I believe in innocent until proven guilty and, thus far, I have not seen anything to argue for impeachment. That does not mean that there is not a reason for impeachment. That does not mean that the House should not explore the possibility.
But I am not going to jump on a bandwagon when we have no sort of proof of any wrong doing.
THE EPOCH TIMES' Ivan Pentchoukov Tweeted the following:
I would also recommend you read this article at ZERO HEDGE FUND about how rules were changed to allow the source to be called a 'whistle-blower.'
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
In the United States, the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. Jim Newall (SLATE) notes:
While most of the news focus this week pertained to certain goings-on in the House of Representatives—goings-on that of course Elizabeth Warren was the first candidate to call for, in April—Warren has started to take Joe Biden’s lead. She led Biden narrowly, for the first time, in two national polls released this week, and she has taken the lead in the Iowa polling average as well. She took the lead in a New Hampshire poll. She is nearing the lead in Nevada. She is drawing healthy shares from supporters of both Clinton and Sanders in the 2016 primary contest. She is starting to see some movement among black voters. Democrats are the most enthusiastic about her candidacy. There is … nothing going wrong right now? Nothing! This newsletter likes to make jokes about how politicians are failing at politics, and she’s just not giving us anything.
So while Elizabeth is up, Joe is down, dragged down by his own actions. Over at US NEWS AND WORLD REPORTS, Susan Milligan speaks with University of New Hampshire's Dante Scala:
Biden, in fact, might have some vulnerability on the Ukraine matter with voters, Scala says, because voters might wonder how and why the younger Biden went to work for a Ukrainian firm while his father was in the White House.
"It's not a great look, even though there's not any evidence of wrongdoing," Scala says.
There is absolutely the evidence of wrong doing.
This lowering of our standards is how we end up with presidents unfit to serve.
Joe Biden's son Hunter gets employed by a firm and that's the wrong doing. Yes, Hunter needed a job. Three months prior the US military had kicked him out of the reserves because of his use of cocaine. They should have referred it over to a court, he should have been arrested. Instead, they just kicked him out. Three months later, with no experience to speak of, he's brought on and paid $50,000 a month.
That is unethical. And his father at the time was vice president. Joe then has interactions with the government of Ukraine. That is unethical.
Hunter never should have taken the job to begin with. Once he did, Joe should have been removed from any and all dealings with Ukraine.
It is unethical. And as vice president, Joe insisting, "I didn't do anything wrong," isn't enough. Joe has to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was the Vice President. He has to be held to a higher standard while in that office.
Mike Allen, Margaret Talev, Alexi McCammond (AXIOS) note:
It was Joe Biden’s family that almost kept him from running. Now, it could help drag him down.
Why it matters: The former vice president has to answer questions about family controversies just as Elizabeth Warren is catching him in the polls.
No, wrong doing? Corruption in office is wrong doing. There is ample public knowledge that suggest wrong doing without any investigation.
Joe did not do his job as vice president because that job included avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Joe did not do his job.
His actions look smarmy, his actions appear unethical. And that's without any probe taking place.
The usual idiots of the faux left are refusing to look seriously at what is right before their eyes. In some cases, they're afraid of 'helping' Donald Trump. Try helping yourselves, you idiots. This is about democracy, this is about fairness, this is about basic expectations of those in public office.
I can understand the press being leery to go into too much detail after the verbal attacks on THE NEW YORK TIMES. I don't like THE TIMES. I'm not a fan. That was long ago established. But they published an article -- this one -- that I've read over and over trying to understand the need to attack the paper for it.
Didn't REUTERS already report that the whistle-blower or 'whistle-blower' was CIA?
I don't understand the anger at NYT. The person is of public interest. The news report -- fairly bland to begin with -- serves the public interest.
But you have all these idiots claiming on Twitter that NYT did something wrong. Then claiming that they've cancelled their subscriptions -- most never subscribed. Some even bigger idiots insisting that they're going to subscribe to the physical paper of THE WASHINGTON POST -- who's going to deliver that to most of your homes? Lots of luck with that.
How could NYT do this!!!! They insist the paper was wrong and you protect a source and -- The person who filed the complaint is not a source to the paper. People don't even understand journalism. It's not -- REPORT WHAT I LIKE!!!!!
The immaturity is just astounding.
On impeachment . . .
One person wrote a lengthy e-mail to the public account stating that the snapshot was brief because I was avoiding the topic of impeachment?
No, that’s not why it was brief. I’ve explained why it was brief. I will probably note a hearing in Monday’s snapshot. I went back and forth over including it today but wanted to just focus on ethics.
The e-mail informs me that I was wrong (wouldn’t be the first time) when I stated that I didn’t believe Donald Trump broke a law as it was being described in press reports. I still don’t. Based on the latest details. If you want to say it was unethical, I’ll hop on board that. But the Justice Dept was correct not to prosecute. If Congress wants to pass a law, they can do so. Whether or not the Court would uphold it is a big if, but they can pass a law on this. Currently, there is no law.
The e-mailer, like Nancy Pelosi yesterday, wants to insist that Donald was attempting to ensure that he won the 2020 election.
You’re ascribing motive.
On someone you don’t even know.
As noted here many times over the years, and at THIRD, I do not like Donald Trump and that’s based upon my knowing him.
As someone who has known him over the years, I don’t think he was trying to get re-elected.
I think he’s on a kamikaze mission. I’m ascribing motive but I’m basing it on my personal interaction with him in the past. (And that’s limited, I’ve noted before that I would walk away if I saw him approaching.)
Bob Somerby and others have done crazy lunatic talk. Donald’s not going to leave!!!! He’s going to lose the election and he’s not going to leave!!!!
First, there’s a good chance he will win the election.
Second, if he loses, he’ll leave and he’ll leave playing the victim and spend the rest of his life saying how the US screwed up and how every president after him screwed up. That’s Donald.
You know what else is Donald? Thinking the world is against him. “He didn’t even want to win!” That’s what some said as the 2016 election approached and after. Yes, he did. But he didn’t think he would and he didn't want to be seen as wanting it as much as he did because he felt the world would then laugh if he lost. That’s his low self-esteem. That same low self-esteem tells him he probably won’t be re-elected. As such, he’s out to destroy now. This was about punishing others. It was not, “Joe could beat me!” It was, “Democrats have been corrupt and I’ll take out any I can on my way out the door.” That’s Donald.
To be clear, I have not stated he will lose in 2020. There’s a good chance he’ll win. Especially if impeachment is pursued. Especially if No-Enthusiasm Joe is the nominee.
But he has low self-esteem and that’s what he operates from.
“He has a huge ego!!!!” He has bravado that covers (for some) his low self-esteem.
So I think he’s on a kamikaze mission to take out as many as he can before January 2021 when he fears/suspects/believes he will be leaving the White House.
That’s me ascribing motive. I don’t deny it. But I’d argue my insight is a little greater than some speaking on his possible motives.
Donald has low self-esteem. If he lost the election, he would see it as part of the world victimizing him and would leave the White House. I do not get the crazy that Bob Somerby has repeatedly preached on Donald locking himself in the White House after losing the election and refusing to go.
But I also don’t get the nonsense Bob preaches about Donald being crazy. His actions do not surprise me, they do not mystify me. I do not believe he’s insane. I do believe he is the wounded child who never recovered.
Note, the snapshot this morning included Stan's "PRODIGAL SON" -- I don't know how that happened but it was in here twice. To be clear, Stan wrote that. It also included the impeachment section 3 times. That's been reduced to one. Stan did a strong review of "PRODIGAL SON" and I want to be sure he gets credited for that. Ava and I do our TV pieces at THIRD. -- C.I., 9/27/19 12:37 pm EST.
The following sites updated: