To Impeach or Not to Impeach

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to To Impeach or Not to Impeach

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    THE END IS NIGH!

    No, uh, now THE END IS NIGH!

    No, uh, wait… now THE END IS NIGH!

    This is excellent Jack. Thanks! I can now abandon and delete my draft of “May The Farce Be With You.” Elder covered it all and better than I could ever do.

    • Peggy says:

      So much hate, lies and bias all together in one room was very difficult watch. Videos and articles written by them are now coming out on the three Dem “witnesses” showing that hate and exposing their lies and bias.

      Karlan’s attack on Barron Trump, a 13 year old child, was so inappropriate. Yet, she appeared unaware that she’d said anything wrong. Attacking children of republicans is acceptable you know, while God help you if you mention Obama’s daughters. To the gallows with you.

      Also sickening was to hear them speak of our Founders with such high praise, yet they support the removing of their statues and demand buildings and universities be renamed. Full display of hypocrisy.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Eh, I’ll comment anyway 😀

      Yeah, some “practicing” Catholic. Where is Nasty when her colleagues attack appointees for being Cathaolic in confirmation hearings? Where is Nasty’s strong, devout Catholic voice when it comes to late term abortion, partial birth abortion or post birth abortion?

      What about her boasting of having brought her grandchildren to watch when she received an award from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. She said she wanted the children to know that marriage between two men or two women was consistent with Catholic teaching.

      When she met with Pope Benedict XVI he rebuked her by instructing her on the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

      Nasty isn’t a very good liar and she certainly has next to nothing for dignity. Pelosi is as much a devout Catholic as Fauxcahontas Warren is a Cherokee.

  2. Peggy says:

    Great read!

    “Confucius, the only philosopher I know who was also prime minister of his country, was asked what one thing he would do first to improve the political health of his country. “Get the names of things right,” he responded (his statement is also sometimes translated as “the rectification of terms”). He understood the power of determining what people call things.

    We all agree that “no one is above the law” and we all believe in “the rule of law,” but exactly what those terms mean is now up for grabs. Recently some partisans have claimed that the “rule of law” means democratically elected officials, including the president, are bound by more than the written law duly enacted by Congress and signed by the president (or enacted by supermajorities over a veto) and the words of the Constitution. Their new definition of “the rule of law” would include the consensus of subordinate expert officials, the so-called “interagency consensus,” and the rules, policies, and procedures promulgated by the “deep state.” Change what “the rule of law” means, and you change who is running the country.”

    Full article.
    https://spectator.org/redefining-the-rule-of-law/?fbclid=IwAR3wD9tZXzkKnpEQzIFWMhbbIXqA2-bK5vIgXhAe7g8bK7-fuiMhitVWcm4

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Excellent.

    • Chris says:

      I’m confused. When Congress votes to approve funding for something and the president does not veto, what authority does the president then have to secretly withhold those funds? Where in the Constitution is that written?

      • Pie Guevara says:

        A confused ignoramus. In good company with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Clowngress’ impeachment circus trial.

        • Chris says:

          Answer the question.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Re Chris Souza’s amusing demand I “Answer the question.”

            Piss off Souza. Why should I deprive you of the fun and adventure of discovering the answer for yourself? It is easily done with a few intelligent searches. Or a trip to the library. Think of it as a learning experience. An Intellectual challenge for the intellectually challenged.

            Or you could take some coursework in The Constitution and constitutional law, but don’t take it at Fresno State. They have a reputation for producing confused and ignorant half-wits.

            .

          • Chris says:

            That’s no way to refer to Victor Davis Hanson.

            Wait, no, that’s exactly how one should refer to Victor Davis Hanson.

            Anyway, I’m going to continue to argue that the president does not have to power to secretly withhold funds to a foreign country until you show me evidence to the contrary.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/25/yes-presidents-can-hold-up-military-aid-not-like-trump-did-with-ukraine/

          • Pie Guevara says:

            “Anyway, I’m going to continue to argue that the president does not have to power to secretly withhold funds to a foreign country until you show me evidence to the contrary.”

            There was nothing “secret” about it. Souza can also “argue” all he wants about “how he did it” was wrong. That is an interpretation. The president does have the power of impoundment, period, subject to the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act.

            Go ahead and “argue” Souza. No one gives a crap about your confused “arguments” which often are little more than banal bloviation.

            As for VDH, he must be the exception to the rule as an educator at Fresno where as Mr. Souza is likely a paradigm of their product. If Souza is an indicator, VDH is likely the one voice of reason, knowledge, wisdom and intellect in a turgid mono-culture sea of progressive academic group-think.

            As Souza has none of the qualities that VDH possesses but all the qualities of an indoctrinated stooge I expect that he is a typical Fresno State product.

          • Chris says:

            He did not notify Congress, as the Impoundment Control Act requires him to do. Nor would his reasons for withholding the military aid–specifically, his desire for Ukraine to investigate Biden and Crowdtsrike–have been sufficiently related to the aid to have qualified as valid under the conditions of the act. Funnily enough, I learned after Googling the ICA that it was passed precisely because Nixon had done exactly what Trump is doing now–refusing to release funds for his own personal and political reasons. As for VDH, I stand by my critiques of his reasoning skills I made the last time you posted an article from him.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Whether Trump in fact violated the Impoundment Control act has not been determined and is not an issue of the impeachment. Some may recall that Clinton was not impeached because someone thought he had violated the law, it was because he had, in fact, committed a felony.

            Souza’s oft repeated contention that Trump withheld the funds for personal and political reasons is a politically motivated interpretation, not a fact.

            But even supposing that were part of his motivation, so what? Biden’s boastful admission of bribing Ukraine and his son’s connection to a Ukrainian company involved in government corruption in Ukraine and possibly the U.S. warrants investigations in Ukraine and here.

            I find it mildly interesting that in Mr. Souza’s mind — and Democrats in general — that because Biden is running for president that this somehow immunizes and absolves him (and his son) from investigation in connection to his self-admitted bribing of the Ukrainian government and his son’s connection to a company that was and is involved in government corruption.

            When Trump was running for president it certainly did not stop the Obama administration from investigating him.

            I think it is a good idea for the US and Ukraine to investigate Biden, his son and Burisma Holdings.

          • Chris says:

            Souza’s oft repeated contention that Trump withheld the funds for personal and political reasons is a politically motivated interpretation, not a fact.

            It is the only reasonable interpretation based on the available facts. Trump did not ask Ukraine for anything other than announcements of investigations into Crowdstrike and Biden–two issues that would help his campaign. If he was genuinely concerned about anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, he would have asked for other things.

            The fact that he did not notify Congress as he is required by law to do also speaks to a personal motive, as does the involvement of Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer.

            The fact that multiple witnesses have testified that Trump only wanted an “announcement” of investigations also points to a personal motive. The goal was to manipulate the news cycle, not to root out actual corruption.

            There is no plausible reason of national interest to have Ukraine investigate either of these two corrupt conspiracy theories.

            If Ukraine is so corrupt, why would Trump want them investigating themselves anyway? That doesn’t make any sense.

            But even supposing that were part of his motivation, so what? Biden’s boastful admission of bribing Ukraine

            At the behest of Obama, our allies, and members of Congress including at least two Republicans. This was done through a normal, transparent process, and the idea that Biden somehow orchestrated all this to protect his son–who was never personally under investigation, and whose company was actualy *more likely* to be investigated by Shokin’s replacement than by Shokin himself–has been shown to be ludicrous time and time again. That you still cling to this as if it were a personal “bribe” instead of official and appropriate US policy shows that you have nothing.

            I find it mildly interesting that in Mr. Souza’s mind — and Democrats in general — that because Biden is running for president that this somehow immunizes and absolves him (and his son) from investigation in connection to his self-admitted bribing of the Ukrainian government and his son’s connection to a company that was and is involved in government corruption.

            No, the facts that I point to above should immunize him from a baseless, politically motivated investigation. There is no coherent basis for believing that Biden’s actions here were corrupt. Every available fact makes that not only unlikely, but practically impossible–there is no way Biden could have been acting out of a selfish motive in this case. That theory doesn’t even make sense.

            When Trump was running for president it certainly did not stop the Obama administration from investigating him.

            But what it DID stop the Obama administration from doing was announcing that investigation publicly–the exact thing Trump pressured Ukraine to do. So if there’s a double standard here, it’s that my party doesn’t want to be seen as launching politically motivated investigations into rivals in order to influence an election, and your party says that’s completely OK when they do it.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Souza “anal-ysis”. Uh, OK Chris. *eye-roll*

        • Peggy says:

          Hey Pie, I have a question for you. Isn’t the Fed’s fiscal year from Oct.1st to Sept. 30th?

          So, if funds were released on Sept. 11th, doesn’t that mean it was done within the time mandated by Congress for that fiscal year? Unless things changed the 11th is still before the 30th.

          Some people need pictures to learn from.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Yes, that is the fiscal year but it has no significance that I know of.

            Historically impoundment was exercised as an executive power derived from the Constitution. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made it so a president no longer has the ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending. Under this act any funds withheld by a president must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days or the impoundment will not stand and the funds must be provided.

            Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise impoundment as an executive power provided by the Constitution. The power was was regarded as a power inherent to the office and available to all presidents until 1974. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first president to refuse to spend moneys for the purposes appropriated. Succeeding Presidents expanded those powers until 1974 when impoundment was specifically codified as it stands now in the Impoundment Control Act.

          • Chris says:

            The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made it so a president no longer has the ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending. Under this act any funds withheld by a president must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days or the impoundment will not stand and the funds must be provided.

            So you admit the president broke the law. Thank you.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            No, he did not and I admit no such thing you pompous troll jackass. What the hell is is wrong with you Mr. Souza? Are you always such a witless twit? What must your peers think of you? How about the poor students who are forced into a classroom where you “teach” and are subjected to such ludicrous asininity?

            That is your interpretation, an interpretation of political convenience.

            Trump temporarily withheld funds, and then they were released. Whether he violated the Impoundment Control Act is arguable and, in fact, is being argued by some. Trump is not being impeached for violating the Impoundment Control Act. No such charge has been made or in Congress or a court of law. Get it?

            Sometimes I wonder why I waste any time at all on Souza.

          • Chris says:

            You said the ICA requires the president to get congressional approval for withholding funds. Trump did not do that. Ergo, he broke the law. This is not debatable. That breaking this particular law is not an article of impeachment speaks to the desire by congressional Democrats to keep the articles as narrow as possible.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Souza: “You said the ICA requires the president to get congressional approval for withholding funds.”

            No, I did not and ICA does not, you idiot! You compete and utter idiot!

            The ICA states that any funds withheld by a president must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days or the impoundment will not stand and the funds must, by law, be provided. It does NOT say the president cannot impound funds without congressional approval. Its says that any rescission (permanent or temporary), must be then be consequentially approved. If not consequentially approved, then, by default, any impoundment cannot stand and the funds must be released.

            By exercising his power of office by withholding funds Trump did not break the law, you dolt. And Trump did release the funds.

            What part of that does Souza not understand? Still confused, ignorant and flat out stupid, eh Mr. Souza? My heart pumps cold concrete for you. I feel your shame.

            To repeat for the thick headed imbeciles amongst us, the ICA states that funds withheld by the president are subject to congressional approval within 45 days. Without approval within 45 days then — by default — any rescission cannot stand and the funds must be provided.

            No rescission approval hearings were ever held in either house and Trump approved the funds making any approval process moot. No law broken, you moron.

            I am dealing with a functional illiterate here with the comprehension skills of a brick.

            Moreover this from the person who graciously provides us with his “critique” of Victor Davis Hansen’s “reasoning skills”. Sometimes you just have to laugh, this fellow could not think himself out of a wet paper bag.

            I don’t believe that Souza actually holds down a job as an educator as he claims. No one this stupid should be employed in a position of authority and have his salary paid by California taxpayers. If I am wrong, then the K-12 education system in California is truly a wreck and the future looks bleak.

            Chris Souza’s mentor, the late Quentin Colgan, had his teaching credentials revoked, but that was decades ago. Things have changed. If Mr. Souza is actually drawing a dime off California taxpayers as an educator, welcome to the Brave New World, this state is screwed. Tax payers are again screwed.

          • Chris says:

            You could afford to be so mean if you were in any way correct. But you are not.

            The ICA does, in fact, require the president to notify Congress before freezing the aid. He did not do that.

            The ICA also requires conditions as to when deferrals are permissible. Trump’s stated reasons meet none of those conditions.

            The DoD also acknowledged to Congress that it would not be able to spend all of the funding before the end of the fiscal year.

            justsecurity.org/67489/trumps-hold-on-ukrainian-military-aid-was-illegal/

            I am unmoved by your attacks on my intelligence and character because I know that the claims I am making are supported by facts and experts in the field. Yours are supported by…Breitbart. You constantly attack my intelligence simply because of my political affiliation and the fact that I challenge your points. Meanwhile, a regular conservative poster claimed last week on this website that it was the job of the Democratic party to keep Jeffrey Epstein safe in prison, and you said nothing. You never call out ridiculous or dumb arguments on your own side, while proclaiming that my arguments–which are backed up by facts and experts, including people you respect and admire, like Jonah Goldberg–are stupid. This is pure partisan bias and I hope you overcome it some day.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Re Souza: “The ICA does, in fact, require the president to notify Congress before freezing the aid.”

            Peggy: Either Chris is a liar or just a confused, ignorant idiot with the comprehension level of a brick. (The latter is a given.)

            The ICA specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.

    • Chris says:

      Another obligatory fact-check of the claims about Alexandra Chalupa that I’ve posted before, that you’ve never read, and that you won’t read this time, either.

      https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/20/fact-checking-gordon-sondland-impeachment-hearing-/

      Just so you can’t say I didn’t try.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        Nothing in here says that Alexandra Chalupa was not nor ever a contractor for the DNC. Try and stay focused instead of putting up “fact check” articles that have a political narrative the “fact checkers” have in mind.

        • Chris says:

          Nothing in here says that Alexandra Chalupa was not nor ever a contractor for the DNC.

          Why would it need to? The relevant point in the article Peggy posted is “whether there was any coordination between the Ukrainian government and Democrats in the 2016 election,” a question that fact-check shows is baseless as related to Chalupa.

          I do find it amusing that the basis of this conspiracy theory is that Chalupa shared damning info about Paul Manafort, who was guilty as hell. Pointing out Manafort’s attempts at election interference is not, in and of itself, election interference.

          Your mutual Jonah Goldberg has a good article debunking the “Ukraine meddled” conspiracy theory here: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-10/opinion-republicans-acknowledge-russian-election-interference-so-why-are-they-so-irrational-about-ukraine

          A relevant portion:

          Other examples of Ukrainian meddling thrown around by Trump defenders mostly include random statements by individual Ukrainians or the effort by independent Ukrainian actors to release damaging — and truthful — information about former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s corrupt dealings in Ukraine on behalf of pro-Russian politicians. They often mention a Ukrainian court ruling saying the disclosure of that information amounted to meddling in U.S. elections. Less mentioned is the fact that the ruling was overturned. Whatever you make of all that, you could make the case that withholding such information would have amounted to “interference” too.

          But the idea that any of this is remotely equivalent to Russia’s clandestine, Putin-ordered interference is preposterous. It’s also irrelevant because there’s no evidence Trump had any of this in mind when he asked Zelensky about CrowdStrike.

          Just after the 2016 election, the Russia-born former chess champion Gary Gasparov tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

          That may be the closest we can come to understanding the president’s Ukraine strategy — and that of his defenders.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          As usual the “amused” Souza blathers on but the fact remains that Alexandra Chalupa and the DNC were bedfellows. Chalupa being a paid bedfellow. A bedfellow who would have reason to make statements that would protect her employer/client.

          The left-wing journal Politico reported that Chalupa, as an operative for the DNC, has admitted she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives after Trump become a serious contender in the Republican primary campaign in 2015.

          Jonah Goldberg’s point of view doesn’t change Chalupa’s relationship with the DNC nor her activities on their behalf when in their employ, which was my point to begin with. It also does not change the fact Ukrainian government officials did interfere in the 2016 election as revealed in a Ukranian court case involving Paul Manafort and corruption in Ukraine.

          According to Politifact “We found no evidence that the DNC authorized Chalupa’s research or worked directly with Ukraine’s government.”

          Wow, that is some powerful weasel wording.

          Fact: Chalupa was in the employ of the DNC.
          Fact: Chalupa had developed Ukrainian government sources specifically to help her dig up dirt on Trump while in their employ.
          Fact: The DNC paid for the phony Steele dossier.

          But hey, according to the Politicfact editorial that doesn’t mean they actually paid Chalupa to dig up dirt on Trump in Ukraine. They could find no evidence!

          Politifact as usual takes a few “facts” to weave a political narrative. It just this sort of opinion editorial disguised as “fact checking” that Souza so heavily relies upon to manufacture his own politically motivated narratives.

          • Chris says:

            Jonah Goldberg’s point of view doesn’t change Chalupa’s relationship with the DNC nor her activities on their behalf when in their employ, which was my point to begin with. It also does not change the fact Ukrainian government officials did interfere in the 2016 election

            This is not a fact, as the Goldberg article makes clear. It is a Russian conspiracy theory embraced by the Republican party.

            as revealed in a Ukranian court case involving Paul Manafort and corruption in Ukraine.

            As the Goldberg article also makes clear, that ruling was correctly overturned.

            According to Politifact “We found no evidence that the DNC authorized Chalupa’s research or worked directly with Ukraine’s government.”

            Wow, that is some powerful weasel wording.

            Fact: Chalupa was in the employ of the DNC.
            Fact: Chalupa had developed Ukrainian government sources specifically to help her dig up dirt on Trump while in their employ.

            That is not a fact. The “dirt” was on Manafort, not Trump.

            Why are you not concerned that Trump had a corrupt unregistered foreign agent as his campaign manager?

            Fact: The DNC paid for the phony Steele dossier.

            This has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.

            But hey, according to the Politicfact editorial that doesn’t mean they actually paid Chalupa to dig up dirt on Trump in Ukraine. They could find no evidence!

            Correct, because there is no evidence of such. I realize that doesn’t matter to you when accusing Democrats of things, while you will bend over backwards to not acknowledge any evidence of Republican wrongdoing.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Yikes! More Souza “anal-ysis”.

            “This is not a fact, as the Goldberg article makes clear. It is a Russian conspiracy theory embraced by the Republican party.”

            No it is a fact, Jonah Goldberg’s point of view doesn’t change Chalupa’s relationship with the DNC nor her activities on their behalf when in their employ, which was my point to begin with. It also does not change the fact Ukrainian government officials did interfere in the 2016 election.

            “That is not a fact. The “dirt” was on Manafort, not Trump.”

            The trial revealed that Ukrainian government officials interfered with U.S. 2016 elections. That the trial centered on Manafort receiving funds doesn’t change the facts I listed.

            Fact: Chalupa was in the employ of the DNC. She was.
            Fact: Chalupa had developed Ukrainian government sources specifically to help her dig up dirt on Trump while in their employ. She did.
            Fact: The DNC paid for the phony Steele dossier. They did.

            The fact the DNC paid for the phony, false Steele dossier would indicate to any reasonable person that they were willing to pay for any phony, false dirt Chalupa could dig up on Trump in Ukraine. That is the point dear boy. It’s not a “conspiracy theory”, is is a reasonable conclusion.

            “I realize that doesn’t matter to you when accusing Democrats of things, while you will bend over backwards to not acknowledge any evidence of Republican wrongdoing.”

            Pure, unadulterated horse pucky from the half-witted Post Scripts troll. Chris cannot do any better, this IS Chris, a troll.

          • Chris says:

            Absolutely none of that constitutes evidence that Ukraine meddled, Pie. A Ukrainian court case that was overturned obviously does not suffice, absent any detail or evidence from that case. And that the DNC paid for a private investigator does not imply that they would or did accept meddling from a foreign government; on the other hand, we know the Trump campaign went to a meeting for the purpose of getting dirt from the Russian government. By your logic, that makes it a reasonable conclusion that Trump accepted Russian help.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            I am not presenting evidence that Ukraine meddled you dolt. I am not trying to “prove” anything.

            I merely pointed out that in a court in Ukraine it was disposed that Ukrainian government officials did meddle and given the DNC’s dirty tactics using the phony Steele dossier that seeking dirt on Trump in Ukraine is something that would not be unexpected. In fact, Chulupa did seek dirt in Ukraine on behalf of the DNC as a DNC employee.

            Again, Souza proves he has comprehension and reasoning skills commensurate with that of a brick. He infers, assumes and presumes so much it is unlikely that he can understand anything at all.

            And with that I dispense with Mr. Souza.

          • Chris says:

            I am not presenting evidence that Ukraine meddled you dolt. I am not trying to “prove” anything.

            Yet you continue to state that Ukraine meddled as “fact,” despite being met with debunkings from experts on the left, right, and center.

            You don’t feel any obligation to prove the “facts” you present, because you know everyone you care about on your blog will believe whatever you say regardless. That’s called propaganda.

            In fact, Chulupa did seek dirt in Ukraine on behalf of the DNC as a DNC employee.

            There is no evidence of this, as the fact-check I linked to pointed out.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Dear confused and ignorant idiot, it was a Ukrainian court that ruled the Manafort disclosure caused meddling in U.S. election, not me. Go look it up fool.

            It was Chalupa herself who admitted to seeking to dig up dirt on Trump in Ukraine while in the employ of the DNC. Who else would she be trying to dig up dirt on Trump for? There is your evidence you nincompoop. Go look it up fool.

            No, jackass, I do not expect that, as you put it, “everyone you care about on your blog will believe whatever you say regardless.”

            No, I expect they can think for themselves and, in fact, do think for themselves.

            I expect all the folks who follow and contribute to the Post Scripts blog comment section can think for themselves with the exception of you and Lippy.

            I expect the other followers/contributors are completely unlike you, Mr. Souza. You who depends upon “Politifact” and whatever other sources you take your marching orders from to do your thinking for you.

            I expect you, Mr. Souza, to insult the intelligence of all the other comment section contributors and damme, sir, if you haven’t done just that!

            Lastly, this is not my blog you cretin. It is Jack Lee’s and Tina Grazier’s blog. I am merely their guest. An honored guest. Not a guest to be honored but a humble guest who is honored to be a guest. This is their table, Mr. Souza, not mine, and I am grateful and honored to be granted a place to sit at it.

            Here, again, Souza insists upon making a complete and utter ass of himself. Who am I to stand in his way?

          • Chris says:

            I don’t know why you think I’m confused about the Ukrainian court thing. I have already told you that the ruling was overturned, and that merely citing that case without explaining any of the evidence or how that (overturned) ruling was made does nothing to support your conspiracy theory, and does not prove as “fact” the theory that Ukraine meddled.

            Chalupa did not admit what you claim she did.

            The consultant, Alexandra Chalupa, told Politico that she had taken it upon herself to research Manafort’s connections to Yanukovych, the ousted former Ukrainian president. As Trump’s campaign surged, she started researching Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

            Chalupa shared some rumors and findings with officials from the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the report said. The day after Trump hired Manafort, she told the DNC’s communications team about Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia. Hacked emails also show her telling a DNC official a few months later that she had more information on Manafort.

            The Politico report also said the DNC encouraged Chalupa to ask Ukrainian embassy staff if former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Yanukovych’s successor, would be willing to take a question from a reporter on Manafort’s hire and ties to Yanukovych.

            But a former DNC staffer told Politico the DNC was “not directing or driving her work.”

            Chalupa took issue with the Politico article in a Facebook post. She told CNN she was not an opposition researcher and that the DNC never asked her to seek dirt from Ukraine. Multiple DNC and Clinton campaign officials also denied working with the Ukraine government.

            Kenneth Vogel, one of the reporters behind the Politico story, clarified on Twitter that the “DNC consultant was not repping DNC” in her communications with Ukrainians.

            Adrienne Watson, spokeswoman for the DNC, told PolitiFact that Chalupa was a part-time consultant hired to help the DNC “engage in outreach to American ethnic communities.”

            “The DNC’s contract with Chalupa permitted her to have other clients and/or engage in activities not on behalf of the DNC, which she presumably did,” Watson said.

            https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/oct/03/charlie-kirk/fact-checking-charlie-kirks-misleading-tweet-about/

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Oh, for crying out loud. Dear confused, ignorant jackass, the lower court ruling that was overturned was the ruling that in December 2018 that Sytnyk and Leschenko acted illegally by disclosing the fact Manafort’s name was on documents in the “black ledger” of the Party of Regions.

            The lower court’s decision that the disclosure resulted in interference in the electoral processes in the United States in 2016 and damaged the interests of Ukraine was NOT overturned. Only the decision that the disclosure was illegal was overturned. In other words, the ruling that the disclosure itself resulted interference in the U.S. 2016 election was not negated. Am I getting through to you now, blockhead?

            You should ask, Mr. Souza, do I care?

            No. I don’t think Ukraine had any effect on the U.S. election even if a Ukrainian court decided that there was interference. I just enjoy baiting a miserable little troll like you and then watch you get your panties in a bunch and make an ass of yourself over what I consider to be a complete non-issue.

            What your sacred Politifact opinion piece says does not change what Chalupa did, in fact, say about herself and was roundly reported. Moreover, I do not give a crap about what some DNC staffer has to say. I assume all DNC staffers are compulsive or congenital if not professional liars. Just like I assume Politifact is a fraud as a “fact checker.” Politifact uses the guise of “fact checking” to write what are actually political opinion pieces. They do not provide all the facts and when they — themselves — cannot find facts to check they claim “there is no evidence.” This technique isn’t even half clever as a rhetorical device, Mr. Souza, except to fools like you.

            So, Mr. Souza, are you going to continue to repeat yourself and your sacred Politifact article and try to bore me to death with you making an ass of yourself? Perhaps you think this a way to get rid of me, boring me to death. The last I checked, having to deal with insignificant bores such as yourself is not fatal.

          • Chris says:

            I guess Jonah Goldberg is a “confused, ignorant jackass” and a “blockhead,” because he’s who I got that information from. You still have not cited any evidence that Chalupa said what you claim she said. Bash Politifact all you want, but it provides a great deal more context than what you’ve offered. Your later statements reveal you to be the troll. You don’t care whether the misleading implications you’re making are true; you say you just want to make me mad. It kills you that you so rarely get me to stoop to your level.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            No, I would not say such things about Mr. Goldberg. He is entitled to his opinion and I respect him. I respect his keen mind. I respect his prodigious skills as a writer. I respect his accomplishments. I respect him even when I disagree with him. In fact, I do not have any objections to what he lays out in the article you linked to. I think he makes some excellent points. On the whole, I think some folks could read it and take it as good political advice.

            You I do not respect. You are an insignificant troll blockhead who tries to present your opinion as immutable “fact”. I find that risible. I find it hilarious. Moreover, you are completely unaware of what a clown you are when you troll Post Scripts.

            Mr. Souza, you consistently use the comments section to insult and attack the character and intelligence of Post Scripts authors and contributors to the comments section. You did it last week, you did it this week, you will do it next week. And you do it often in some of the most offensive and vile of terms by calling people with whom you disagree racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and bigots. It is what you do. You ARE a troll, period. There is no denying it. You have no defense.

            I have not cited any evidence that Chalupa said what she said because I do not have to. You can look it up for yourself. If you had any intellectual curiosity whatsoever, which I know you do not, you could easily find the pertinent statement. I could give you a hint, but I won’t. Go pound sand, I do not answer to you.

            You need to get over yourself, Mr. Souza. You might be more happy if you did.

            You trying to punch back by calling me a troll is pretty funny. Evidently you never got out of the the 3rd grade. Neener, neener, neeeeeener.

            You are unhappy because I beat you at your game, that I enjoy exposing you for what you are and enjoy making you squirm. Besides, how is it possible for me to troll a blog of which I am an author? I am trolling myself? That is hilarious, Mr. Souza, on many levels you cannot possibly understand.

            You are mad because I so easily stoop to your troll level and beat you with it. Man, are your panties in a bunch now or what? It is a sort of sport for me now. Not much of a sport but a sport nonetheless.

            Run along now and whine to your mommy that the big, bad Pie Guevara is mean to you, unfair, refuses your demands to answer your questions, tells you to do your own homework and refuses to provide you citations.

            Try posting again next Thursday. I am giving you, us and the other the contributors to the comments section a deserved “time out”. We have had enough of your risible and juvenile troll tripe for this week. Unless otherwise instructed, I am shutting your yap until then.

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Chris Souza above: “As for VDH, I stand by my critiques of his reasoning skills I made the last time you posted an article from him.”

    The laughably pretentious, self-important, self-aggrandizing internet troll nobody Souza may “stand” all he likes on his “critiques” but by way of comparison to the stature, knowledge, education, accomplishments, academic achievements, wisdom and “reasoning skills” of VDH he is but microbe on the ass of an elephant.

    I stand by my admiration for VDH. I also stand by my disdain for eye-roll inducing, insignificant internet troll nobodies like Mr. Souza who has no real accomplishments outside of being a risible pompous ass in the comments section of the Post Scripts blog.

Leave a Reply

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