukraine to reopen an investigation. He asked for them to provide information to the Dept of Justice."

Without a complete transcript of his conversation with the Ukrainian president, we don't really know that for sure. After his comments today, it seems quite plausible he did, if not explicitly, then implicitly:

Trump urges Ukraine, China to investigate Bidens

President Trump on Thursday encouraged Ukraine and China to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son amid growing concerns over how Trump has used his position to pressure foreign governments to look into his political rivals.

"I would think that if they were honest about it they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked what he wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the Bidens following the July 25 call between him and Trump.

www.msn.com

#140 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:14 AM | Reply

Jim Sciutto @jimsciutto

I've lived in China & covered it for decades. It is an authoritarian country with no credible rule of law which imprisons & kills political opponents. For a US president to call on such a country to investigate an American is incredible. Will Republicans who know this object?

#141 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"For a US president to call on such a country to investigate an American is incredible. "

Yet some people don't mind supporting them by buying their stuff made with slave labor in polluting factories just so they can save a dollat

Go figure

#142 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-03 11:28 AM | Reply

The same people who are supporting a President openly violating the law also support the people who are fighting to keep wages low which forces people to shop on price. The median individual income is only $31,099. You can't afford to NOT save a dollar if you are in the bottom half of wage earners.

#143 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-03 11:37 AM | Reply

--It is an authoritarian country with no credible rule of law which imprisons & kills political opponents.

It's pretty funny that in their zeal to get Trump, some of the leftists have switched from Chinese communist-coddling to saying what some of us have been talking about for years.

#144 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-03 11:40 AM | Reply

Yeah, because low wage workers buying cheap ---- from Walmart is the moral equivalent of the billionaire president asking China to investigate his political rivals.

#145 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:42 AM | Reply

The same people who are supporting a President openly violating the law also support the people who are fighting to keep wages low which forces people to shop on price.

??

You seem confused ... low wages are due to an enormous amount of unskilled immigration. There used to be a path lawn mowing(high school), fast food (college), first job (testing), advance(software engineer).

Today there is only one leap, straight to software engineer, if you can't to that ... well good luck!

#146 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-03 11:50 AM | Reply

"I do know how statistics work."

Yet when I assumed the authors of a right-wing rag voted for Trump, you went ballistic, saying I didn't know how they voted.

If you didn't have double standards, you'd have none at all.

#147 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 11:54 AM | Reply

Without a complete transcript of his conversation with the Ukrainian president, we don't really know that for sure. - #140 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:14 AM
Fair enough, we can amend my comment to "We have no evidence that Trump also did not asked Ukraine to reopen an investigation. In the record of the conversation, He asked for them to provide information to the Dept of Justice." I'm satisfied that this is factually correct.

"I would think that if they were honest about it they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked what he wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the Bidens following the July 25 call between him and Trump.
www.msn.com
#140 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:14 AM

Having an opinion, and expressing that to reporters is not urging China or Ukraine to do anything. Using the word 'urging' there is your source trying to push a narrative.

#148 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:56 AM | Reply

Maybe the headline should have used the word Harris did with Barr: suggested.

www.rawstory.com

#149 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 12:02 PM | Reply

"Fair enough, we can amend my comment to "We have no evidence that Trump also did not asked Ukraine to reopen an investigation. In the record of the conversation, He asked for them to provide information to the Dept of Justice." I'm satisfied that this is factually correct."

He also said to Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what happened." How is Zelenksy going to find out what happened without investigating?

#150 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 12:07 PM | Reply

Again, how does one get to the bottom of something without investigating?:

"The President: 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 siuation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."

#151 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 12:13 PM | Reply

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

Emphasis mine:

verb: investigate; 3rd person present: investigates; past tense: investigated; past participle: investigated; gerund or present participle: investigating
carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.

Similar:
inquire into
look into
go into
look over
probe
scrutinize
conduct an investigation into
conduct an inquiry into
make inquiries about
try to get to the bottom of

#152 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 12:24 PM | Reply

@140 Yeah, reviewing the quotes in the article, it is a call for them to investigate. I stand corrected.

#153 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 12:25 PM | Reply

@152 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday:
"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
The subject he was requesting be looked into is 'whatever you can do with the AG', not investigating Biden, according to the notes on the conversation .

#154 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 12:33 PM | Reply

The way I read it, Zelensky himself knew investigation(s) were being asked of him:

"I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the
investigations will be done openly and candidly .."

"President Zelenskyy: [T]he next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case."

The company in question is the one Biden's son worked for.

#155 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 12:56 PM | Reply

It's hard to know which investigation Zelensky is referring to here as Trump raised 3 potential investigations with him (CrowdStrike and the server, something about one of the ambassadors and the Biden one):

"On the other hand, I also wanted ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation."

There is reporting that Trump raised the Biden investigation 8 times during the conversation. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, it might help clarify which investigation Zelensky is referring to in that comment.

#156 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 01:05 PM | Reply

You seem confused ... low wages are due to an enormous amount of unskilled immigration. There used to be a path lawn mowing(high school), fast food (college), first job (testing), advance(software engineer).
Today there is only one leap, straight to software engineer, if you can't to that ... well good luck!
#146 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-10-03 11:50 AM | REPLY |

The facts do not support your opinion

www.bloomberg.com

publicintegrity.org

www.forbes.com

#157 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-03 01:26 PM | Reply

The company in question is the one Biden's son worked for. #155 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 12:56 PM
That is false. The company in question is Crowdstrike. Trump mentioned it earlier in the conversation:
"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 situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

There is reporting that Trump raised the Biden investigation 8 times during the conversation. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, it might help clarify which investigation Zelensky is referring to in that comment.
#156 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 01:05 PM

I agree that there could be more clarity with more information, but at this time we don't have the evidence. Meanwhile, the news keeps claiming 'Trump asked Zelinsky to investigate Biden as part of a quid pro quo'. It may be true, we just don't have evidence of that theory, yet. And the news is pushing a narrative, because they aren't indicating that it is a theory, or that there isn't sufficient evidence to indicate it.

#158 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 01:28 PM | Reply

"The facts do not support your opinion"

Andrea's not here for facts; he's here to lie based on his agenda. Just watch: within a fortnight, he'll repeat the lie you just debunked.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 01:29 PM | Reply

"That is false. The company in question is Crowdstrike. Trump mentioned it earlier in the conversation:"

No, it is not false. Yes, Trump mentioned Crowdstrike earlier n the conversation, but right before that comment by Zelensky, Trump talked about Joe Biden and Zelensky responds about "the persecutor". There was no Ukrainian prosecutor looking into Crowdstrike as far as I know and not one Biden and others were trying to get ousted:

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

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of a11 I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we won an absolute majority in our Parliment, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case."

#160 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 01:46 PM | Reply

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

Trying to stop a prosecution sounds "horrible" to Trump...?!?

That idiot is nothing but "tells". What a shrink's dream.

#161 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 01:49 PM | Reply

The only company that Trump mentioned in this issue is Crowdstrike - according to the report of the conversation.

#162 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 02:21 PM | Reply

The only company Trump mentioned by name, yes, but he is alluding to a company in this statement:

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution [of the company Hunter Biden worked for] so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

Crowdstrike wasn't an issue when Shokin was a prosecutor. At least that's the way I read it.

#163 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 03:11 PM | Reply

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution [of the company Hunter Biden worked for] so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."
Crowdstrike wasn't an issue when Shokin was a prosecutor. At least that's the way I read it.

#163 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-10-03 03:11 PM | REPLY

You seem to have missed the part where this happened

www.axios.com

#164 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-03 08:14 PM | Reply

Hey Avi,

Check out this story:

Trump Envoys Forced Ukraine to Commit to Investigations

Two of President Trump's top envoys to Ukraine helped draft a statement for the country's new president in August that would have committed Ukraine to pursuing investigations sought by Mr. Trump into his political rivals, three people briefed on the effort said.

www.nytimes.com

In case the NYT article is behind a pay wall, notice the specific mention of the gas company Burisma:

'Crazy to withhold security assistance' to Ukraine for political campaign: Top US diplomat

In a separate thread between Sondland and Volker directly, the two diplomats discussed contacts with Ukrainian officials and requests for them to open an investigation. On Aug. 13, they appear to be drafting language for Ukrainian officials to announce an investigation into "the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians."

"I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future," Volker writes, with Sondland responding, "Perfect. Lets send to Andrey after our call."

"Andrey" is an apparent reference to Zelenskiy's aide Andrey Yermak, with whom Volker had put Giuliani in contact.

"Want to know our status on asking them to investigate," Volker said on Aug. 15 of contacting Yermak. Two days later, Sondland asks Volker for an update, and Volkers responds, "I've got nothing. Bill [Taylor] had no info on requesting an investigation -- calling a friend at DOJ (Bruce Schwartz)."

Sondland asks, "Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma" -- which could be a reference to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Biden's son Hunter was a board member.

"That's the clear message so far..." Volker responds. "I'm hoping we can put something out there that causes him to respond with that."


abcnews.go.com

#165 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 10:12 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

Dean Martin is the republican base

Rodney Dangerfield is Trump

#166 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-04 03:58 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort