House Republicans argue that Donald Trump withheld Ukrainian security aid because he’s a tireless fighter of foreign corruption. This is not even remotely true. Here are the facts.

House Republicans just released a 123-page report which they claim refutes the case for Donald Trump’s impeachment. In the report, Republicans argue that Donald Trump did not withhold military aid from Ukraine for his own self-interest, but because of “a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.” The report goes on to say, “The President’s initial hesitation to meet with President Zelensky or to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent.” I could literally go on for hours about this, but, as it’s my son’s 8th birthday, and I have ice cream-stuffed mochi to distribute, I’m going to keep this relatively brief. Here are just four simple things to consider.

1. There had already been a “thoughtful review”… The idea that these funds were going to be handed over to Ukraine “without thoughtful review” is absolute bullshit. Federal law requires that, before such funds are released, a detailed review be conducted, in order to ensure that the money in question would be used in the manner intended by Congress. In this instance, the person in charge of the review was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood, who, this past May, green-lit the release of the funds allotted by Congress. In a letter sent to four congressional committees at the time, Rood wrote that he had “certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability.” Here’s an excerpt from his letter.

So, here’s the timeline… Rood conducted the review and gave word to release the funds passed by Congress in May, the Defense Department then announced in mid-June that the $250 million in security assistance would be sent to Ukraine, and the White House blocked said assistance in July… So, when people say that Trump was insisting upon a “thoughtful review,” it’s just not true. The thoughtful review had been done. And there’s no evidence that Donald Trump did anything more in the way of a review after halting the security aid. All he wanted from Ukraine, as we heard repeatedly during the impeachment inquiry in the House, was for President Zelensky to announce an investigation. [Trump did, of course, eventually release the aid, after his scheme was made public, but it had nothing to do with any additional review having been conducted.]

2. There is no evidence that Donald Trump cares about Ukranian corruption… Donald Trump, to put it bluntly, doesn’t give a fuck about Ukrainian corruption, contrary to what House Republicans maintain in this new report of theirs. Most notably, we know this from U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, a Trump appointee, who testified under oath before the House Intelligence Committee a few weeks ago that Donald Trump didn’t really want the Ukrainians to conduct a corruption investigation at all. According to Sondland, Trump just wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce that an investigation into the Bidens and CrowdStrike had been launched. To quote Sondland directly, “(Zelensky) had to announce the investigations, he didn’t have to actually do it, as I understand it.” So this was never about rooting out corruption. This was about creating doubt in the minds of American voters as to the character of Donald Trump’s chief Democratic adversary in the 2020 race.

3. If Donald Trump is such a champion for ethical government, why isn’t he fighting corruption anywhere else on the globe? On October 3, during his sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Kurt Volker, the former State Department special envoy to Ukraine, was asked if Donald Trump ever expressed “concerns about corruption in any other country besides Ukraine.” He said that the President had not. Likewise, Ambassador Sondland, was asked during his October 17 deposition whether he knew of “any aid being withheld to the other 28 countries in your portfolio under President Trump in 2018 or 2019.” He, like Volker, said that he did not. Simply put, there is no evidence that Donald Trump cares about corruption anywhere else on the planet. Given that, why would anyone believe that his true intention in withholding military aid from Ukraine had anything to do with a true, deep-seated and genuine desire to tackle corruption?

4. If Trump cares so much about Ukrainian corruption now, what about earlier in his administration, before Zelensky was elected, when corruption was actually much worse? OK, let’s assume for the sake of argument that all of this is true, and that Donald Trump really does care about corruption and the good people of Ukraine who suffer as a result of it. If that were the case, why wouldn’t Trump, the tireless champion of ethical governance that he is, have stepped in last year, or the year before that, to push for reform? Why wouldn’t he have demanded a “thoughtful review” during Ukraine’s last administration? Why did he instead wait for a reformer like Zelensky to be elected before withholding funding?

Ambassador Sondland, as you may recall, again under oath, told members of the House Intelligence Committee that he couldn’t recall a time prior to this that Donald Trump cared about Ukrainian corruption. The following comes by way of Slate.

…Sondland couldn’t recall any attempt by Trump to withhold aid from Ukraine last year, when the Kyiv government was plagued by corruption. By contrast, (acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor) testified that Volodymyr Zelensky, who took office as Ukraine’s president this year, “appointed reformist ministers,” opened an anti-corruption court, abolished lawmakers’ immunity to prosecution, and “supported long-stalled anti-corruption legislation.” On May 23, Sondland and other U.S. officials personally told Trump about Zelensky’s anti-corruption initiatives. An American president who cared about corruption would have been moved by this presentation. But Trump wasn’t. “He didn’t want to hear about it,” Sondland testified…

So, according to his own appointee, until there was something to be personally gained, Donald Trump didn’t care about corruption in Ukraine. And, even after he determined there was something to be gained, he didn’t actually care. He only wanted for Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens and CrowdStrike. He didn’t want an actual investigation. He just wanted to be able to point to a video clip of Zelensky on CNN, saying that prosecutors were looking into the activities of Joe Biden and the Democrats.

I could go on, but I think that should be enough for most reasonably intelligent American adults to accept the following statements of fact… First, there is no evidence that Donald Trump cares about corruption anywhere on the face of the planet. Second, Donald Trump, it is clear, is only pretending to care about corruption in this instance because he feels as though it may help him in the 2020 general election. And, third, in order to see this happen, Donald Trump withheld crucial security aid passed by Congress from a valued ally in order to coerce not an actual investigation, but an announcement of an investigation, into his primary domestic rival. And, yes, that’s more that sufficient grounds for impeachment.

This entry was posted in Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. John Brown
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    Fucker Carlson over on Faux Newsless is unabashedly pro Ruskie aggression now. Gop is dead. Traitors gonna hang.

  2. iRobert
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Trump is blaming Obama again at the NATO summit. He’s such a rediculous embarrassment. I’m glad everyone around the world is seeing the sort of imbiciles we have here.

  3. iRobert
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    It’s kinda funny to watch Republicans reduced to such sniveling little worms. They’ve been refined down to their essence.

  4. iRobert
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Anybody who thought Republicans actually stood for something can let go of that notion for good. Meanwhile, Democrats are content with fighting each other. Maybe they can tone-police us all into a better world. They’re geniuses.

  5. EOS
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Can you help me understand why France should be able to tax US technology companies for using the Internet that was created by our military?

  6. Lynne
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    They want to tax internet revenue where the end-users reside rather than where the companies are incorporated. It is a bit like how we require foreign companies to pay sales tax here on items sold here.

  7. here's what just happened
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Unable to wage any kind of argument on behalf of Donald Trump, EOS posts about French taxation.

  8. EOS
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    So if a French person buys American made goods, France collects a sales tax? What sort of imbicile would agree to that? Obama?

  9. EOS
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, I’m not in the least interested in having the President I voted for thrown from office because he delayed the release of foreign aid – for any reason. The majority of Republicans and Independents agree with me. The Senate will not join in this charade.

    I lost interest in the continuous impeachment process years ago. I guess that’s what you do if you have no viable candidate of your own. Kamala just dropped out. Who’s next? Who could possibly win?

  10. Anonymous
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    So if a Michigan person buys [in Michigan] Ohio made goods, Michigan collects a sales tax? What sort of imbicile [sic] would agree to that?

    So if an American lives and makes money in another country, America collects an income tax? What sort of imbecile would agree to that?

  11. Lynne
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    EOS, France has a VAT rather than a sales tax but yes, American made goods are subject to that tax.

    It really does amaze me that people are so willing to look the other way at our president’s criminal behavior. He not only deserves to be thrown from office, he deserves prison. Maybe a supermax solitary confinement for his own safety.

  12. Lynne
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Also, fwiw the USA doesn’t actually have a say in French taxation so not sure why you want to blame that on Obama?

  13. Eel
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    “Sorry, I’m not in the least interested in having the President I voted for thrown from office because he delayed the release of foreign aid – for any reason.”

    You are beyond hope.

    Mr. Maynard, please initiate the blocking sequence.

  14. Eel
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    I re-read your comment and it makes more sense to me now, EOS. You say that you’re not interested in having “the President I voted for thrown from office because he delayed the release of foreign aid – for any reason.” You aren’t saying it’s not illegal. You aren’t saying that a Democrat who did the same thing shouldn’t be impeached. You’re saying that it shouldn’t happen to “the President I voted for.” That’s very telling.

  15. EOS
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Eel –

    It’s a nothing burger regardless of who did it. Far bigger fish to fry.

  16. John Brown
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Eventually when Putin reveals he has blackmail control over Agent Orange over sexual abuse videos of him with underage girls at Epstein human trafficking parties, EOS will say “nothing burger”. The Christian right is lost in the fucking desert.

  17. EOS
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 3:45 pm | Permalink


    It doesn’t matter what you make up. If there were evidence that Trump did what you said, we wouldn’t be watching hearings about whose feelings were hurt and who presumed something.

  18. John Brown
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    We’re watching hearings about crime. Me calling you a stupid fucking holy roller might hurt your feelings, but if I conspired to defraud you because you’re a stupid fucking holy roller, that would be a crime. Figure out the difference if you’re going to be a Citizen.

  19. Jean Henry
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    EOS– IF you were to buy say a nice French Bordeaux here (which would probably do you some good–Blood of Christ) then you would pay MI sales tax on it. You will also now pay a US tariff which is folded into the price. What imbecile agreed to that? (Hint: Not Obama)

  20. Jean Henry
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Let’s consider who is the imbecile here.

  21. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    “Eventually when Putin reveals he has blackmail control over Agent Orange over sexual abuse videos of him with underage girls at Epstein human trafficking parties, EOS will say “nothing burger”. The Christian right is lost in the fucking desert.”

    See, nothing you say is real. In fact it’s the opposite of the truth. Trump’s biggest haters (whose lies you promote) are the abusers. You latch onto the lies because they feed your misanthropy. It must be horrible feeling the way you do all the time. You actually hate good people and try to demoralize them.

  22. Jean Henry
    Posted December 3, 2019 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Eel and John Brown and anyone else scratching their heads at EOS’ surprisingly flexible morality when it comes to Trump, may find this piece enlightening.

  23. Jean Henry
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    A group of mental health professionals led by a trio of pre-eminent psychiatrists is urging the House Judiciary Committee to consider Donald Trump’s “dangerous” mental state arising from his “brittle sense of self-worth” as part of its inquiry into whether to approve articles of impeachment against him.

    “We are speaking out at this time because we are convinced that, as the time of possible impeachment approaches, Donald Trump has the real potential to become ever more dangerous, a threat to the safety of our nation,” said Yale Medical School Professor Dr Bandy Lee, George Washington University Professor Dr John Zinner, and former CIA profiler Dr Jerrold Post in a statement which will be sent to House Judiciary Committee members on Thursday.

    The statement will be accompanied by a petition with at least 350 signatures from mental health professionals endorsing their conclusions.

    All three psychiatrists have said they are willing to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry.

    The statement warns that “[f]ailing to monitor or to understand the psychological aspects [of impeachment on Mr Trump], or discounting them, could lead to catastrophic outcomes.”

    “[W]e implore Congress to take these danger signs seriously and to constrain his destructive impulses. We and many others are available to give important relevant recommendations as well as to educate the public so that we can maximise our collective safety,” the psychiatrists write. …They felt it necessary to come forward once more because the US president is “is ramping up his conspiracy theories” and “showing a great deal of cruelty and vindictiveness” in his “accelerated, repetitive tweets,” which she explained are signs that he is “doubling and a tripling down on his delusions. I believe that they fit the pattern of delusions rather than just plain lies,” she continued, pointing to the claim he made during a meeting with Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary-general, that “many legal scholars” were “looking at the transcripts” of his 25 July phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and agreeing with his description of the call as “absolutely perfect” as an example of his pathology.”

    They need to meet his little friend HW.

  24. EOS
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    The French want to tax Google and Facebook.

    Yes, goods that cross International borders and are sold at that location are taxed. A country can add a tax directly to the entity that ships goods across their border also. There is no exchange of goods when someone opens their Facebook page. France can tax their Internet providers but has no right to collect taxes on the information on the internet. If Google or Facebook charged their users, then France might have a claim. Those who provide the information, e.g. NY Times, could charge for their copyrighted material, and maybe France could justify taxing this. But no, they shouldn’t be allowed to profit from freely shared information.

    Neither Jean nor Rolling Stone have a good understanding of my religious or theological beliefs. The Social Gospel is a liberal attempt to replace the true gospel and is not considered orthodox (note, not Orthodox). The Bible didn’t change recently. It is the same as it was yesterday, is today, and will be forever. It needs to be read and understood in its entirety, not misinterpreted with isolated passages.

    My moral values are consistent and unchanging. I can participate in the political realm even though none of the candidates are moral religious leaders. God uses flawed individuals to accomplish his agenda, because, in case you don’t know, that’s all He has to work with.

  25. Lynne
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Your opinions on France’s taxation policies are not relevant. They can tax anything they want including information. We can try to negotiate with them of course and a good president would do that. Instead, we have an asshole who just demands. Luckily the French seem to know how to handle him. Basically they treat him like the toddler he is!

  26. EOS
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    That’s your opinion. Wonder why you think it is relevant but not mine?

  27. Lynne
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think my opinion about France’s taxes is relevant either, FWIW There is absolutely no reason for France to consider either of our opinions.

  28. Jean Henry
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    EOS– Facebook is a for profit entity. Without revenue what could they tax? They don’t make money on information that we exchange; they make money on the back end data collected and advertising. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be taxed if they want to tax it. Obama didn’t ‘let’ them do it. He had no say in the matter. Trump is willing to throw our own companies under the bus in order to try to have a say. He’s an idiot.

  29. Jean Henry
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    EOS– the rolling stone article basically explains the position of Evangelicals re Trump exactly as you have. Did you read it?

  30. EOS
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Yes, I read it. It got some things right but missed the nuances on much more, and got alot completely wrong. It is very slanted to liberal theology, which I am not.

    Facebook is an American company, headquartered in America. We collect taxes from it. No other country should levy taxes on American companies performing the work in America. If France does not want it’s citizens to use it, they are free to ban it within their borders.

    FWIW, Saudi Aramco is the world’s largest oil company, with a revenue of 465 billion dollars. China’s Sinopec Group is the second largest, followed by the China National Petroleum Corporation. Why don’t we tax their revenues for our benefit? Maybe because we have no right to do so. We only tax oil/gas that is sold here.

  31. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Getting psychologists involved is a mistake, imo.

    The strategic goal should be to avoid the appearance of theater as much as possible. Not an easy task. Enlisting the opinions of psychologists does not help with the suspension of disbelief.

    Dems are dumb.

  32. EOS
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Tony Perkins says it best:

    “This isn’t about what Donald Trump has done. It’s about what Democrats failed to do three years ago: Win. But instead of building a better case for their party bid next year, they’re focused on taking the choice out of voters’ hands altogether! And, worse, they’ve ditched their entire legislative agenda to do it.

    I’d hate to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) next year when Americans go to the polls and compare the Democrats’ accomplishments (none) with the president’s (trade, economy, taxes, judges, jobs, national security, international diplomacy, immigration reform, religious freedom, pro-life protections, military readiness, Israeli relations, and more). Or the Democrats’ vision (infanticide, open borders, socialism, gender confusion, Medicare for All, taxpayer-funded abortion, judicial activists, and the Green New Deal) with this administration’s.”

    There is no possibility of my moral values aligning with the Democratic vision. The personality is never the deciding factor in a voting decision.

  33. Jean Henry
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    But you have felt free, EOS, to moralize about Dem leaders while withholding the same kinds of judgment from Trump.

    FF– No one is bringing Psychologists into the impeachment process. They brought themselves into the public conversation about it. They have not been asked to be part of the impeachment process, nor should they.

    Dems aren’t actually dumb (or not any more dumb than Republicans) or they wouldn’t have the support of the majority of Americans, now would they? That must irk you.

  34. Jean Henry
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

  35. EOS
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Trump has not done the same kinds of things the Democrats have. They’ve investigated him for years and have come up with nothing substantial.

    Did Trump pay foreign intelligence to make up a false dossier about any of his opponents? Did he then use that dossier that he knew to be fabricated to get a FISA warrant so that US intelligence agents could be used to spy on any of his opponents? Has Trump used people in his cabinet to uncover masked names on confidential documents, so that they could be subsequently leaked to the press. Did Trump bleach any hard drives or cell phones to destroy documents that had been subpoenaed for evidence. Did Trump stand back and do nothing to save the lives of Americans, including an ambassador, when they were under attack, so as to hide the fact that our State department was distributing weapons to terrorist groups in order to assassinate foreign leaders and overthrow their governments? Has Trump used the IRS to harass any progressive groups? Is Trump’s state department funneling tax dollars to Soros operations to foment dissent in other sovereign nations?

    I could continue, but don’t have the time now. No, at best, you can claim that I am not equally outraged when I found out that Trump asked a newly elected foreign leader, whose country is overun with corruption, to reopen an investigation of Hunter Biden, who got paid a large amount of money for questionable reasons, and whose Dad, the VP at the time, bragged publicly that he had threatened to withhold aid to that country if they continued to investigate his son. Joe Biden, who has a hard time speaking in coherent sentences, is supposedly such a threat to Trump’s reelection that he will do anything to stop him.

    No. Everybody is judged by the same yardstick in my book. But if you care to look into a mirror, you might ask why you overlook Biden’s explicit threat to withhold aid, to focus on one sentence of Trump in a phone conversation that was a request, not a threat, and that didn’t benefit Trump in any way and which had no quid pro quo. The impeachment of Trump started before he even took office and it will be to the detriment of the Dems.

  36. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for clearing that up Jean. I misunderstood.

  37. Sad
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    I hate to agree with EOS but this impeachment stuff is a mistake. But oh well. Maybe after 4 more years the dems will get their shit together. Biden will be a joke.

    But Mayor Pete will be older and better prepared in 2024. Wait. What year is it that the minorities become the majority?

  38. Lynne
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Sad, Mayor Pete is going to have to work a lot harder to gain minority support to be successful in 2024. I hope he figures it out

  39. Sad
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    What do they want from Mayor Pete?

    I mean really. What do they want?

  40. Sad
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    If Mayor Pete were the nominee would POC vote for him or just let Trump win again?

    It’s going to be Pete or Biden.

  41. Lynne
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know, Sad. I know a lot of black people but they are people I grew up with. They think a lot like I do. Not surprising, we went to the same schools and hung out in the same neighborhoods and belonged to the same yacht clubs. They are my bubble.

    I know how my friends think because we talk about stuff a lot. There are lots of different opinions about which candidate is best with the group leaning pretty left with lots of support for Warren and Sanders. I have found some surprising support for Yang but mostly because I think my friend group is starting to be more open to the idea of a UBI. This group with the exception of one or two die-hard green party types and libertarians will all be voting for whoever gets the Dem nomination. However, perhaps not representative of most minorities?

  42. Jean Henry
    Posted December 4, 2019 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    It doesn’t matter how many times something is shown to be untrue, EOS will continue to repeat it as if that information simply does not exist. That’s what fundamentalism will do for you.

  43. EOS
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    Even though I’ve explained that I am not a Fundamentalist nor an Evangelical on a number of occasions, Jean persists in categorizing me. Does this mean we should infer that she is a fundie?

  44. Jean Henry
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    EOS– please note the Lower case f and the general use of the word ‘fundamentalism.’ I did not call you a “Fundamentalist” but inferred you subscribed to fundamentalist beliefs. (I know you are Catholic) You have stated over and over that you believe the Bible is the holy word and the absolute truth.

    noun: fundamentalism
    –a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
    –strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

    Pkeaae feel free to tell us where the Bible is wrong or inconsistent if you are not a fundamentalist in your belief EOS.

  45. EOS
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    There you go again. I am not Catholic. Stop it!

  46. stupid hick
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    EOS you should reflect on whether you are looking at Trump with clear eyes. And be more critical of what motivates Trump and the motives of his hand picked inner circle. That’s the gentlest way I can put it.

  47. EOS
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 9:07 am | Permalink


    You can never know what motivates another individual – you can’t read their mind. If asked, they often lie. At best, you project your own bias.

    Deal with the actual behavior, not what you perceive to be the motivation for that behavior. This would help many relationships avoid misunderstanding.

  48. Jean Henry
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    EOS– I’m sorry. I thought you had identified as such in the past, but I should have realized that you never identify any particulars about yourself, including gender, so that you can lambast people when they make incorrect assumptions in that vacuum of accurate information.

    So do you believe the Bible is the absolute truth, in Biblical inerrancy, which is not open to interpretation?

    How do you describe your faith?

    Let’s not set people up for getting it wrong again,

  49. Jean Henry
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    PS I think SH is dealing with your actual comments and so behavior which indicate a severe double standard re moralism and a tight focus on a few issues of moralism without any broader commitment to a larger morality or humanity. And then there is the insistence on your own logic but a severe disinterest in factuality. It’s confounding how you imagine yourself to be humane in any way.

  50. EOS
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    No Jean,

    I’m here to discuss ideas, not my personnel characteristics. Try to do the same – it would greatly improve this blog. Let’s see if you can go a day without criticizing anyone’s personal attributes, then 2, then 3 …

    Because I don’t disclose, you make up shit. Why?

  51. EOS
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 2:46 pm | Permalink


  52. Jean Henry
    Posted December 5, 2019 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t make anything up. I inferred. I still think you meet all the characteristics of a fundamentalist (small f). I’ll wait for you to demonstrate otherwise.

    Ps when you state I am not x,y or z, that is a declaration of your ‘personal characteristics’ just as much as being forthright would be.

  53. EOS
    Posted December 6, 2019 at 5:21 am | Permalink


    Although I deny any collectivist label you might come up with, you cannot logically infer any personal characteristic from my denial. I am a unique individual as is everyone. You can’t put a label on someone and confine them to a restricted niche.

  54. Jean Henry
    Posted December 6, 2019 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    EOS comes out for Transgender rights. Awesome!

  55. EOS
    Posted December 6, 2019 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Not. There’s no such thing.

  56. stupid hick
    Posted December 7, 2019 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    “You can never know what motivates another individual – you can’t read their mind. If asked, they often lie. At best, you project your own bias.

    Deal with the actual behavior, not what you perceive to be the motivation”

    Do I assume too much? When Trump sends his personal lawyer to interact with foreign officials I assume his motive is to advance his personal interests, not to represent the US government. When Trump gives changing or misleading explanations for his actions, which is often, I assume his motive is to deceive. When Trump instructs first hand witnesses and direct participants to refuse to answer questions that would, if he were innocent, remove concerns about appearance of a conflict of interest, I assume it’s because he believes their testimony would be damaging. I could go on and on, because it’s not just Ukraine, it’s because nearly everything Trump does is transparently to advance his personal interests, and he does nothing but mislead and misdirect when confronted about it.

    I get that you like his rhetoric, and I agree there is no one who is better than Trump at the game of “pwning the libs”. But he is so completely full of shit, and corrupt at his core, and a genuine dope.

    Seriously, any conservative goals that may have been achieved during his presidency are not because of his “leadership” but because he is manipulatable by McConnell, Mercer, Murdoch, Adelson, et al. But it’s not because of him, it’s in spite of him. And frankly even if you agree with their agenda, Trump is doing far more lasting damage to American interests because he is a dope who inflicts unnecessary harm on everything he touches, and he is also manipulatable by anyone who has money, who strokes his ego, who makes him think they will advance his personal business interests. As much as Murdoch and Mercer are pulling his strings, so are Mohammed bin Salman, Erdogan, and Vladimir Putin. Anyone who calls themselves a conservative should think long and hard about what “conservative” means and reject that corrupt, corrosive, buffoon that is Trump.

  57. Jean Henry
    Posted December 7, 2019 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Given all the crap EOS believes about Obama and Science, I don’t think we need to take lectures from them on how to discern reality or the truth or fairness even with regards to Trump.

  58. Jean Henry
    Posted December 7, 2019 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    “I deny any collectivist label you might come up with, you cannot logically infer any personal characteristic from my denial. I am a unique individual as is everyone. You can’t put a label on someone and confine them to a restricted niche.”

    Jean Henry
    “EOS comes out for Transgender rights. Awesome!”

    “Not. There’s no such thing.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Sea Serpent