Letters to the editor: Nov. 29, 2019

Where’s the compassion?

In response to the criticism directed at the homeless shelter: I agree there is a problem.

Last winter, I reached out to a homeless woman with mental health issues. She faced challenges all winter with admittance to the gospel mission for the night.

The article has individuals associated with the mission saying they don’t turn away cold, desperate people; no one has ever come that was hungry and cold and didn’t get served; and people generally get five warnings before they are turned away for the night.

But if the woman in question showed up early, she lost her chance for the night. If she received one warning, she lost her chance for the night. And she was never offered a taxi ride.

She communicated over and over again about the lack of respect and kindness shown to her and other members of the homeless population. I didn’t believe her until I read the article in the paper.

It appears others are facing the same issues, but the article only addresses those who can speak for themselves. What about all the rest?

Finally, mission officials indicate many people arrive with problems unrelated to the shelter, and their complaints need to be viewed in that light; complaining parties don’t want to make themselves look bad, so make the mission look bad; and the mission appreciate people voicing concerns, but thinks these concerns should be taken to the board and staff first.

My thought is, if individuals’ concerns and complaints were being taken seriously, this article would not have been written.

Christina McMillan



Clear evidence

Having watched the impeachment inquiry over the last two weeks, I believe there is clear evidence that President Trump intended to withhold U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for a personal political favor. Nearly every person who has testified to the House Intelligence committee has agreed that what the president and Rudy Giuliani were attempting to do was inappropriate and hurt American interests abroad. There are many in the Trump administration who say that what the president did was “perfect.”

But the keen observer will notice those people have all refused to say that under oath. If anyone had evidence that the President’s intentions were not corrupt, they should be presenting that evidence to the American people instead of stonewalling the investigations. When the Republicans try to argue President Trump was only concerned with corruption, it’s important to remember that in the last few years, Donald Trump has had to pay $25 million in fines for operating a fraudulent university and $2 million for illegally taking money from a children’s cancer charity and giving it to his business. Let’s also remember that his children are traveling the globe representing themselves as members of the president’s cabinet while making business deals for the Trump organization.

Tyler Crook



Don Dix

Tyler Crook -- you may be correct about Trump and his 'family dealings' -- and eerily similar to 'those dealings' of the Clinton Foundation while Hilary was Sec. of State -- wouldn't you say?

For decades, our government has been all about it's individual selves, not the people.


Tyler, The POTUS, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and others do a quid pro quo every day. When you go to breakfast out you do the quid thing by implying you will pay for food. You go to the doctor and you get something for money. When Obama withheld funds for something. They all do. We all do. To stop quid pro quo is to stop everyday negations. is that what you want? Do you really think this is all a good thing? You might but then you need to look at the big picture.

Tyler C

gophergrabber - I'm not sure how to take your comment. It sounds like you are arguing that government corruption is morally and legally the same as buying a stick of gum. I hope you don't believe that.


What Tyler did not say is that the president's attempted bribery was an effort to influence the upcoming election, and thus it is folly to say there is no need for impeachment and a trial since there will be an election. What good is an election if it has been rigged?
Similarly, how can a House impeachment or a Senate trial be fair if the president forbids those most knowledgeable about the facts at issue from testifying? Yet this is what he has done.
It is well past time to bring honor, dignity and decorum back to the White House. Arguing that everyone does it or has done it does not make it right. Leadership requires setting a better example.

Don Dix

Rigged elections?

Rutherford Hayes - Sam Tilden (threats of violence unless Tilden was elected -- 'Tilden or blood' was the D chant).
Kennedy - Nixon (many dead people registered and voted -- 56 people with the same Chicago house address voted for Kennedy)
Bush - Gore (Gore supporters delved into the background of R electors to find dirt and cause them to change their vote -- and then the 'hanging chad' fiasco).

These are a sample of election fraud, or at least 'attempted fraud'.

And in 2016, the DNC primary was rigged to ensure Hilary got the nomination (Hilary's campaign 'bought' the super delegates by splitting her donations with respective state parties if compliant -- 6 months before any primaries)

It appears to me that the problem is politicians and their quest for power, at any cost or using any tactic. Before Trump, Eisenhower was the last US President who was not a 'politician' (70 yrs ago). Think about that!

In politics, it's an ascension to the top by eliminating the opposition by any means necessary. Some just complain when it 'happens' to them, not for them.


Don-I'm not clear if you are endorsing anything-goes elections or if there is nothing to be done so why bother. Can you clarify where you would draw lines?


Don - you are so right.

The same people wanting to impeach the president are no where to be found regarding the most egregious election interference by the party in power on the other's candidate in the history of our country as happened in 2016 by the Obama administration (Russia Collusion Hoax). We will know more when the IG report comes out Dec 9th and especially when the Durham investigation is out next year.


Also - I don't see how anyone can watch the two videos (one of Jim Jordan breaking down the so-called claim of quid pro quo and the other of Joe Biden himself) in the link below and believe there is a equivalence. This is insane.


Don Dix

BT -- The point is election antics are nothing new, but for some, like Adam Schiff, it's as if every election up to the latest has been perfect and above board.

My take is thus -- Term limits on all elected government positions (12 yrs. Senate - 8 yrs. House). The presidency is 8 yrs., why not limit congress?-- no lifetime paycheck (many members don't do diddly and vote strictly along party lines, yet receive twice the average US worker for life). When they have termed out, go find a real job! - Eliminate insider trading, franking privileges, free family medical, tax deductions while living away from home state, free home state office furnishings (average $40K), 220 days of yearly vacation, including the whole month of August, free airport parking ($132K/yr.) and mostly free flights to and from DC. -- Put a 5 year moratorium on members from accepting positions from big business that has profited from friendly legislation.

These perks allow members big advantages not afforded to US citizens, as well as a rapid gain in personal wealth and a cushy retirement (they also qualify for SS). The idea that members of congress 'serve the public' is total BS -- members of congress might be the most self-serving group on the planet!


Thank you, Don. I don't recall hearing Schiff say anything of that nature and I watched every hour of the recent hearings. But can you agree that we should not let the failure to achieve "perfect" elections stop us from trying to have better elections? After all, cops don't catch every speeder, but they still ticket the most egregious ones when they spot them.
The rest seems not germane to Tyler's letter regarding the president using our tax dollars for his personal political advantage. But since you went there regarding term limits, perhaps you'd include federal judges and, especially, SCOTUS justices? We may have common ground there.
Rob: Glad to see you have so much faith in the upcoming reports by governmental bureaucrats. In which case perhaps you should place more faith in the existing indictment of the 13 named Russians for 2016 U.S. election interference.
And, by the way, that debunked Biden story is so tired by now. He was in Ukraine to get a corrupt Ukrainian official to resign. He went there openly, representing not only the U.S. government position, but also that of the Europeans. This is well established. He was not there for personal or political benefit.


Debunked exactly by whom? Then you'll have no issue with the Biden's being fully investigated by a DOJ special council regarding the matter. Let's get call transcripts from the time - financial records - the whole works. It's not like Trump hasn't been under that kind of a microscope for three years now. I see no reason why Biden can't be held to the same standard.

Also - people that spoke with the president directly said no quid-pro-quo (see link for a senator). The Ukrainians had to wait 55 days. Big deal. Americans have to wait that long to get their first social security check when they get paid late in current month for the previous first month. If you read the call transcript Trump is also concerned about the Europeans chipping in money and a whole host of other items; including what happened in 2016 (false research out of Ukraine that led to his campaign chairmen resigning). In that call they never discussed the aid you claimed was held up for personal political reason's once. The Javelin missiles they talked about are a new order from the Ukrainians. Biden was a late 'shoot from the hip' side note. One that maybe the president shouldn't make, but hardly consequential.



Rob-We can probably go crazy citing our sources to each other, so that may not be very fruitful. But here goes for the benefit of others: The Hill article you cite was written in early October, before Gordon Sondland testified. So subsequent events have rendered it out of date, or, in the words of President Nixon's press secretary discussing Watergate denials, "inoperative." The Hill article cites Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin citing the president's denial (in other words, hearsay) of a quid pro quo scheme. But then later Trump himself denied a quid pro quo, which would make citing Johnson unnecessary. However, Trump is known for his many -- how do I say this -- lies. This was also before Sondland himself revised his statement to acknowledge the obvious: Trump demanded a quid pro quo. ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sondland-was-there-a-quid-pro-quo-the-answer-is-yes/2019/11/20/34741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html ). The core question to be asked is: Are we as a nation going to accept foreign interference in our electoral process?
As for the delay -- "55 days, big deal" -- tell that to the families of the Ukrainians who were killed and injured fighting the Russian invasion and occupation during that delay.
Regarding Joe Biden, I just did a quick Google search using the phrase "why did Biden go to Ukraine." On the first page of my results were stories from the New York Times, Washington Post, Forbes, the Wall St. Journal, Reuters, Bloomberg, the LA Times, USA Today, Vox, CNN and Business Insider. All these reputable news organizations debunk the story about why Joe Biden went to Ukraine.


Rob - A further thought or two: About your earlier link to Armstrong Economics, I wasn't going to say anything because it appears to be a stock market modeling and methodology operation, not a news source that fields its own news gatherers/reporters.
The focus of the discussion needs to stay on what did the president do, when did he do it, and why. Some of that was established last month. All else is distraction. I am sure we all look forward to this week's release of the report from the House Intelligence Committee hearings and further impeachment hearings by the Judiciary Committee.

Don Dix

BT -- The SCOTUS and federal judges are appointed, not elected -- different drum.

Questions -- Is there any federal government official that has not used their elected position for personal advantage? Who might that be?

Trump is a DC outsider, and many Ds and even Rs are upset that he has invaded their 'private playground'. Hilary was considered 'next in line', but since Trump won, anything to derail him is on the table. That has been the mantra for 3 years.

And what has the house (which controls the purse) done since the Ds took control? -- very little but bitch. There is plenty to be done (health care, infrastructure, deficit spending, immigration, etc.) and what does the American public get? -- hearing after hearing, all designed to oust Trump. Mueller didn't work, so now it's Ukraine. It's as if the only mission is to impeach, and evidently nothing else.


Don-Again a distraction from Trump's conduct. Your questions: (Is there any federal government official that has not used their elected position for personal advantage? Who might that be?) are not addressing the issue of *Trump's* conduct. He is the current president. That is why the focus needs to be on him. Your implied argument that they all do it, so it is OK does not make it OK. Do you mean we need to give up on objective standards? Down that road is anarchy.
Your paragraph on the House is another distraction. You seem like a smart guy, so surely you know that most of the what the D House passes (and it has, in fact, passed a lot of bills) do not get hearings or votes in the R Senate. So the do-nothing Congress is mostly the result of the intransigence of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow Rs. Here is a Nov. 29 headline from Vox.com:
House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them. Legislative paralysis gripped Capitol Hill well before impeachment started.


Regarding the federal bench not being elected, that makes it the least democratic (note the small d) of the three branches of government, meaning that it requires more safeguards for the people, not fewer. But, once again, this is not addressing Tyler's letter.
Finally, in an effort to get the conversation back on track, I'll note that so far the House impeachment inquiry is addressing only Trump's conduct related to withholding Ukraine aid. But there are other issues that could be addressed that have not been. For example, from the day he was inaugurated Trump was violating the terms of government's lease he holds for the Trump hotel in Washington. And he was violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution from Day 1. There are other potential impeachment articles. I'm confident the House will cite him for obstructing Congress, just as the House Judiciary Committee did with President Nixon, for failing to produce witnesses and documents.


>This was also before Sondland himself revised his statement to acknowledge the obvious: Trump demanded a quid pro quo.

In his twenty-three pages of opening testimony Ambassador Sondland never once mentioned that when he asked the president directly about a quid-pro-quo the president told him no quid-pro-quo. Leaving that critical piece of information out is like when the NYT recently left out in a detailed article about an alleged Kavanaugh sexual assault at Yale the victim had no recollection the event ever happened. Again - when asked directly the president repeatedly said no qui pro quo. Also - the case against the president isn't just hearsay - its 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th person hearsay and conjecture.


> "55 days, big deal" -- tell that to the families of the Ukrainians who were killed and injured fighting the Russian invasion

That claim is highly conjectural and ignores the fact that Ukraine already possesses Javelin anti-tank missiles provided by the administration (unlike Obama).

>Armstrong Economics, I wasn't going to say anything because it appears to be a stock market modeling and methodology operation, not a news source that fields its own news gatherers/reporters

I chose it because he put the two videos in one place. I also like the opinion sources with apolitical motives (e.g. making money/investing). Much of the media now is so statistically biased, to the tune of 90-96% (see links). They've allowed themselves to become 'party presses'. These studies don't even take into account selectivity bias.



Sorry - I inserted the wrong Ukraine-Javelin missile link - note this story is from 2018


Don Dix

BT -- I did write 'they all do it' (use their position for personal advantage) -- I did not write that particular use of position is 'OK'.

So why do all the shady operations and dealings within congress get a pass (in your world), and the only focus is on 'what Trump may have done'? If the corresponding letter following Trump's name was a 'D', we wouldn't be having this conversation (with you, at least).

Jeb wrote an article on just this subject, 'Polarization thrives in American politics' -- and that title describes exactly the situation here -- both sides of the isle are looking for 'the latest gotcha' on the other side. Hardly a productive focus.

Holding everyone accountable is the only way to clean up any mess made by many -- and counting the Senate and House, there are hundreds responsible (thousands counting aides and lobbyists), not just one here and there.

The approval rating for congress is a dismal 20% (far below Trump), so from this view, it appears the public wants them to get back to the work that benefits the people.

Mike D

I agree with term limits on the Executive, Congress, and mandatory retirement of the Federal Courts and the Supremes. The length of the terms is for a good discussion. I agree that polarization is a massive problem. For me polarization is structural more than it is a bunch of criminals. Although, yeah there are a bunch of those. The two party system, and both parties make sure no third or fourth party builds, and the tax payer funded primary elections, have resulted in Congress members being safe. Being safe means they don't have to compromise. In some places their voters are just a few folks. In other places many thousands. Maybe term limits would help. At least every once in awhile new folks would get a chance.


This includes a video of sworn testimony on the QPQ. Here is the lead of the story: "A U.S. ambassador on Wednesday explicitly linked President Trump, Vice President Pence and other senior officials to what he came to believe was a campaign to pressure a foreign government to investigate Trump’s political rival in exchange for a coveted White House meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid."
As to the core issue of Trump's conduct, I can do no better than to quote the conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin: "Trump abused his office and endangered national security by withholding a White House meeting and military aid in an effort to extort an ally into assisting him in his reelection bid."
Don-I never said we should not investigate other wrong-doing. You keep bringing it up. In fact I think all serious crimes should be investigated. But continuing to bring up your arguments is an exercise in "whataboutism." That is distracting. Let's keep the focus on Trump as he is the one currently in power. Then we can turn to other matters.


It's good to see the Washington Post cares so much for Sondland's presumptions. I can presume too - Sondland is speculating verbally to minimize the damage this attention is doing to his businesses (e.g. a hotel in Portland). When asked what the president told him directly the answer was clear - no quid pro quo.

Regarding conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin: "Trump abused his office and endangered national security."

One day never-Trumpers on the right and left are going to wake up from their collective derangement long enough to comprehend the damage to our national security they've wrought.

Notice the story below. This is the first land bridge between Russia and China EVER. That is astonishing considering they share a 2,615.5 mile border (a third longer than USA/Mexico) and says something about their relationship prior to the Russia Hoax. Construction of the bridge started December 2016. That is no accident as the Russia histrionics were in full force at that time.

The Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax foolishly drove the Russians into the arms of the Chinese creating a quasi alliance between the two powers flying in the face of longstanding American foreign policy. Given the nonstop leaks and release of transcripts, the Ukrainian tactic calls into question the confidentiality of any presidential discussion with a foreign leader. That is not a minor thing during any future time of crisis.



Rob, for the upteenth time you have failed to address the key issue in your response. Russia and China getting cozy is interesting, but that does not pertain to the president's impeachable conduct. Those who don't have the facts on their side try to distract with other issues.
Now that the logs of phone calls between Rudy and "-1" at the White House, Rudy and Lev, Rudy and OMB, and Nunes and Lev are detailed in the House Intelligence Committee report released today, this is looking more and more like a conspiracy. In fact, this conspiracy has the markings of a mob-style RICO violation. I may be able to say more after I finish reading the 300-page report.
Just wait until Trump says he hardly knew Rudy. There may be some pictures of us together, Trump might say, but those were just at parties.
BTW, I did note that Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said today after a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting that, “I saw no evidence from our intelligence community, nor from the representatives today for the Department of State, that there is any evidence of any kind that suggests that Ukraine interfered in our elections.”
I don't have a closed mind on this matter. I hope you don't either. I'd be willing to fairly judge any exculpatory evidence, but so far Trump has forbidden any of his people to discuss the "perfect" call. If it was so perfect why is he hiding them from Congress?
And it is simply illogical that Trump would first say Ukraine is corrupt and then ask Ukraine to investigate corruption.


Back with the hoax/derangement/what-aboutism/conspiracy slate of Russian propaganda, eh? Some folks definitely need to wake up – and/or get deprogrammed – before the deranged power-mad wanna-be dictator in the White House succeeds in destroying America. He depends on his faithful to ignore reality, to swallow the lies whole, and to remain obediently uninformed.
Here is an old but still timely link for anyone who cares about our democracy enough to discern the REAL facts:



Address the key issue? This is America - presumption of innocence until proven guilty. No direct proof of quid pro quo or smoking gun. Speculation, opinion, and hearsay. Call logs with Nunes? So what. We don't even know what the calls were about and many were like a minute. Yet more innuendo. People in politics call each other all the time. Speaking of call logs - how about those between Schiff and the so-called whistleblower et. al.?

It will be interesting to see how Nunes's lawsuit against CNN regarding their Ukraine story goes. It's not that difficult for him to prove he wasn't in Vienna in 2018. Romney? Why didn't the reporter ask him to explain why a court in Ukraine ruled they meddled in our 2016 election when they announced investigation into alleged illegal payments (he was never charged by either Ukraine or Mueller) to Trump's campaign chairman. Has everyone forgotten that somehow? I happen to remember when Manafort left the campaign in the summer of 2016.



>And it is simply illogical that Trump would first say Ukraine is corrupt and then ask Ukraine to investigate corruption.

Not true if the president believes formerly corrupt individuals are being replaced as per the call transcript. Schiff et. al. are ignoring very plausible reasons for the delay. Delays in aid to prompt action by another country is very common (see link). Per the call transcript corruption wasn't the only concern or reason for holding up aid. It is clear the president was lobbying for money for Ukraine by our European allies. If he is successful in getting others (like Germany per the call transcript-see page 2) Ukraine will have received a net benefit from the delay. He has had demonstrable success getting NATO to increase funding for their own defense.



Treefarmer: you mean the same NPR that falsely accused Don Jr of lying to congress?



If this isn’t the essence of irony, I can’t even imagine what is. I cited an article from NPR (which may I remind you Robs, YOU cited a link from NPR not long ago) and you chose to “counter” with NEWSWARS?? REALLY?? The article you cited has hot links to INFOWARS – which is all one needs to evaluate the (zero) credibility of this source. (Tin foil hats anyone?)

You would be well served by reading the common sense advice in the NPR article. Oh wait…. if Alex Jones and his ilk make sense to you then don’t bother.


Let me see if I can address a few of your points, Rob:
First, "presumption of Innocence." The impeachment is not a criminal trial, so that does not pertain. But when invited by Chairman Nadler Trump declined to appear or send his lawyers. So he is not even putting up a defense. And in any event, the House proceeding is not the trial; the Senate convenes the trial.
Second, "no direct proof of quid pro quo." The president's own words in the July 25 phone call show an exchange of aid and a White House meeting for personal "favors." That is the essence of qpq. You would be on stronger ground if you admitted that's what it is (as many are now acknowledging) but say that it does not rise to impeachable conduct.
Third, "we don't even know what the calls were about." We might find out if the president would stop blocking his aides from responding to subpoenas


Fourth, "how about those (calls) between Schiff and the whistleblower." Schiff says he has not talked or met with the so-called whistleblower. Even in all the hours of the Judiciary hearing today no R even tried to trot that one out again. BTW, what's with your use of the "so-called?" The person is a whistleblower, no irony there.
Fifth, "Nunes' lawsuit against CNN." Another unrelated distraction by both Nunes and, now, you. Move on.
Sixth, "Trump believes formerly corrupt individuals are being replaced." I think I understand you, though the "formerly" makes it awkward. Logically, if Trump believed that then there is no need for him to try to root out corruption in Ukraine.
Seventh, regarding Trump and NATO. He's just skedaddled from the meeting in London after the other leaders made fun of him. He is all over the map on NATO. One year he was to disband it and another he wants to preserve it. Geez. Can't make up his mind.


Last, "delays in aid to prompt action by another country is (sic) very common." That missed the point entirely. The issue is why, and in this instance the answer is for Trump's personal political advantage in our next election.


Do you remember the chants the Democrats did “No One Died When Clinton Lied?” It seems plenty connected to the Clintons have died ....


Treefarmer- I used the link because it had the applicable tweets referencing NPR revisions of the original story showing their oversight - I learned of their oversight from a book I read that compiled a list. Even NPR succumbed to the Russia hysteria and did not do their due diligence before publishing. I never have listened to Alex Jones - don't know much about him. My point is simple - during the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax you had single anonymous sourced story after story that later turned out to be false. I can provide a more comprehensive list if you would like - its not hard to remember some of the false bombshells (e.g. Cohen was in Prague, Trump directed Cohen to lie to congress, Trump directed Flynn to contact Russian ambassador before the election ect..). This is one of the many reasons I like sources that imbed reference material or if possible go to source material (e.g. transcript) myself.


1. They scheduled this hearing knowing full well Trump was out of the country for a NATO meeting. Impeachable defenses are defined in the constitution. Why people cite Gerald Ford is beyond me.
2. People like to crop his statement and take it out of context. Here is what the president said. " 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." What is he talking about? The Russia Hoax that crippled the first half of his administration. When is he saying this? The day after Mueller showed he was little more than a figure head (didn't even know the basics of the report that bore his name). Note - I refrained from calling it a hoax until his testimony made it clear. Also, the DOJ is actively investigating its origins (Durham) and Ukraine is one of the countries being investigated. We will know more when Durham's report is out but a Fusion GPS source (people behind Steele dossier) may be from Ukraine - Nellie Ohr testified to congress Leshchenko provided Fusion GPS with information on Manafort.


3. I am not remotely ok with Schiff getting call records from AT&T without it going through a judge. The Libertarian in me is going ballistic. So be it - the Senate should now get his. All innuendo.
4. He is a so-called whistleblower because he had NO first hand knowledge and the 'complaint' was compiled by a bunch of outside lawyers. It is clear that Vindman was one of his sources from the NSC and Schiff lied about having no contact or not knowing the 'whistleblower' from the hearings.
5. CNN is working with the Democrats to attack Nunes because he's been effective in countering the impeachment narrative. A smear to weaken his credibility as he fights back.
6. It could have been worded better. He is trying to make sure that a new president that ran on rooting out corruption is for real. Trump does this type of thing how a businessperson does it - getting to know them personally and watches what they do.
7. I don't think they were making fun of Trump as much as laughing about how brazen he is to talk with the press without staff pre-prepped 'political coaching'. Actions not words. NATO spending from the Europeans and the United States is up dramatically since Trump took office.
8. Personal political advantage? Like this whole thing it's presumptive - in this case Biden will be the nominee. The call was over six months before the first primary. Why again is Biden exempt from investigation? Trump and his campaign wasn't in 2016-2019. I'm not a Republican, but I highly doubt they will go for this heads you win, tails I lose, scenario.


>conspiracy slate of Russian propaganda, eh? Some folks definitely need to wake up – and/or get deprogrammed

@Treefarmer - McCarthyism eh? Unfortunately, that is so very common now.



“This business of high crimes and misdemeanors goes to the question of whether the person serving as President of the United States put their own interests, their personal interests, ahead of public service.”
--Mike Pence, 2008
Done and done.


"Done and done"?

More assumptions. There are multiple reasons for asking about investigations in Ukraine - long history of corruption, 2016 election interference that led to the resignation of his 2016 campaign chairman (Manafort), cooperation with ongoing DOJ investigations - see transcript excerpt below - notice he directs them to the attorney general (DOJ), Biden's own statements [have you ever heard of an administration threatening to withhold a billion dollars unless a single foreign prosecutor is fired within 6 hours? I haven't]. I will never forget how Robert Mueller knew so very, very, little, about an investigation he supposedly led. It should be renamed 'The Weissmann Report'.

President Trump - July 25, 2019 - "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. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."


Note- the assumption in which I referred was that the president put his own interests ahead of the country. In the case of interference in a major party's campaign during the general election of 2016 and the crippling of the executive branch of our government years afterward by at best an ill-founded allegation, conspiracy of his campaign with the Russian government, they align.


"Researchers suggest that there are a number of different reasons why people believe in conspiracy theories. Many of these explanations boil down to three key driving factors:

A need for understanding and consistency (epistemic)
A need for control (existential)
A need to belong or feel special (social)"

(source: verywellmind.com)


Is that why so many bought the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory debunked by the so-called Mueller Investigation hook, line, and sinker?


Trump supporters should prepare themselves. Trump is going to be impeached and rightfully so. It's not likely republicans in the Senate will vote to remove him from office which is very unfortunate for the country. If not removed he will likely run again and will lose. Trump through his corrupt dealings before and during his presidency will haunt him until the day he dies. New York state prosecutors will pursue him the minute he leaves office. Same goes for all the corrupt sycophants who have enabled this president to have free reign in all his dirty dealings at the expense of the country.


Rob - there's no convincing these people. Trump will be re-elected. What a waste of time and money. Our money that could be way better spent. Disgusting charade.


Never-Trumpers should brace themselves for when this gets to the Senate and there is actual due process. The House intelligence committee is sitting on testimony they won't release (e.g. IC IG). Why is that? I can hazard a good guess. Could it be exonerating?

Yesterday was a farce. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, did a good job representing the Republican's don't-impeach case but two representing the Democrats (why three to one???) were clear partisans. John Eastman says he was first chosen to be the Republican constitutional expert (see minute 3:30 of video clip below) but Democrats in the House blocked him. If that is true, it is disgusting and is but one more reason this as a sham process.



I don't even understand why those supposed scholars had anything to do with this circus. They had no involvement in anything. Schiff and those other morons better watch out. They ha e tried every angle and nothing is sticking. Love Jordan, Nunes, Collins and Gaetz. Good people.


The mention of Jordan, Nunes, Collins and Gaetz in conjunction with anything patriotic or REMOTELY positive is sad and not based in reality. They are pathetic sycophants. The fact that some Republicans, our fellow Americans, can condone – much less defend – the lawless destructive behavior of the "chosen one" is horrifying. I find much to consider in Kathleen Parker’s take as to what accounts for at least some of this:

“The answer isn’t only that Trump otherwise pleases them. [Republicans] It is that, as a society we’ve become inured to outrage by its constancy. We swim, steep and marinate in rudeness, coarseness, foul language, and lurid behavior. President Trump could have been a leader but chose to seek attention instead. He, not the media, is the enemy of the people – at least the decent ones.”

Characterize them as you will, the impeachment hearings are our best hope to pull our nation back from the brink. If the "stable genius" gets away with this, who can even imagine what he will be empowered to corrupt and defile next?

We will soon see if anyone is willing to put country ahead of party and defend the Constitution. (Honorable Republicans stepped up to rid us of Nixon’s treachery, so there’s always hope.)


So when this thing gets to the Senate, an actual investigation into Biden-Ukraine can be done. This is the timeline and why it's fishy to say the least.

Late 2015: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html

April 2016: Shokin fired https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10 This is Biden talking about it. Was this just a coincidence? Was it really about corruption or is there something more because Hunter Biden is on the board of Burisma?


What's the problem with an investigation to exonerate Joe Biden? Isn't that what we just did with Trump-Russia collusion and the Mueller Investigation? Why isn't what's good for one fine for the other?


They are highly patriotic and I stand by them. The leaders of this charade can rot.

Soon the report will be out with criminal findings.


I am deeply grateful the leaders of the impeachment process are doing their jobs and honoring their oaths, unlike the king’s ludicrous genuflecting toadies. (Faith in the toadies brings to mind that old adage about cutting off your nose to spite your face.) And for those who are depending on the IG report to validate the already debunked conspiracy theories Putin has disseminated to create chaos among us, I think there may be some cognitive dissonance and disappointment ahead. Guess we will all find out the truth sooner or later - and some of us will welcome it.

Mike D

Nice discussion. Right "Pow" Left "Zap". Nice local restraint from folks who do this dance together often. No one trying to change anyone's mind, just sweet monologues. Here is a site I cruise often called AllSides. https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news It lists Right Left and Center sources on different issues. These are collections of different news media sources. At this stage of our national and local conversation, I'm not sure conversation is the right word, we are a long way from consensus or compromise. God help our democratic republic.


Finch - your acceptance of Trump and his corrupt behavior say that going forward a president can do anything they want. This is very important information. So, I hope to read your support of everything the next democratic president does...no matter how unlawful, corrupt, self-enriching, foul-mouthed and unpatriotic they are. I'm glad you will be on board.

Bill B

OK Mudstump, we get it; you don't like our president. Not sure I do either, but he has done far more than his predecessor. I do think of his predecessor often, at least one a month when I have to pay an exorbitant health insurance premium.


Bill B - "Not sure I do either, but he has done far more than his predecessor."

I wasn't a huge Obama fan, but you are correct in that.....

Trump has denigrated the office of the president "far more" than Obama ever did.

Trump has lied "far more" than Obama.

Trump has put "far more" children in cages.

Trump has bribed and extorted "far more" than Obama.

Trump has paid "far more" fines for cheating and stealing from charities than Obama.

Trump has damaged our relations with our allies "far more" than Obama.

Trump cut and run on the Kurds leaving them to be slaughtered "far more" than Obama.

Trump paid porn stars "far more" than Obama did.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift.


Bill B - I forgot one.

Trump has "far more" advisors and political consultants who have pled guilty or been convicted than Obama......like way more.


Thanks Mike D. https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news is an interesting website.


Mudstump - It seems that truth and logic may not be dead yet, but certainly imperiled if not on life support. All we can do is to keep trying, and I really appreciate your voice of reason.


treefarmer - After reading your comments I always think..geez...I wish I could be half as eloquent with my responses.

We are in some really dark times and I cling to the hope that truth and good will prevail.


Dark times indeed……….still, hope is the fuel of progress. Thanks for the kind words.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable