This is a great read on the disaster that is Donald J Trump.
Anti Trump Meme Slideshow
Yeah, I can admit I hate Donald J Trump and many of these memes exposes this scumbag piece of shit, this Putin Puppet Traitor, this sell out to our country, this racist bigot, this misogynist pig, this pervert pedophile, this incestual prick, this disgusting low life sub human troglodyte, this pathological liar.
And if you do not hate his ass? Then I call you a Traitor to this Country.
If President Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, or any other President has done what Traitor Trump has done? I would also call it High Treason and demand he face the music for his crimes.
Because Traitor Donald J Trump decided it was more important to get dirt on Joe Biden Jr and his son so he could maybe win the re-election? He did in fact? Commit High Treason against the United States. And his little lawyer troll Ghouliani? Is also guilty of committing High Treason against the United States. And? Attorney General William Barr? Is guilty of being an accessory to the crime of High Treason against the United States. Any member of Trump’s cabinet who participated in this? Or helped in the cover-up of it? Are guilty of the crime of being accessories to, or accessories after the fact, to the crime of High Treason against the United States.
ANY Republican Senator or House Member, who stands up and defends Traitor Trump and his actions? Are in fact? Guilty of obstruction of justice and being accessories to the crime of Treason Against the United States. From Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Joni Earnst, to any other Republican who has betrayed their oath of office and sides with these treasonous and traitous actions against this country perpetrated by Donald J Trump or his administration or Rudy Giuliani.
ANY PUNDIT from Fox News, Breibart or anywhere else, including Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, et al? Who stands up and defends Donald J Trump and his treasonous actions against the United States? Are guilty of the crimes of being accessories to Treason against the United States. If they push the bullshit proven lies about Biden etc? Then they are guilty of obstruction of justice and other crimes.
LET’S SEE THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS HERE SHALL WE THAT PROVES THAT TRUMP AND THE REST HAVE COMMITTED HIGH TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
The whistleblower complaint at the center of Congress’ impeachment inquiry alleges that President Donald Trump abused the power of his office to “solicit interference from a foreign country” in next year’s U.S. election. The White House then tried to “lock down” the information to cover it up, the complaint says.
The 9-page document released Thursday fleshes out the circumstances of a summertime phone call in which Trump encouraged his Ukraine counterpart to help investigate a political rival, alleges a central role for one of the president’s personal lawyers and a suggests a concerted White House effort to suppress the exact transcript, including by relocating it to a separate computer system.
From: Whistleblower: White House tried to ‘lock down’ call details
Trump’s impeachment is the only option after Ukraine call transcript
Laurence H. Tribe, Opinion contributor
Let us count the ways. The White House readout of President Donald Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
shows that the American president has committed a multitude of high
crimes and misdemeanors, all of them impeachable. Even without
considering the many prior offenses that were surfaced in the Mueller
report and in the special counsel’s prosecutions
of numerous Trump allies and associates, including in the Southern
District of New York, this readout — which must be the least
incriminating version the White House could compose despite its
remarkable skills at shading the truth or falsifying it altogether — is
The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the readout reveals — to use the Constitution’s term for impeachable offenses beyond “treason” and “bribery” (both of which the readout comes close to establishing) — begin with Trump abusing the foreign policy powers entrusted to the president by Article II in order to serve his own political interests rather than the interests of the American people.
Ukraine pressed by Trump, Russia
Those interests were defined here by a bipartisan decision of the Congress we elected to represent us in world affairs using its Article I spending power: Congress decided that it was in our nation’s security interest to provide nearly $400 million in aid to the beleaguered patriots of an American ally fighting a bloody battle with an American adversary. The ally was Ukraine. The adversary was Russia, which had — not so coincidentally — tried to help Trump win office in 2016.
Even if this action weren’t payback to Russian President Vladimir Putin and yet another indication of how beholden Trump is to that brutal dictator — which it may well have been — it was a blatant usurpation of Congress’ Appropriation Clause authority for Trump to withhold the aid the Ukranians needed. When asked by Ukraine’s president in this July 25 phone call to purchase more Javelin missiles from the United States for defense purposes, Trump responded that he would gladly do so, although — he actually used the word “though” — he would greatly appreciate that foreign president’s aid in, among other things, gathering evidence to effectively help prosecute Trump’s main rival for the presidency in the forthcoming election.
Imagine the outrage, not to mention the judicial rebuke, that would have followed if Congress had overtly conditioned aid to a country being overrun by Russia
upon that country’s agreement to apparently advance the political
ambitions of the incumbent president! That this plainly unconstitutional
condition was instead subtly interposed by Trump himself only makes the
matter more egregious.
Campaign finance law is clear
In addition, despite the Department of Justice’s conclusion to the contrary, the campaign assistance that Trump sought in implicit exchange for his releasing the funds Congress had appropriated and Ukraine desperately needed clearly violates the same federal laws governing our elections that the president arguably violated to get himself elected in the first place — namely, the statutes making it illegal for a candidate in an American election to solicit or accept anything “of value” from a foreign source.
Making Trump’s lawlessness all the more egregious was his enlisting William
Barr, the nation’s attorney general, to work with Trump’s own
consigliere, Rudy Giuliani, in digging up dirt in Ukraine on former Vice
President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the opposing party’s
presidential nomination, and Biden’s surviving son, Hunter.
Never mind the cruelty and vindictiveness of selecting this particular target for his rage. Sadism is not an impeachable offense. Never mind the odds that the president’s hatred for his predecessor, President Barack Obama, probably drove his obsession with hurting Obama’s handpicked vice president. Envy isn’t impeachable either.
And never mind that there is no credible evidence that Biden or his son violated any law. Even if they had, for a president to conscript the highest law enforcement official in the land, one paid by and legally bound to serve the American people, to do his personal and political bidding in an effort not only to smear but to also criminally prosecute a political foe is the stuff of novels about banana republics, not of the America I know and whose Constitution and laws I have spent a lifetime defending.
The least of it is that using personnel paid by American taxpayers, whether civilians like Barr or military personnel like the pilots involved in landing at the Scottish airfield near Trump’s failing golf course, is a way of supplementing his congressionally fixed compensation in violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II.
Worse than that is any president’s very decision to turn the Department of Justice into his personal law firm and weaponizing it against his political opponents, one of many violations of the president’s Oath of Office.
Whatever other evidence the House impeachment inquiry launched by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday might uncover, we already know enough to say:
Donald J. Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States and must be impeached.
From Trump’s impeachment is the only option after Ukraine call transcript Opinion piece by Professor Laurence H. Tribe.
Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime by Bob Bauer.
Former White House Counsel to President Obama (2010-2011). Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law.
*Bloggers note. This is just the first part, in a three part series essay written by Bob Bauer. This one I posted so you can get an idea of what kinds of violations Traitor Trump did during the 2016 campaign with Russia and Putin and gives the backdrop to what he has now done in the Ukrainian scandal and treasonous actions.
You can find part two and three if you follow the link and then the sub links there.
individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,
shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States,
or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).
(4)Knowingly means that a person must:
(i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;
(ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or
(iii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.
(5) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) of this section, pertinent facts include, but are not limited to:
(i) The contributor or donor uses a foreign passport or passport number for identification purposes;
(ii) The contributor or donor provides a foreign address;
(iii) The contributor or donor makes a contribution or donation by means of a check or other written instrument drawn on a foreign bank or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank; or
(7)Safe Harbor. For purposes of paragraph (a)(4)(iii)
of this section, a person shall be deemed to have conducted a
reasonable inquiry if he or she seeks and obtains copies of current and
valid U.S. passport papers for U.S. citizens who are contributors or
donors described in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
No person may rely on this safe harbor if he or she has actual knowledge
that the source of the funds solicited, accepted, or received is a
(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections.
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a
contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.
(d)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals for office buildings. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party for the purchase or construction of an office building. See11 CFR 300.10 and 300.35.
(e)Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in 11 CFR 100.29.
(f)Expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements by foreign nationals in connection with elections.
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with
any Federal, State, or local election.
(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals.
No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign
national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section.
(h)Providing substantial assistance.
(1) No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance, or receipt of a contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d), and (g) of this section.
person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making of
an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement prohibited by
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
(i)Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities.
A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or
indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person,
such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or
political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or
non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning
the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements
in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or
decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.
(j)Donations by foreign nationals to inaugural committees. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a donation to an inaugural committee, as defined in 11 CFR 104.21(a)(1). No person shall knowingly accept from a foreign national any donation to an inaugural committee. [67 FR 69950, Nov. 19, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 59780, Oct. 6, 2004]
Now onto the story:
Commentary on Russian intervention in the 2016 elections has included
one confidently expressed and perhaps growing view: that there may be a
scandal there, but no conceivable crime. It is claimed that the Trump
campaign could wink and nod at Russian hacking, and derive the full
benefit, but that without considerably more evidence of direct
involvement, there is no role for criminal law enforcement. The matter
is then left to Congress to consider whether new laws are needed, and
the public, of course, will render its judgment in opinion polls and in
elections still to come.
This view is flawed. It fails to consider the potential campaign
finance violations, as suggested by the facts so far known, under
existing law. These violations are criminally enforceable.
It would not be the first time Congress wrestled with these questions
of foreign interference with the US electoral process. Following the
1996 elections, the Republican Party concluded that the victorious Bill
Clinton had benefited from foreign intervention in his election. Its
Senate majority organized hearings, chaired by the late Senator Fred
Thompson, who opened them with the declaration
that high-level Chinese officials had committed substantial sums of
money to influence the presidential election. The ensuing investigation,
which included a parallel criminal inquiry, did not live up to Senator
Thompson’s most dramatic claims, but Congress later amended the law to
tighten the long-standing prohibition against foreign national spending
in federal elections. On this point, there was bipartisan unity: that
the law should stand clearly and without gaping loopholes against
foreign interference in American elections.
Then the issue made a dramatic return in this last presidential
election, but with a major difference. This time, there is no doubt
that a foreign state, Russia, devoted resources to influence the outcome
of the 2016 election. But unlike 1996, the manner of this
intervention—the hacking of emails, the dissemination of fake news—has
directed much of the legal discussion to computer security and espionage
statutes. The controversy has not had the “feel” of a classic case
about political spending. It has come across in press reporting and
public discussion as a tale of 21st century cyber-crime and foreign
intelligence service skullduggery—more sophisticated international
intrigue than Watergate’s “third-rate burglary” and associated cover-up.
“Unlike the Watergate investigation, which began with a break-in,” the
New Yorker’s and CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin has written,
“it is not immediately clear what crimes may have been committed.” And
even if there might be criminal wrongdoing somewhere in this Trump
campaign-Russia relationship, commentators have tended to doubt that there is yet sufficient hard evidence of it.
Yet even on the information so far available, there are solid grounds
for paying close attention to the potential campaign finance
violations. The case is more or less hiding in plain sight.
prohibits foreign nationals from providing “anything of value … in
connection with” an election. The hacking of the Podesta emails, which
were then transmitted to Wikileaks for posting, clearly had value, and
its connection to the election is not disputed. None other than the
Republican nominee said so publicly, egging on the Russians to locate
and publish Clinton emails to aid his campaign. He famously declared:
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able
to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” One well known Trump
confidante, Roger Stone, is among those backing the President’s
candidacy who offered similar contemporaneous statements
about the value placed on these disclosures (and who, having intimated
that he had inside information about when the materials would be
released, now faces inquiries from the Congress (and from the Special
There is a fair question of what sort of involvement beyond vocalized
glee would subject Americans to liability for these foreign
intelligence activities. The relevant regulation
suggests that something more is required: at least “substantial
assistance” to the foreign spender in providing this “thing of value.”
Does a presidential campaign render this substantial assistance to a
foreign national engaged in influencing an election by endorsing the
specific activity and confirming its strategic utility? When the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) promulgated this ban on “substantial
assistance,” it said little about its scope. It did make clear
that the term was to be broadly construed. It offered the concrete
example of a U.S. citizen acting as a “conduit or intermediary” for
foreign spending, but noted that this was provided as only one example.
It expressly left open other possibilities.
The President and others associated with the campaign made no bones
about the value to them of the purloined email communications. The
President told a rally of supporters he “loved” Wikileaks and read from the hacked communication to support his attack
on his opponent for “a degree of corruption at the highest levels of
our government like nothing we have ever seen as a country before.” He
drew on the emails in the debates
with Secretary Clinton. Notably, when he was asked during the debates
to acknowledge the Russian program of interference and given the
opportunity to openly oppose the actions, he wouldn’t do so. He also
mentioned Wikileaks 124 times
in the last month of the campaign. The Russians could only have been
strengthened in the conviction that their efforts were welcome and had
value. That covers the evidence in plain sight.
Of course, investigators will examine whether there were Trump
campaign communications or private assurances to foreign
nationals—including Russians and associates of Wikileaks acting as their
“agents”—to encourage them or help coordinate the dissemination of
these materials. Coordination at this level could well trigger the
application of other provisions of the rules directed at the political
campaign’s acceptance or receipt of the Russian assistance, or even its
direct solicitation of it. But the “substantial assistance” prong would
cover the more indirect of the Trump campaign activities—including
public statements—that were conducted at more of a distance, and yet
still intended to signal the Russians that help was needed and of
A Trump defense may include the claim that he and his campaign cannot
be constitutionally subjected to legal liability for any public
statements on the campaign trail. They may try to frame their statements
as rough-and-tumble political commentary on Russian behavior that,
while helpful to the Republican nominee, neither Trump nor his
associates clearly requested or for which they can be held responsible.
This First Amendment defense is at least at the mercy of whatever facts
are still uncovered about the extent of any “collusion.” But even with
just a little more in the way of fact, with the addition of detail to an
already well-established outline, the Trump campaign’s position is
precarious. How strongly does the First Amendment protect a presidential
nominee’s mobilization of foreign government support for his
candidacy—support achieved through illegal activities?
A test of this constitutional defense is whether it relies somehow on
the fact that Trump and his campaign were open and notorious in
courting Russian assistance. Presumably, had they pursued this
assistance behind closed doors, few would question the legal
significance of the understanding reached with a foreign government
supporter. It would be remarkable to maintain that this appeal for help
is converted into constitutionally protected speech because the speaker
has chosen to have much or all of the conversation in public.
Recent developments in the law speak clearly to the strength of the
government’s interest in an expansive enforcement of the ban on foreign
national involvement in U.S. elections. In 2012, in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission,
a federal appellate court ruled, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that
lawful resident aliens had no First Amendment right to contribute to
American candidates and political committees. More importantly, the
court emphasized that foreign national political intervention implicated
a principle “fundamental to the definition of our national political
community,” which is that “foreign citizens do not have a constitutional
right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of
democratic self-government.” At stake was “part of the sovereign’s
obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community.”
It will be no minor feat for Trump campaign lawyers, relying on Donald
Trump’s free speech rights, to overcome what the court called this
The law as written already treats speech as a factor in potential
violations of the ban on foreign national political spending. A foreign
national may not “participate,” or “control” or “direct” decisions on
contributions or expenditures. This is a speech-centered restriction. So
a foreign national working for the foreign parent of a US corporation
(let alone a foreign national resident in the United States) may not
discuss with an American PAC Director plans for making contributions or
expenditures, and it is immaterial for this purpose that the revenues on
which the PAC will draw for the contribution was generated within the
United States. And it is not only a question of the foreign national’s
speech (to which, of course, no First Amendment protection attaches).
The American PAC Director’s own speech is relevant to a finding of
illegal “participation,” if the conversation indicates that the PAC
Director is seeking permission, yielding control over the decision, or
merely soliciting the foreign national’s opinion on how to spend the
money. A statement like Donald Trump’s that he “loves WikiLeaks,” or
that he hopes that more will be done to bring to light Clinton emails,
would be evidence in such a conversation that his foreign national
interlocutor was “participating” in a decision on political spending in
connection with the election.
Trump and his campaign might argue that the hacking and dissemination
of the emails were not political spending—not, in a technical sense,
“contributions” nor “expenditures”—covered by the federal campaign
finance law. Perhaps so, but they were something of value, and the
statute and related regulations of the FEC separately prohibit any
value given by a foreign national. Of course, the Trump campaign might
take up the fight on this issue and litigate it. It would then have
the thankless task of persuading a court that a presidential candidate
can invite, then warmly accept and exploit, the activities of a foreign
intelligence service because it is a particular kind of “value,” not a
conventional contribution or expenditure. The campaign will have an
even harder time if it is established that Russians distributed
information through online bots, the creation of DC Leaks in the United
States, or the payment for online advertising.
What is also exceptional about the Trump case, distinguishing it from
other forms of national electioneering, is the absence of any question
about intent, or state of mind. In the most recent round of revisions to
its rules, the FEC went to some lengths to allow a candidate or
political committee to establish that it did not reasonably know about
the foreign source of the contribution or expenditure or other value
received. (11 C.F.R. § 110.20 (a)(4),(7)). This is no help to the Trump campaign which certainly had every reason to know that, as widely reported and declared officially
by the US government, Russia was behind the hacking. Trump, on the
campaign trail, said as much in inviting Russia to release more. At
other times he suggested that perhaps Russia was not behind these
activities, that no one could know: but, remarkably, he allowed for the
possibility that another foreign power, China, might have been
responsible. And once again, there are other parts of the public record
bearing on intent that will receive close investigative scrutiny, like
Trump’s close confidante Roger Stone’s repeated statements about his communications with Wikileaks and Julian Assange.
Whether prosecutors choose to interpret the law aggressively in these
circumstances is bound to be affected, and not to Trump’s advantage, by
the well-established identity of the foreign actor: a state, operating
through its own intelligence services. This is not the typical foreign
national case. In recent years, after Citizens United, the FEC
has been preoccupied with debates over political spending by
corporations. It has pondered how expansively the regulations should
treat campaign activities of the USA subsidiary of a foreign
corporation, or by a corporation with a significant percentage of
foreign national shareholders. The Commission could not agree on
tightening the rules, and the reason, in part, was the difficulty that
three of the Commissioners perceived in defining when a business could
be deemed to represent “foreign” interests. These complications are not
present in a case involving a foreign government.
And, at the same time, it is because of this clear involvement of a
foreign state actor that the Trump case will be pivotal in determining
the efficacy of the ban on foreign national electioneering. The campaign
finance laws have as their core purpose preventing corruption of
government, or its appearance, but the provision prohibiting foreign
political spending is uniquely concerned with corruption of a different,
even higher order, that strikes at national security. The Bluman
court cited the high importance of preserving of the “basic conception
of a political community” in holding that two individuals—one a Canadian
and the other holding dual Canadian and Israeli citizenship—could not
make simple, every-day contributions to political organizations. In the
Trump case, which involves active foreign intervention in a political
campaign that is welcomed and encouraged by one of the candidates, this
“basic conception” is even more—it is fair to say, acutely—at stake.
As the case unfolds, other instances of Russian support for the
campaign might still surface, as I have indicated. The investigators
will look into unconfirmed reports that the Russians may have attempted
through intermediaries to buy ads placed for the benefit of Trump on
social media platforms. Should there be any evidence that the Trump
campaign colluded in this advertising activity, a straightforward
campaign finance violation—a massive illegal contribution to the
campaign—would be added to the one built on hacking and WikiLeaks
distribution. The same holds true for any collusion over use of microtargeting techniques, which congressional investigations are reportedly now also probing.
But, as a major issue of foreign national involvement under the
campaign finance law, the hacking episode may prove more than sufficient
to sustain the current criminal investigation, and it could wind up
being central to it.
The Iceberg’s Tip: Ukraine Phone Call and the Months-Long Conspiracy to Violate Federal Campaign Finance Laws
The absurdity of the Justice Department’s refusal to investigate
Essay By Paul Seamus Ryan: Vice President of Policy & Litigation at Common Cause.
Earlier this week the White House released a rough transcript
of President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine’s
President Volodymyr Zelensky. Understandably, there’s been much scrutiny
of the transcript. Is the transcript complete? What exactly did Trump
ask Zelensky for? Was there a “quid pro quo” exchange? To be clear, the
transcript is incriminating on its face. But this narrow and granular
analysis on one conversation risks missing the big picture.
The most important takeaway from the call transcript and the now-public whistleblower complaint
is that President Trump seemingly orchestrated a months-long conspiracy
to obtain Ukrainian government assistance in his 2020 reelection
campaign—in violation of federal campaign finance laws and, perhaps,
other statutes. The Department of Justice (DOJ) decision not to
investigate these violations has no basis in law. And it turns out
Attorney General William Barr had no business being involved in the
matter, as he is implicated both in the whistleblower complaint and by
the transcript of President Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president.
July 25 Phone Call Only the Tip of the Iceberg
To be certain, President Trump solicited a political contribution
from President Zelensky during the July 25 call—asking President
Zelensky to “look into” Joe Biden—but that was neither the first nor the
last time President Trump, either directly or through his agents,
solicited a political contribution from the Ukraine government. Trump’s
illegal efforts to gain Ukraine’s assistance in his 2020 reelection
campaign date back at least to January and continued after his July 25
call with Zelensky.
On September 23, Common Cause filed a complaint
with DOJ and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging reason to
believe that President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and at least three other
Trump allies (Victoria Toensing, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) violated
the federal law ban on soliciting, or substantially assisting the
solicitation of, a political “contribution” from a foreign national
through numerous meetings and phone calls with Ukrainian officials.
Back in May, the New York Times reported
that Giuliani was planning a trip to Ukraine to meet with
recently-elected President Zelensky “to urge him to pursue inquiries
that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about
two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump”: the “origin of the
special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016
election” and the “involvement of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr.’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.”
Giuliani’s planned trip was reportedly
“part of a monthslong effort” by Giuliani and “a small group of Trump
allies working to build interest in the Ukrainian inquiries. Their
motivation is to try to discredit the special counsel’s investigation;
undermine the case against Paul Manafort …; and potentially to damage
Mr. Biden.” Over the course of several months, Giuliani and his allies
had numerous telephonic and in-person meetings with Ukrainian officials to advance President Trump’s personal political agenda.
The New York Times’ report was followed by a late July BuzzFeed News deep dive
into the months-long effort by Giuliani and “[t]wo unofficial envoys
reporting directly” to him to obtain Ukraine’s assistance in Trump’s
2020 reelection efforts. BuzzFeed News wrote:
In a whirlwind of private meetings, Lev Parnas and Igor
Fruman—who pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican
campaigns and dined with the president—gathered repeatedly with top
officials in Ukraine and set up meetings for Trump’s attorney Rudy
Giuliani as they turned up information that could be weaponized in the
2020 presidential race.
Parnas and Fruman reportedly
“helped arrange meetings in New York between the [Ukraine’s top
prosecutor Lutsenko] and Giuliani in January” and in “February, Giuliani
and Parnas met privately again with Lutsenko” on the sidelines of a
meeting “that included US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Russian
President Vladimir Putin.” Then in May, Parnas and Fruman “flew to
Paris, where they joined Giuliani in talks with” another Ukrainian
prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnytsky.
In April, within hours of President Zelensky’s election, President
Trump called him and, according to several sources, urged him to
coordinate with Giuliani and “pursue investigations of ‘corruption,’” as
revealed this week by the New York Times.
Days after President Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelensky, on or about August 2 according to the whistleblower complaint,
Giuliani “met with an aide to the Ukrainian president in Madrid and
spelled out two specific cases he believed Ukraine should pursue,” an
investigation of Joe Biden and his son, and an investigation of whether
Democrats colluded with Ukraine to release information on Paul Manafort
during the 2016 election. The complaint notes that Giuliani had
“privately reached out to a variety of other Zelenskyy advisers” and
that some of these advisors “intended to travel to Washington in
mid-August.” The whistleblower complaint goes on to note many of these
Rudy Giuliani is referenced five times in the rough transcript
of the July 25 call, with President Zelensky first bringing up Giuliani
and mentioning that one of his assistants “spoke with Mr. Giuliani
recently” and that he hoped “very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to
travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.” President
Trump then noted three times that he would have Giuliani call President
Zelensky, saying: “If you could speak to him, that would be great.”
Giuliani is Trump’s personal attorney, not a diplomat. Giuliani has stated: “My only client is the president of the United States[.] He’s the one I have an obligation to report to, tell him what happened.” He has also said that his Ukraine efforts have the full support of Trump, and that Trump “knows what I’m doing, sure, as his lawyer.” Giuliani also made clear that his work with Ukrainian officials “isn’t foreign policy” and that he’s urging investigations of Biden “because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
Giuliani was representing the interests of candidate Trump, not the
interests of the American people. Giuliani was taking direction from his
client, President Trump, and keeping Trump fully informed of his
actions. Together, they conspired for months to violate federal campaign
finance laws by soliciting Ukrainian support for Trump’s 2020
DOJ Decision Not to Investigate Campaign Finance Violations Has No Basis in Law
In the complaint Common Cause filed Monday with the DOJ and FEC, and in a piece I wrote earlier this week for Just Security,
I explained in detail how Trump and Giuliani seemingly violated the
campaign finance law prohibition on soliciting, or substantially
assisting solicitation of, a “contribution” from a foreign national in
connection with a U.S. election.
We now know that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reached the same conclusion
in August, when considering the whistleblower complaint. And we know
that some White House lawyers recognized the implications of the July 25
call because they soon thereafter took steps to severely restrict
access to the transcript of the call by moving it from the computer
system where it would typically be stored to a separate system reserved
for certain types of classified materials of “an especially sensitive
Remarkably, the DOJ said this week
that the Department “explored whether the July call merited opening a
criminal investigation into potential campaign finance violations by the
president” and “concluded it did not—that the information discussed on
the call didn’t amount to a ‘thing of value’ that could be quantified,
which is what the campaign finance laws require.” This determination by
the DOJ flies in the face of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s
interpretation of the same provision of law.
As I explained in a summary of a section of the Mueller Report that I wrote for Just Security,
Special Counsel Mueller considered charging Donald Trump Jr., Paul
Manafort and Jared Kushner with violating ban on soliciting a
contribution from a foreign national for their June 2016 meeting with
Russians at Trump Tower to receive opposition research on Hillary
Mueller began an overview of the ban on soliciting a contribution
from foreign nationals by quoting now-Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh’s lower court decision in Bluman v. FEC,
upholding the foreign contribution ban against First Amendment
challenge: “[T]he United States has a compelling interest … in limiting
the participation of foreign citizens in activities of democratic
self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the
U.S. political process.”
In explaining the “threshold legal question” of whether providing
“documents and information” to a campaign would constitute a
“contribution,” Mueller noted the “foreign contribution ban is not
limited to contributions of money.” It includes a contribution of “money
or other thing of value.’” According to Mueller, “[t]he
phrases ‘thing of value’ and ‘anything of value’ are broad and inclusive
enough to encompass at least some forms of valuable information.”
[C]andidate-related opposition research given to a
campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a
contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can
be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the
provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political
campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign
entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information
to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater
tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money
or tangible things of value.
In the end, however, Mueller decided not to prosecute Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner because of the difficulty he believed he would have
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) they knew that solicitation
of a contribution from a foreign national was illegal; and (2) the
information they solicited was worth at least $2,000 (for a federal
misdemeanor) or $25,000 for a felony.
Mueller concluded that opposition research could constitute a “thing
of value” for the purposes of campaign finance law, but the DOJ
concluded in Ukrainegate it could not. What might explain these
conflicting interpretations of the law?
We don’t yet know. But one very troubling aspect of the DOJ’s
handling of the whistleblower complaint is Attorney General Barr’s
involvement. Barr is named on the first page of the complaint as
“involved,” yet reportedly was briefed
on the matter as soon as the DOJ learned of the complaint. In President
Trump’s July 25 phone call with President Zelensky, Trump asked
Zelensky to work with both Barr and Giuliani to investigate Joe Biden.
Trump referred to Barr being the point person, alongside Giuliani, four
times in the thirty-minute conversation. Barr is implicated in Trump’s
campaign finance violations—at a minimum, Barr is a witness. Barr should
have recused himself entirely from the DOJ’s handling of the
whistleblower complaint and the ensuing conflict between the White
House, DOJ and Congress over this matter. Instead, Barr is at the center
of it all.
Representative Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has called on Barr to recuse himself from the matter going forward. Ultimately, the investigation may lead to Barr’s impeachment and potentially the impeachment of others complicit in these campaign finance violations, their coverup, and other abuses of the office of the President.
For now, DOJ should reverse its decision not to investigate Trump,
Giuliani and others implicated in the whistleblower complaint. If Barr
and the DOJ will not do so, Congressional impeachment proceedings are
the last hope for the rule of law. The whistleblower complaint provides a
roadmap for the congressional impeachment investigation as it seeks to
uncover the full extent of the criminal violations that have occurred.
The phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky is only
one action in a systematic plan to manufacture opposition information
from Ukraine to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.
Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Biden, and Ukrainegate
From Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Biden, and Ukrainegate (updated)
By Viola Geinger and Ryan Goodman Updated on Sept 26,2019.
Russian forces invade Crimea and stage an illegal and dubious
referendum and declare their annexation of the peninsula. That month,
the United Nations General Assembly votes to condemn Russian actions, including the referendum.
April 2014 – Russian and pro-Russian forces invade
the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine and take control,
starting a war that continues today and has killed more than 13,000
April 2014 – Hunter Biden joins Ukrainian firm Burisma
Joe Biden’s younger son, Hunter Biden, joins the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest
private oil and gas extracting company in Ukraine, controlled by
founder Mykola Zlochevskiy, who had served as a Cabinet minister under
former pro-Russian Presidents Leonid Kuchma and Yanukovych. Both
administrations had been suspected of corruption, and once they were
ousted, successor administrations pledging reforms targeted previous
officials, including Zlochevskiy, for investigation. Allegations against
Zlochevskiy center on the funding schemes he used to form the company
in 2002. But cases against him stall in each instance.
An American business partner of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, also
joins the board. The company issues a press release about the Biden
appointment in May (see below). The appointment draws criticism for the potential perception of a conflict of interest with Vice President Biden’s role as the White House’s point man on Ukraine. News reports
later in 2014 reveal that Hunter Biden had been discharged from the
Navy in February for testing positive for cocaine (clearly just months
before the Burisma board appointment).
April 16, 2014 – U.K. investigates Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy
The U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office blocks accounts
of Burisma’s majority shareholder, Mykola Zlochevskiy. A British court
conducts a hearing on Dec. 3-5, 2014, and unblocks the accounts in a
Jan. 21, 2015 judgment, (full text),
finding that none of the evidence “establishes reasonable grounds for a
belief that his assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of
misconduct in public office.” (In September 2015, U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt heavily criticizes the Office of Prosecutor
General Viktor Shokin in a public speech for not cooperating
sufficiently with and even undermining the British investigation. See
May 12, 2014 – Burisma Holdings issues a press release
saying Hunter Biden has joined its board, and that he will be “in
charge of the Holdings’ legal unit and will provide support for the
company among international organizations.” The release cites his
then-current positions as counsel to New York-based law firm Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP and co-founder and a managing partner of
investment advisory firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, where he also served
as board chairman.
Aug. 5, 2014 – Ukraine investigation of Burisma
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarema opens an investigation of Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy on suspicion of “unlawful enrichment.” (The investigation is referenced in the January 2015 U.K. court judgment, which concludes that the Ukrainian probe might have been started as a result of a misinterpretation of the British account freeze.) Zlochevskiy’s American lawyer, John Buretta, a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, says in a 2017 Q&A on the Burisma website that a court in Kyiv ordered the case closed in September 2016 because no evidence of wrongdoing had been presented. While suspicions remain over how Zlochevskiy obtained his wealth and what happened to taxpayer money while he held public office, the British judge in the January 2015 U.K. judgment observed, “Allegations of corruption against political opponents appear to have been a feature of Ukrainian political life at this time.”
Oct. 14, 2014 – Ramping up Ukraine anti-corruption forces
Ukraine’s Parliament passes a law establishing the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), a priority of anti-corruption campaigners who’d helped lead the revolution and of the U.S. government (led by Biden) and other international backers of Ukraine. The bureau, which is to include a special prosecutor for certain corruption cases, was created in part because of the recognized ineffectiveness and corruption of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the country’s judiciary. The country’s anti-corruption plans also include a special High Anti-Corruption Court, which Poroshenko and Parliament slow-rolled until domestic and foreign advocates again exerted pressure over the past year. In fact, the U.S. and Europe required the Ukrainian government to fund NABU in exchange for financial aid. NABU’s early years are an uphill battle in the face of documented efforts by Parliament and the Prosecutor General’s Office to undermine its work.
NABU later becomes a target of Giuliani’s (see Aug. 14, 2016 item below).
Feb. 10, 2015 –Viktor Shokin takes office as Ukraine’s prosecutor general, replacing Yarema.
Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates Prosecutor General Shokin’s office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma
Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other
Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of
Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to
force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO)
to crack down more, not less, on corruption. “Corruption
kills,” Pyatt said in the address to the Odesa Financial Forum for
business leaders. “It kills productivity and smothers inspiration. Ideas
are lost in its shadow. Innovation and entrepreneurship lag under the
weight of bribery, back room dealing, and bullying.”
While giving Shokin a last chance to shape up (Pyatt says, “We want
to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight
against corruption.”), the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s
office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British
investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing
Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian
taxpayer assets to Cyprus. In other words, Pyatt is critical of the
prosecutor’s office for not aiding in investigations of
Burisma’s owner, which was in line with Biden’s criticism that the
office was blocking corruption investigations. Pyatt
specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who
were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate
“We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.
For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.
Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that
there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the
U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.
The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be
investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by
authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily
Fall 2015 – Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts.
John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress:
“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv.”
Dec. 8, 2015 – Vice President Biden makes a speech to Ukraine’s Parliament urging the country to step up anti-corruption measures.
In a speech covered widely in news media,
Biden implores Ukrainian lawmakers to move more quickly to fight the
country’s “historic battle against corruption” and “make real the
Revolution of Dignity.” (Many of the lawmakers themselves were former
businessmen and suspected of corruption and therefore that much less
interested in fighting graft.) He says, “The only thing worse than
having no hope at all is having hopes rise and see them dashed
repeatedly on the shoals of corruption…Not enough has been done yet.”
Specifically citing Shokin’s Office of the General Prosecutor for
lagging on corruption investigations, he continues:
“It’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption. The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform. The judiciary should be overhauled. The energy sector needs to be competitive, ruled by market principles — not sweetheart deals. It’s not enough to push through laws to increase transparency with regard to official sources of income. Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities. Every other democracy in the world — that system pertains.
Oligarchs and non-oligarchs must play by the same rules. They have to pay their taxes, settle their disputes in court — not by bullying judges. That’s basic. That’s how nations succeed in the 21st century.
Corruption siphons away resources from the people. It blunts the economic growth, and it affronts the human dignity. We know that. You know that. The Ukrainian people know that. When Russia seeks to use corruption as a tool of coercion, reform isn’t just good governance, it’s self-preservation. It’s in the national security interest of the nation ….
The United States is with you in this fight…We’ve stepped up with official assistance to help backstop the Ukrainian economy. We’ve rallied the international community to commit a total of $25 billion in bilateral and multilateral financing to support Ukraine. It includes $2 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and the possibility of more.
Yesterday I announced almost $190 million in new American assistance to help Ukraine fight corruption, strengthen the rule of law, implement critical reform, bolster civil society, advance energy security. That brings our total of direct aid to almost $760 million in direct assistance, in addition to loan guarantees since this crisis broke out. And that is not the end of what we’re prepared to do if you keep moving.
But for Ukraine to continue to make progress and to keep the support of the international community you have to do more, as well. The big part of moving forward with your IMF program — it requires difficult reforms.”
Jan. 21, 2016 – Vice President Biden meets with
Ukrainian President Poroshenko and discusses “the need to continue to
move forward on Ukraine’s anti-corruption agenda,” according to a readout on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv.
Feb. 11, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks with Poroshenko by phone. A U.S. Embassy statement said the two agreed “that it is essential for Ukraine to continue to take action to root out corruption and implement reforms.”
Biden later boasts about the pressure he exerted on Ukraine during that time to address corruption. In a Jan. 23, 2018, Q&A following a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, Biden touts his tough stance with Ukraine in 2016. He says he told Ukrainian leaders that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless they fired Prosecutor General Shokin.
President Trump and Rudy Giuliani have cited that boast repeatedly as proof that Biden admitted pushing for Shokin’s firing, even though Biden was calling for the prosecutor to be fired because he wasn’t pursuing corruption cases vigorously enough.
In the CFR appearance, Biden makes the comments in the context of expressing his concern that Ukraine still was not getting tough enough on corruption. “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” Biden continued, “So they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But … there’s now some backsliding.”
“The United States and other Western nations had for months called
for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a
blind eye to corrupt practice,” the New York Timesreported at the time.
Steven Pifer is a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton and deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs under President George W. Bush. He told PolitiFact that “virtually everyone” he knew in the U.S. government “felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office.”
Note: Investigation of Burisma laid dormant at the time
Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor general who had worked
under Shokin and resigned in frustration at his stymying of corruption
investigations, told Bloomberg News (in a May 2019 interview) that the
office’s probe into Burisma Holdings had been long dormant
by the time Joe Biden issued his ultimatum in 2016. “There was no
pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against” Burisma owner
Zlochevskiy, Bloomberg quoted Kasko as saying. “It was shelved by
Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” Kasko said.
“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate
Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk a leading Ukrainian anti-corruption advocate, told the Washington Post.
“And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation,
but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”
Feb. 16, 2016 – Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin resigns, then returns to office before finally being ousted
Ukrainian news media report on Feb. 16 that Viktor Shokin resigned
as Prosecutor General after months of intense criticism for failing to
adequately pursue any major corruption cases. But wait … despite
President Poroshenko’s public call that day that Shokin resign and the
apparent submission of a resignation letter on Feb. 19, media
cited a prosecutor in Shokin’s office on March 16 saying the chief
prosecutor was back after a “long leave.” Finally, on March 29, the
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve Poroshenko’s recommendation to dismiss Shokin.
The European Union issued a statement hailing his departure. The respected English-language Kyiv Postwrites,
“By the end of his term, he was likely one of the most unpopular
figures in Ukraine, having earned a bad reputation for inaction and
obstructing top cases.” The paper also says it “wasn’t able to find any
public comments that Shokin made about [Burisma] during his 14 months in
Feb. 18 and 19, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks by phone with Ukrainian President Poroshenko. The Feb. 19 U.S. Embassy statement
says Biden again urged the Ukrainian leader to “to accelerate Ukraine’s
efforts to fight corruption, strengthen justice and the rule of law,
and fulfill its IMF requirements.”
April 14, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by phone, emphasizing
“the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General who would
bolster the agency’s anti-corruption efforts and strongly support the
work of its reformers.” Biden does the same in a call the same day with newly elected Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.
Aug. 14, 2016 – Evidence surfaces of payments to Paul Manafort
Paul Manafort by this time was Trump’s campaign chairman, and the
evidence appeared to show off-the-books payments by the discredited,
pro-Russian former Ukrainian President Yanukovych when Manafort served
as his political consultant. The payments were recorded in a “black
ledger” of Yanukovych’s political party that was turned over to
Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). On Aug. 19, 2016, days
after the New York Times
reported the story, Serhiy Leshchenko, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament
who had been swept into office with the 2014 revolution, holds a news
conference to discuss the ledger and criticize the payments to Manafort.
Rudy Giuliani has cited the revelations as evidence that certain Ukrainians, supported by the Obama administration at the time, were colluding with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to reveal information tainting Manafort and, by association, Trump, in order to influence the election. Giuliani in May 2019 accused Leshchenko personally on Fox News of colluding with Democrats.
Sept. 2016 – Case against Burisma closed
In a 2017 Q&A on the Burisma website,
Zlochevskiy’s American lawyer, John Buretta, a former U.S. deputy
assistant attorney general, says that a court in Kyiv ordered a case
closed in September 2016 because no evidence of wrongdoing had been
June 8, 2017 – Giuliani meets with Ukrainian leaders
Giuliani, who has had business of his own in Ukraine in the past,
meets with President Petro Poroshenko and Prosecutor General Lutsenko,
among other officials, during a visit to Kyiv, hosted by the foundation of billionaire Ukrainian metals magnate Victor Pinchuk, for a lecture on democracy and the rule of law. The meetings are cited
in the joint U.S. House committee investigation launched later in
September 2019 (see below) into Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to pressure
July 25, 2017 – President Trump issues a public call for an investigation of the 2016 Manafort revelations in Ukraine
a reference to what he calls “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump
campaign — `quietly working to boost Clinton.’ So where is the
investigation A.G.,” he writes, referencing then-Attorney General Jeff
Sessions and tagging Fox News host Sean Hannity. The tweet was referenced
in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on possible obstruction of
justice by the U.S. president to block the investigation into Trump
campaign collusion with Russia’s 2016 election interference. It also is
cited in the September 2019 joint U.S. House committee letter (see
below) on the investigation into Trump and Giuliani’s pressure campaign
January 2019 — Giuliani and Lutsenko meet in New York over the space of two days. They discuss “the Ukrainian political situation and the fight against corruption,” Bloomberg News reports,
paraphrasing Lutsenko. “Giuliani asked him about investigations into
the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, as well as whether the U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was `not loyal to President
Trump,’” the article says.
Mid-February 2019 — Giuliani meets with Lutsenko again in Warsaw, according to the OCCRP/BuzzFeed report.
March 20, 2019 – The Hill’s conservative opinion writer John Solomon publishes an interview with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko, who by this point has been widely criticized as ineffective and likely corrupt.
Note: Solomon and Fox News’s Sean Hannity
are among a constellation of conservative media figures who regularly
help spread Trump and Giuliani’s Biden and Manafort theories as well as
other right-wingconspiracytheories, such as Uranium One, which have been debunked and shown to exclude vital information. Solomon was moved to the opinion section at The Hill, and announced Sept. 18, 2019, that he was leaving the publication.
The full video wasn’t available at this publication, but the text
accompanying it says Lutsenko alleged that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch, who took office in August 2016, gave him a “do not
prosecute” list at their first meeting. The State Department says the
claim was “an outright fabrication.” The article says Lutsenko was
examining Ukrainian civil society activists who he suspected were
misusing U.S. aid funding they had received, but he says Yovanovitch
told him the U.S. Embassy is confident the funding was secure.
Lutsenko also reportedly says he would investigate the head of NABU
for the 2016 Manafort disclosure. Ukraine expert Melinda Haring of the
Atlantic Council says Lutsenko is “woefully unqualified (he doesn’t have a law degree), has dragged his feet on
every serious anti-corruption case since being installed, and protected
his friends, including Poroshenko.” She continues, “Sean Hannity made
Solomon the star of his prime-time show that evening. Trump watches
Hannity, reportedly speaks with him multiple times daily, and tweeted the title of Solomon’s story. More than 25,000 retweets later, the Ukrainian collusion narrative went viral.”
March 24, 2019 – Donald Trump Jr. tweets criticism of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovitch,
calling her a “joker” and linking to a conservative media outlet’s
article about calls for her ouster. The two incidents are part of a
pattern of conservative attacks against the ambassador. Within less than
two months, Yovanovitch is recalled to Washington.
March 31, 2019 —
First round of Ukraine’s presidential election, which results in runoff
between Zelenskyy and Poroshenko scheduled for April 21.
April 1, 2019 – The Hill newspaper publishes another article online by the same conservative investigative columnist John Solomon that advances the Trump-Giuliani story about Biden.
(See entry on March 20 about Solomon and conspiracy theories.) The
article reports that Shokin had said in written answers to questions
that he had planned an investigation of Burisma before he was fired,
including questioning all executive board members. The article says
Lutsenko, Shokin’s successor, and “a case file” indicate that the
Prosecutor General’s Office had handled three cases related to Burisma,
and that the “most prominent” case was transferred to the National
Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), which Solomon describes
suggestively as “closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev,” even
though it had long been public knowledge that Western supporters of
Ukraine and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists strongly backed the
bureau. The article says NABU closed that case.
April 2019 – Hunter Biden leaves the board of Burisma Holdings, as his father announces his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.
April 21, 2019 – New Ukrainian President elected on anti-corruption agenda
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is elected president of Ukraine, to succeed Petro Poroshenko. He ran on a “zero tolerance” anti-corruption agenda.
April 21, 2019 – First Trump-Zelenskyy Phone Call
President Trump calls to congratulate him, their first known direct communication. Trump “urged Mr. Zelensky to coordinate with Mr. Giuliani and to pursue investigations of ‘corruption,’” the New York Timesreports (on Sept. 25, 2019).
April 25, 2019 – Joe Biden formally announces campaign for President.
April 25, 2019 – President Trump tells Fox News’s
Sean Hannity that Attorney General Bill Barr is considering allegations
that Ukrainians sought to help Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential
campaign by revealing damaging information about Paul Manafort. “I would
imagine [Barr] would want to see this. … I would certainly defer to the
attorney general, and we’ll see what he says about it,” Trump said. “He
calls ’em straight” (transcript). Fox Newsreports
that “Trump echoed his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who wrote on
Twitter on Wednesday [April 24]: `Keep your eye on Ukraine.’”
On or about April 29, 2019 — “U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation” told the whistleblower that U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch was being “suddenly recalled” to Washington for “consultations” and “would most likely be removed from her position.” The State Department announced on May 6 that she would be ending her assignment.
They said it was “as planned,” but in fact, her assignment had been
curtailed because of Lutsenko’s allegations. Giuliani told a Ukrainian
journalist in an interview published May 14 that Yovanovitch was
“removed…because she was part of the efforts against the President,” the
Around the same time, the whistleblower
writes that he “learned from a U.S. official that `associates’ of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.”
He didn’t know whether the associates were the same two businessmen
(Parnas and Fruman (see entry under “late 2018”) who connected Giuliani
with Shokin and Lutsenko.
May 1, 2019 —
Attorney General William Barr stumbles and appears to try to avoid
answering U.S. Senator Kamala Harris during a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing when she asks,
“Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested
that you open an investigation of anyone?” He finally states in his
answer, “I don’t know.”
May 9, 2019 – Giuliani plans trip to Kyiv as part of pressure campaign
Giuliani tells the New York Times
he plans to travel to Kyiv and meet with President-elect Zelenskyy to
urge him to investigate the Bidens as well as Ukrainians who might have
worked with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to reveal the Manafort
information. “We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an
investigation, which we have a right to do,” Giuliani tells the
newspaper. “There’s nothing illegal about it,” he said. “Somebody could
say it’s improper.”
The newspaper notes the trip is “part of a months-long effort
by the former New York mayor and a small group of Trump allies working
to build interest in the Ukrainian inquiries. Their motivation is to try
to discredit the special counsel’s investigation; undermine the case
against Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s imprisoned former campaign chairman;
and potentially to damage Mr. Biden, the early front-runner for the 2020
Democratic presidential nomination.” The news ignites a firestorm of bipartisan condemnation that Giuliani is improperly seeking the help of a foreign government to benefit Trump’s re-election campaign.
In a later editorial for the Washington Post (on Sept. 21, 2019), former Ukrainian anti-corruption activist and member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko writes:
“Giuliani attempted to visit Ukraine in May 2019 with the
express purpose of involving Zelensky [cq] in this process. His aim was
quite clear: He was planning to ask Zelensky to intervene in an
American election on the side of Trump.
I had been helping Zelenksy’s team since January
As a person who has had direct experience of many of these events, I
express my readiness to testify to the U.S. Congress about what has been
happening for the past six months.”
May 9, 2019 – Giuliani, in an interview with Fox News,
raises his theory of Ukrainian collusion with Hillary Clinton’s
campaign in 2016 to smear Trump with Manafort payments allegations.
Giuliani says he received such information “about three or four months ago.” Giuliani also discusses his theory about the Bidens in Ukraine, and he tries to implicate the U.S. Embassy in both.
May 10, 2019 – President Trump says in an interview with Politico,
“Certainly it would be an appropriate thing” for him to ask Attorney
General Barr to open an investigation on Biden. “I have not spoken to
him about it. Would I speak to him about it? I haven’t thought of that,”
he adds. Trump says he sees Biden as the
clear front-runner in the Democratic race and likens it to his own surge
toward the Republican nomination in 2016. He also says he will speak
with Giuliani about the former mayor’s planned trip to Ukraine and that
they hadn’t discussed it “at any great length.”
May 11, 2019 – Giuliani cancels trip to Ukraine
Giuliani tells Fox News
he called off his trip to Ukraine because he believes he would be
“walking into a group of people that are enemies of the president, and
in some cases, enemies of the United States,” a particularly harsh
reference that sounds like it is meant for Ukrainian anti-corruption
reformers who are rejecting his and Trump’s conspiracy theories. The
decision follows bipartisan backlash in the United States over
Giuliani’s seeking foreign support for Trump’s re-election (see May 2
Former Ukrainian member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko
and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst say Zelenskyy
actually had declined Giuliani’s request for a meeting, which could
explain Giuliani’s tone of rejection. Herbst commented,
“My understanding is that the president-elect’s party and his group
said that the President-elect [Zelenskyy] sees no reason to have a
meeting about an issue which is so transparently an American domestic
On or about May 14, 2019 —
President Trump instructs Vice President Mike Pence “to cancel his
planned trip to Ukraine to attend President Zelenskyy’s inauguration.
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the U.S. delegation instead,” writes
the whistleblower, who cites unnamed “U.S. officials.” “According to
these officials, it was also `made clear’ to them that the President did
not want to meet with Mr. Zelenskyy until he saw how Zelenskyy `chose
to act,’” the whistleblower wrote.
May 14, 2019 – Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Lutsenko tells Bloomberg News that he has “no evidence of wrongdoing” by either of the Bidens
and that neither Hunter Biden nor Burisma were the focus of any current
investigation. He said he planned to give U.S. authorities information
about Burisma board payments, so that the U.S. could check whether
Hunter Biden had paid taxes on his income, though there were no
restrictions in Ukraine on how much a company could pay to its board
May 20-24, 2019 – Zelenskyy is inaugurated as president, taking over from Poroshenko. Shortly
afterwards, the whistleblower writes, “it was publicly reported that
Mr. Giuliani met with two other Ukrainian officials: Ukraine’s Special
Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar Kholodnytskyy, and a former
Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko.” (Public reports of these
meetings included Ukrainian and US media
outlets.) Both, the whistleblower continues, “are allies of Mr.
Lutsenko and made similar allegations” in a series of articles in The Hill. The two businessmen Parnas and Fruman who connected Giuliani with Shokin and Lutsenko (see entry for “late 2018”) reportedly join the meeting with Giuliani and Kholodnytskyy in Paris.
Mid May to early July – According
to the whistleblower’s complaint, in this period, “multiple U.S.
officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a
meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy
would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to ‘play ball’ on
the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr.
June 11, 2019 – Zelenskyy sends a motion to Parliament asking that it dismiss sitting Prosecutor General Lutsenko.
June 13, 2019 –– President Trump says he would accept dirt on his political rivals from a foreign government, a statement noted by the whistleblower, whose complaint references the relevant interview of the president with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos.
June 21, 2019 — Giuliani tweets,
“New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian
interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of Pres
Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to
purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Obama people.”
Early to mid-July – Trump orders suspension and review of U.S. aid to Ukraine
President Trump tells his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold back almost $400 million in aid to Ukraine at least a week before his phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy, the Washington Postreports. The decision was communicated by OMB to State and Defense department officials on July 18. The Post includes details of internal processes, including that “besides Bolton, several other administration officials said they did not know why the aid was being canceled or why a meeting was not being scheduled.”
About July 19, 2019 — Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskyy, reportedly
requests assistance from the State Department’s special representative
for Ukraine negotiations, Kurt Volker, to be put in touch with Giuliani.
On July 19, Volker sends a text message to Giuliani saying, “Mr.
Mayor—really enjoyed breakfast this morning. As discussed, connecting
you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky.”
Yermak speaks with Giuliani
for the first time by phone. They discuss the Trump-Giuliani demands
for investigations and the new Ukrainian leader’s desire for a White
House meeting to affirm continued U.S. support for Ukraine. “Mr.
Giuliani in television appearances over the summer had repeatedly
singled out Ukraine over corruption, putting pressure on Mr. Zelensky’s
new administration. Yermak called Mr. Giuliani to ask him to tone it
down, according to a person familiar with the call. Mr. Giuliani in
response suggested that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden’s relationship
with Burisma,” the Wall Street Journalreports (on Sept. 26).
July 23-26, 2019 —
“During interagency meetings on 23 July and 26 July, OMB officials
again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance
had come directly from the President, but they still were unaware of a policy rationale,” the whistleblower wrote.
July 25, 2019 — Trump and Zelenskyy speak by phone for the first time since the call on May 20.
The two presidents have their second conversation. An English-language press release issued by Zelenskyy’s office about the call says:
“Donald Trump is convinced that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve [the] image of Ukraine, complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA. He also confirmed continued support of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine by the United States and the readiness of the American side to fully contribute to the implementation of a Large-Scale Reform Program in our country.”
The two presidents “agreed to substantively discuss practical issues
of Ukrainian-American cooperation during the visit of the Ukrainian head
of state to the United States,” the release continued.
Zelenskyy had been hoping for a warm reception from the U.S.
president and a White House meeting as an important signal to affirm
continued American support for Ukraine’s war against Russian forces
controlling the country’s east and for comprehensive reform and economic
development efforts. Ukraine advocates in the U.S. also had thought a
White House invitation would be forthcoming any day, but it was never
An intelligence community whistleblower complaint revealed in
September that reportedly involves the Trump-Zelenskyy July 25 call
prompts a flurry of revelations about the conversation until the
declassification of a transcript of the call.
Before the release of the transcript, Trump admits he discussed Biden
on the call (see Sept. 22 below) and says U.S. funding for Ukraine is
at stake (see Sept. 22-23 below).
July 26, 2019 — U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker meets with Zelenskyy in Kyiv.
was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon
Sondland. The two advised the Ukrainian leader on “how to `navigate’ the
demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy,” according to the
July 28, 2019 – Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats submits his resignation, effective Aug. 15.
One of President Trump’s longest-serving Cabinet members, Coats also
stirred his boss’s ire at times with his policy disagreements and
lukewarm endorsements of the President’s positions.
July 31, 2019 – Giuliani meets
in New York with Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who is in a power
struggle with Zelenskyy over a second title he holds as head of the
city’s administration. Giuliani and Klitschko have known each other for years
– the former Ukrainian boxing champion hired the former New York mayor
as a consultant on his Kyiv mayoral campaign in 2008. On Sept. 4,
Zelenskyy stripped Klitschko of the head of administration post, apparently in a move to restore checks-and-balances in the capital.
On or about Aug. 2, 2019 – Giuliani meets in Madrid with Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskyy.
Having been rebuffed in June for a meeting in Kyiv with Zelenskyy
personally, Giuliani flies to Madrid to press the new Ukrainian
president’s aide, Yermak, for an investigation of the Bidens as well as a
probe of the allegation that Ukrainians conspired with Hillary
Clinton’s campaign in 2016 to release damaging information about Paul
Manafort. The Madrid meeting was a
“`direct followup’” to the July 25 Trump-Zelenskyy phone call and
specifically to their discussion of the cases the U.S. president raised
in that conversation, according to the whistleblower’s complaint. From Madrid, Giuliani resurfaces his allegations against the Bidens in a tweet on Aug. 3.
Giuliani has said Yermak seemed open to considering the
investigations, but also pressed for a Trump-Zelenskyy meeting as a sign
of continued U.S. support to Ukraine in its war against Russia and its
economic development and internal reform efforts. “I talked to him about the whole package,” Giuliani told the Washington Post.
The Post reported that “U.S. officials and members of the Trump
administration wanted the meeting [between the two Presidents] to go
ahead, but Trump personally rejected efforts to set it up, according to
three people familiar with the discussions.”
Aug. 12, 2019 – A whistleblower files a complaint to Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson related to an alleged “urgent concern” that
news reports later reveal likely centers on activities involving
President Trump and Ukraine. The ICIG determines the complaint meets the
definition of an “urgent concern” and is credible, and forwards it on
Aug. 26 to Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph
Maguire, who under the law was required to transmit the complaint to the
congressional intelligence committees within seven days. The Justice Department,
however, takes the position that the statute does not apply on the
ground that the complaint does not involve “an intelligence activity
within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National
Intelligence.” The complaint remains under wraps until House
Intelligence Committee Chairman reveals its existence on Sept. 13 (see
Aug. 15, 2019 – DNI Coats leaves office. Principal Deputy Director Sue Gordon resigns too, after it became clear that Trump would not select her to succeed Coats.
Aug. 26, 2019 – The Inspector General forwards the intelligence community whistleblower complaint to Acting DNI Maguire.
Aug. 28, 2019 – Then-U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton becomes the first high-level Trump administration official to visit Kyiv since President Zelenskyy’s inauguration. Bolton says the two discussed a possible meeting between the two presidents during a trip Trump planned at the time to Poland.
Aug. 28, 2019 – Politico breaks the news
that President Trump was delaying the distribution of $250 million of
fiscal 2019 security assistance that Ukraine needs to fight its war with
Russia on its eastern flank, by asking his administration to
review how it was being spent. The hold on the aid package at the same
time as Trump and Giuliani were agitating publicly for Ukraine to
investigate Biden raises the specter that the U.S. president was using
congressionally appropriated taxpayer dollars as leverage to coerce a
foreign government to investigate his potential rival in the 2020
election. The hold also constitutes a reversal of the Trump
administration’s stance toward Ukraine, after having approved lethal
defensive weapons sales in 2017, a move the Obama administration had
resisted. It is unclear exactly when the review was ordered, but the
suspension pending review was in place during the July 25 call. The
Department of Defense determined that the support should continue and
informed the White House of its recommendation, according to Politico and CNN.
National Security Adviser John Bolton also wanted to release the funds
to help Ukraine curtail Russian aggression, the Washington Post reports.
Aug. 29, 2019 – Zelenskyy appoints
lawyer and former Deputy Minister of Justice Ruslan Riaboshapka as the
new prosecutor general, replacing Yuriy Lutsenko, who steps down the
Sept. 2019 – The Wall Street Journalreports,
“Ukrainian officials earlier this month expressed concern to U.S.
senators that the aid had been held up as a penalty for resisting that
Sept. 2, 2019 – Vice President Mike Pence, a day after meeting with the new Ukrainian president, doesn’t directly answer a reporter’s question
about whether he can assure Ukrainians that the delay in $250 million
of U.S. security assistance for Ukraine is unrelated to President
Trump’s and Rudy Giuliani’s pressure on Ukraine to investigate the
Sept. 5, 2019 — New Prosecutor General Ruslan Riaboshapka brings Vitaliy Kasko back to the office as First Deputy Prosecutor General, a move that promises to help restore integrity to the office. Kasko is the former deputy of Shokin’s who had quit out of frustration.
Sept. 9, 2019 Inspector General for the Intelligence
Community Michael Atkinson informs House Intelligence Committee Chair
Adam Schiff and Ranking Member Devin Nunes of the whistleblower
complaint’s existence (full text of the Inspector General’s letter)
Sept. 9, 2019 – Three U.S. House committees launch probe into Trump and Giuliani pressure campaign
The House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight and Reform
committees announce a joint investigation of Trump and Giuliani’s
alleged efforts to strongarm Ukraine into pursuing two investigations
for the president’s political gain, including by threatening to withhold
$250 million in security assistance. The joint press release says public records show the efforts have continued “for nearlytwo years” and were conducted “under the guise of anti-corruption activity.”
Sept. 11, 2019 – Trump releases the hold on U.S. security assistance to Ukraine
State Department notifies
Congress that it will provide Ukraine with $141.5 million of military
equipment and other assistance under its “Foreign Military Financing”
program that is available for a number of countries. The news emerges
the next day, Sept. 12, at the same time that U.S. Senator Lindsey
Graham says the administration has released its hold on the separate
$250 million of military assistance for Ukraine from the Defense
Department under a program known as the Ukraine Security Assistance
Initiative. President Trump gave permission
to the OMB’s acting director, Russell Vought, to release the funds. The
timing of the news on both aid packages leads to speculation that the
Trump administration was topping up its bribe/extortion of Ukraine, but
the Foreign Military Financing likely had been in the works for months, possibly a year.
Sept. 13, 2019 – Intelligence community whistleblower complaint revealed
House Intelligence Committee Chair Schiff announces
that he has issued a subpoena to Acting DNI Maguire to obtain a
complaint from a whistleblower filed under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) that, under the law,
should have been provided to the congressional intelligence committees.
Schiff says he is concerned the complaint is being withheld “to cover
up serious misconduct” and “to protect the President or other
Sept. 17, 2019 – The Inspector General for the Intelligence Community sends letter
to House Intelligence Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes
outlining his disagreement with the administration’s decision to
withhold the whistleblower’s complaint from the congressional
intelligence committees. The Inspector General’s letter states, “the
subject matter involved in the complainant’s disclosure not only falls
within the DNI’s jurisdiction, but relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI’s responsibilities to the American people.”
Sept. 18, 2019 – Vice President Pence speaks with
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy by phone, discussing a scheduled meeting
between the two presidents during the United Nations General Assembly
meetings in New York the following week. Pence “commended President
Zelenskyy’s administration for its bold action to tackle corruption
through legislative reforms, and offered full U.S. support for those
efforts,” according to a U.S. Embassy statement.
Sept. 20, 2019 – A senior advisor to Ukraine’s
Interior Minister challenges Trump to make official U.S. government
request if he wants an investigation of Biden. The adviser, Anton
Geraschenko, told The Daily Beast
that “currently there is no open investigation.” He adds, “Clearly,
Trump is now looking for kompromat to discredit his opponent Biden, to
take revenge for his friend Paul Manafort, who is serving seven years in
Sept. 22, 2019 – After days of insisting there was nothing inappropriate about his telephone call with Zelenskyy, President Trump acknowledges
discussing Joe Biden with the Ukrainian leader during their July 25
phone call. “The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with
largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place and largely the
fact that we don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son
creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” Mr. Trump told reporters.
Sept. 22 and 23, 2019 – Trump himself connects phone call on Biden to US aid to Ukraine
President Trump, in two sets of remarks to reporters asking about his July 25 phone call with Zelenskyy, appears to confirm a connection between U.S. financial assistance for Ukraine and his pressure for the country’s leaders to pursue the investigations he wants.
On Sept. 22 Trump says, “Certainly I’d have every right to [raise
Biden with the Ukrainian President] if there’s corruption and we are
paying lots of money to a country.”
Trump has repeatedly referred to what he falsely claims the Bidens to
have done as “corruption.” “It’s very important to talk about
corruption,” Trump tells the
reporters on Sept. 23. “If you don’t talk about corruption, why would
you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?…It’s very
important that on occasion you speak to somebody about corruption.”
Sept. 23, 2019 – The chairmen of the three House
committees conducting the joint investigation into Trump and Giuliani’s
efforts to pressure the Ukrainian government write Secretary of State Pompeo demanding he turn over the documents the committees had requested on Sept. 9. The letter
characterizes Trump’s actions as “seeking to enlist a foreign actor to
interfere with an American election,” and says, “if press reports are
accurate, such corrupt use of presidential power for the President’s
personal political interest – and not for the national interest – is a
betrayal of the President’s oath of office and cannot go unchecked.” The
chairmen note the earlier deadline of Sept. 16 to produce the material
had passed and give a new deadline of Sept. 26 to notify the committees
whether the State Department intends to comply.
Sept. 25, 2019 – Trump and Zelenskyy are scheduled to meet for the first time
The two presidents are scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the
opening sessions of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The
meeting between the presidents has been delayed since
the Ukrainians began requesting it in early summer, and still doesn’t
equate to an invitation for a formal meeting at the White House that
Zelenskyy has sought as an important signal of continued U.S. support
for Ukraine’s war against Russia and its battle against corruption.
SO IN CONCLUSION TO ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION
Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani again went and asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections, knowing this was against the law.
Trump withheld financial, military and security funds and equipment to our ally the Ukraine, that was already approved by Congress. He states it was because of corruption, but we all know better.
Trump then used this to hang over the head of the President of the Ukraine as a tool to get him to conduct an illegal investigation against Joe Biden, his political opponent and to find out who ratted out his criminal conspirator Manafort. This would have been used to his political advantage in smear campaigns to further his chances of getting re-elected.
Trump even admits he made this phone call.
Giuliani has been doing the same in aiding him in furtherance of this.
Attorney General William Barr is a co-conspirator in covering up these crimes and protecting this criminal and treasonous president.
Trump has also threatened the whistleblower and the people who gave the information to the whistleblower, which is intimidation of witnesses, and obstruction of justice.
TREASONOUS ACTS BY TRUMP:
Traitor Trump withheld the funds, approved by Congress for the Ukraine to fight against Putin and Russian invasion and proxy war to hold over the head of the President of the Ukraine as a stick to get him to investigate Biden, Biden Jr and find out who leaked the info about Manafort.
Trump has stalled the release of weapons, ammo, secure communications to the Ukraine.
Trump did all this to hold over the President of the Ukraine to do his bidding in investigating Biden and the Manafort deal.
In doing so? Trump gave aid and comfort to our enemy Putin and Russia. By denying the Ukranians the funds and weapons and ammo and communications they need to fight Russia? He has in fact? Given aid and comfort to our enemy Putin and Russia.
Giving aid and comfort to our enemy? Is called Treason.
The penalty for Treason is death.
Traitor Trump even stated in his threat against the whistleblower and those who gave them the information? Were spies and traitors and he wishes that we could do to traitors what we used to do to them.
Trump is a traitor and I agree, we should do to Traitors what we used to do to them.
Trump and Giuliani should be arrested and prosecuted for Treason against the United States. Their actions sure prove this.
Attorney General William Barr at the very least? Should be impeached. At the most? He should be charged with crimes of this cover up, obstruction of justice and being an accessory to the crime of High Treason against the United States.
Any of Trump’s circle who had a hand in this, or in the cover up? Should be arrested and prosecuted.
ANYONE WHO STANDS UP AND DEFENDS THESE ACTIONS? SHOULD BE PUT IN PRISON BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT TREASON AGAINST THE US? IS ALRIGHT.
Fox News, the Turd Reich Propoganda Channel for their Hitler wanna-be dicktaker, and Putin Puppet, Donald J Trump pundits Sean “Handjob Hannity” Hannity, Tomi “Blonde Bimbo” Lahren, Tucker “Traitor” Carlson, Laura “White Trash Slut” Ingraham, Laura “Psychotic Liar” Ingle, Steven “The Pedophile Defender” Doocy, Jeanine “Hitler Wanna Be” Pirro, Brian “Dumbass” Kilmeade and many other Faux Nitwit Newsless personalities are responsible for promoting hate, bigotry, misogyny and outright lies that have gotten people murdered, attacked, terrorized and even an act of mass murder, but they sure the hell do not give a flying fuck they got blood on their hands and heads.
The constant lies that Handjob Hannity and the rest has spewed from their well used outhouse pieholes? Has caused people to be murdered, people to be attacked and many terroristic threats. Let’s take a look at just some of the results of these scumbag Treasonous Traitors to the United States and their lies and hate has caused shall we?
29 CRIMES COMMITTED BY PSYCHOTIC TRUMPANZEES WHITE SUPREMACIST, MENTAL MIDGET MORONS, INCLUDING MASS MURDER, MURDER, TERRORISTIC ACTS AND OTHER CRIMES.
Aug. 19, 2015: In Boston, after he and his brother beat
a sleeping homeless man of Mexican descent with a metal pole, Steven
Leader, 30, told police “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need
to be deported.” The victim, however, was not in the United States
illegally. The brothers, who are white, ultimately pleaded guilty to several assault-related charges and were each sentenced to at least two years in prison.
Dec. 5, 2015: After Penn State University student
Nicholas Tavella, 19, was charged with “ethnic intimidation” and other
crimes for threatening to “put a bullet” in a young Indian man on
campus, his attorney argued in court that Tavella was just motivated by
“a love of country,” not “hate.” “Donald Trump is running for President
of the United States saying that, ‘We’ve got to check people out more
closely,'” Tavella’s attorney argued in his defense. Tavella, who is
white, ultimately pleaded guilty to ethnic intimidation and was sentenced to up to two years in prison.
SEAN “HANDJOB” HANNITY, RACIST, BIGOT, WHITE SUPREMACIST. SHITSTAIN ON THE UNDERWEAR OF HUMANITY. TREASONOUS TRAITOR. PUTIN PUPPET. HITLER DICK SUCKER. FAKE ASSED CHRISTOFASCIST PIG.
WHAT SEAN HANNITY AND THE OTHER WHITE SUPREMACIST SHITSTAINS ON THE UNDERWEAR OF HUMANITY LIKE HIM DO NOT REALIZE IS? HITLER WOULD HAVE SENT THIS PUNK TO HIS CAMPS TO TAKE A GAS SHOWER. CAUSE THIS TWISTED TROGLODYTE FOR FAUX NITWIT NEWSLESS? SURE THE FUCK DOES NOT FIT HITLERS IDEA OF HIS ARYIAN RACE.
SEAN HANNITY SHOULD FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF HIS HERO HITLER, TAKE A GUN SHOVE IT INTO HIS PATHOLOGICAL LYING, WELL USED OUTHOUSE PIEHOLE, PULL THE TRIGGER, AND BLOW HIS TREASONOUS BRAINS OUT.
April 28, 2016: When FBI agents arrested 61-year-old John Martin Roos in White City, Oregon, for threatening federal officials, including then-President Barack Obama,
they found several pipe bombs and guns in his home. In the three months
before his arrest, Roos posted at least 34 messages to Twitter about
Trump, repeatedly threatening African Americans, Muslims, Mexican
immigrants and the “liberal media,” and in court documents, prosecutors
noted that the avowed Trump supporter posted this threatening message to
Facebook a month earlier: “The establishment is trying to steal the
election from Trump. … Obama is already on a kill list … Your [name]
can be there too.” Roos, who is white, has since pleaded guilty to
possessing an unregistered explosive device and posting internet threats
against federal officials. He was sentenced to more than five years in prison.
June 3, 2016: After 54-year-old Henry Slapnik
attacked his African-American neighbors with a knife in Cleveland, he
told police “Donald Trump will fix them because they are scared of
Donald Trump,” according to police reports. Slapnik, who is white,
ultimately pleaded guilty to “ethnic intimidation” and other charges.
It’s unclear what sentence he received.
I’ve heard some dumb ass bleached blondes in my lifetime, but never have I encountered such a mental midget moron, white supremacist, trailer park trash reject, piece of shit than this Trailer Park Trash Reject Psycho Tomi Lahren.
I mean the ameobas, eating the shit from the other ameobas asses, in this psychotic freakshows outhouse Tomi Lahren crawled out from after her mommy shit her out while taking a dump? Has more fucking intelligence than she does.
Aug. 16, 2016: In Olympia, Washington, 32-year-old
Daniel Rowe attacked a white woman and a black man with a knife after
seeing them kiss on a popular street. When police arrived on the scene,
Rowe professed to being “a white supremacist” and said “he planned on
heading down to the next Donald Trump rally and stomping out more of the
Black Lives Matter group,” according to court documents filed in the case. Rowe, who is white, ultimately pleaded guilty to charges of assault and malicious harassment, and he was sentenced to more than four years in prison.
September 2016: After 40-year-old Mark Feigin of Los
Angeles was arrested for posting anti-Muslim and allegedly threatening
statements to a mosque’s Facebook page, his attorney argued in court
that the comments were protected by the First Amendment because Feigin
was “using similar language and expressing similar views” to “campaign
statements from then-candidate Donald Trump.” Noting that his client
“supported Donald Trump,” attorney Caleb Mason added that “Mr. Feigin’s
comments were directed toward a pressing issue of public concern that
was a central theme of the Trump campaign and the 2016 election
generally: the Islamic roots of many international and U.S. terrorist
acts.” Feigin, who is white, ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of sending harassing communications electronically. He was sentenced to probation.
Oct. 13, 2016: After the FBI arrested three white
Kansas men for plotting to bomb an apartment complex in Garden City,
Kansas, where many Somali immigrants lived, one of the men’s attorneys
insisted to a federal judge that the plot was “self-defensive” because
the three men believed “that if Donald Trump won the election, President
Obama would not recognize the validity of those results, that he would
declare martial law, and that at that point militias all over the
country would have to step in.” Then, after a federal grand jury convicted 47-year-old Patrick Stein and the two other men of conspiracy-related charges, Stein’s attorney argued
for a lighter sentence based on “the backdrop” of Stein’s actions:
Trump had become “the voice of a lost and ignored white, working-class
set of voters” like Stein, and the “climate” at the time could propel
someone like Stein to “go to 11,” attorney Jim Pratt said in court.
Stein and his two accomplices were each sentenced to at least 25 years
Look at this Hitler saluting troglodyte Fascist pig Laura Ingraham. She fucking thinks she is oh so special cause she is white. The trouble is with this bleached blonde bimbo? Hitler would have sent her? To his concentration camp for a gas shower.
Nov. 3, 2016: In Tampa, Florida, David Howard
threatened to burn down the house next to his “simply because” it was
being purchased by a Muslim family, according to the Justice Department.
He later said under oath that while he harbored a years-long dislike
for Muslims, the circumstances around the home sale were “the match that
lit the wick.” He cited Trump’s warnings about immigrants from
majority-Muslim countries. “[With] the fact that the president wants
these six countries vetted, everybody vetted before they come over,
there’s a concern about Muslims,” Howard said. Howard, who is white,
ultimately pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights violation, and the
59-year-old was sentenced to eight months in prison
Nov. 10, 2016: A 23-year-old man from High Springs,
Florida, allegedly assaulted an unsuspecting Hispanic man who was
cleaning a parking lot outside of a local food store. “[H]e was suddenly
struck in the back of the head,” a police report said of the victim.
“[The victim] asked the suspect why he hit him, to which the suspect
replied, ‘This is for Donald Trump.’ The suspect then grabbed [the
victim] by the jacket and proceeded to strike him several more times,”
according to the report. Surveillance video of the incident “completely
corroborated [the victim’s] account of events,” police said. The suspect
was arrested on battery charges, but the case was dropped after the
victim decided not to pursue the matter, police said. Efforts by ABC
News to reach the victim for further explanation were not successful.
Nov. 12, 2016: In Grand Rapids, Michigan, while attacking a cab driver
from East Africa, 23-year-old Jacob Holtzlander shouted racial epithets
and repeatedly yelled the word, “Trump,” according to law enforcement
records. Holtzlander, who is white, ultimately pleaded guilty to a charge of ethnic intimidation, and he was sentenced to 30 days in jail.
an. 25, 2017: At JFK
International Airport in New York, a female Delta employee, wearing a
hijab in accordance with her Muslim faith, was “physically and verbally”
attacked by 57-year-old Robin Rhodes of Worcester, Mass., “for no
apparent reason,” prosecutors said
at the time. When the victim asked Brown what she did to him, he
replied: “You did nothing, but … [Expletive] Islam. [Expletive] ISIS.
Trump is here now. He will get rid of all of you.” Rhodes ultimately
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “menacing,” and he was
sentenced to probation.
Feb. 19, 2017: After 35-year-old Gerald Wallace called a
mosque in Miami Gardens, Florida, and threatened to “shoot all y’all,”
he told the FBI and police that he made the call because he “got angry”
from a local TV news report about a terrorist act. At a rally in Florida
the day before, Trump falsely claimed that Muslim refugees had just launched a terrorist attack in Sweden.
Wallace’s attorney, Katie Carmon, later tried to convince a federal
judge that the threat to kill worshippers could be “protected speech”
due to the “very distinctly political climate” at the time. “There are
courts considering President Trump’s travel ban … and the president
himself has made some very pointed statements about what he thinks about
people of this descent,” Carmon argued in court.
Wallace, who is African American, ultimately pleaded guilty to
obstructing the free exercise of his victims’ religious beliefs, and he
was sentenced to one year in prison.
Feb. 23, 2017: Kevin Seymour and his partner Kevin
price were riding their bicycles in Key West, Florida, when a man on a
moped, 30-year-old Brandon Davis of North Carolina, hurled anti-gay
slurs at them and “intentionally” ran into Seymour’s bike, shouting,
“You live in Trump country now,” according to police reports and Davis’
attorney. Davis ultimately pleaded guilty to a charge of battery
evidencing prejudice, but in court, he expressed remorse and was sentenced to four years of probation.
May 3, 2017: In South Padre Island, Texas, 35-year-old Alexander Jennes Downing of Waterford, Connecticut, was captured on cellphone video
taunting and aggressively approaching a Muslim family, repeatedly
shouting, “Donald Trump will stop you!” and other Trump-related remarks.
Police arrested downing, of Waterford, Connecticut, for public
intoxication. It’s unclear what came of the charge.
Oct. 22, 2017: A 44-year-old California man threatened
to kill Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., for her frequent criticism of
Trump and her promise to “take out” the president. Anthony Scott Lloyd
left a voicemail at the congresswoman’s Washington office, declaring:
“If you continue to make threats towards the president, you’re going to
wind up dead, Maxine. Cause we’ll kill you.” After pleading guilty
to one count of threatening a U.S. official, Lloyd asked the judge for
leniency, saying he suffered from addiction-inducing mental illness and
became “far too immersed in listening to polarizing political
commentators and engaging in heated political debates online.” His
lawyer put it this way to the judge: “Mr. Lloyd was a voracious consumer
of political news online, on television and on radio … [that are]
commonly viewed as ‘right wing,’ unconditionally supportive of President
Trump, and fiercely critical of anyone who opposed President Trump’s
policies.” The judge sentenced Lloyd to six months of house arrest and
three years of probation.
August 2018: After the Boston Globe called on news
outlets around the country to resist what it called “Trump’s assault on
journalism,” the Boston Globe received more than a dozen threatening
phone calls. “You are the enemy of the people,” the alleged caller,
68-year-old Robert Chain of Encino, California, told a Boston Globe
employee on Aug. 22. “As long as you keep attacking the President, the
duly elected President of the United States … I will continue to
threat[en], harass, and annoy the Boston Globe.” A week later,
authorities arrested Chain
on threat-related charges. After a hearing in his case, he told
reporters, “America was saved when Donald J. Trump was elected
president.” Chain has pleaded guilty to seven threat-related charges,
and he is awaiting sentencing.
Oct. 4, 2018: The Polk County Sheriff’s Office in Florida arrested
53-year-old James Patrick of Winter Haven, Florida, for allegedly
threatening “to kill Democratic office holders, members of their
families and members of both local and federal law enforcement
agencies,” according to a police report. In messages posted online,
Patrick detailed a “plan” for his attacks, which he said he would launch
if then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not confirmed as a Supreme Court
justice, the police report said. Seeking Patrick’s release from jail
after his arrest, Patrick’s attorney, Terri Stewart, told a judge that
her client’s “rantings” were akin to comments from “a certain
high-ranking official” — Trump. The president had “threatened the North
Korean people — to blow them all up. It was on Twitter,” Stewart said,
according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Patrick has been charged with
making a written threat to kill or injure, and he has pleaded not
guilty. His trial is pending.
Late October 2018: Over the course of a week, Florida
man Cesar Sayoc allegedly mailed at least 15 potential bombs to
prominent critics of Trump and members of the media. Sayoc had been
living in a van plastered with pro-Trump stickers, and he had posted
several pro-Trump messages on social media. Federal prosecutors have
accused him of “domestic terrorism,” and Sayoc has since pleaded guilty
to 65 counts, including use of a weapon of mass destruction. He was sentenced
to 20 years in prison. “We believe the president’s rhetoric contributed
to Mr. Sayoc’s behavior,” Sayoc’s attorney told the judge at
Dec. 4, 2018: Michael Brogan, 51, of Brooklyn, New
York, left a voicemail at an unidentified U.S. Senator’s office in
Washington insisting, “I’m going to put a bullet in ya. … You and your
constant lambasting of President Trump. Oh, reproductive rights,
reproductive rights.” He later told an FBI agent that before leaving the
voicemail he became “very angry” by “an internet video of the Senator,
including the Senator’s criticism of the President of the United States
as well as the Senator’s views on reproductive rights.” “The threats
were made to discourage the Senator from criticizing the President,” the
Justice Department said in a later press release. Brogan has since pleaded guilty to one count of threatening a U.S. official, and he is awaiting sentencing.
Jan. 17, 2019: Stephen Taubert of Syracuse, New York,
was arrested by the U.S. Capitol Police for threatening to kill Rep.
Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and for threatening to “hang” former President
Barack Obama. Taubert used “overtly bigoted, hateful language” in his
threats, according to federal prosecutors. On July 20, 2018, Taubert
called the congresswoman’s Los Angeles office to say he would find her
at public events and kill her and her entire staff. In a letter to the
judge just days before Taubert’s trial began, his defense attorney,
Courtenay McKeon, noted: “During that time period, Congresswoman Waters
was embroiled in a public feud with the Trump administration. … On June
25, 2018, in response to Congresswoman Waters’ public statements,
President Trump tweeted: ‘Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an
extraordinarily low IQ person, has … just called for harm to supporters …
of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for
Max!'” As McKeon insisted to the judge: “This context is relevant to the
case.” A federal jury ultimately convicted
Taubert on three federal charges, including retaliating against a
federal official and making a threat over state lines. He was sentenced
to nearly four years in prison.
Jan. 22, 2019: David Boileau of Holiday, Florida, was arrested
by the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office for allegedly burglarizing an
Iraqi family’s home and “going through” their mailbox, according to a
police report. After officers arrived at the home, Boileau “made several
statements of his dislike for people of Middle Eastern descent,” the
report said. “He also stated if he doesn’t get rid of them, Trump will
handle it.” The police report noted that a day before, Boileau threw
screws at a vehicle outside the family’s house. On that day, Boileau
allegedly told police, “We’ll get rid of them one way or another.”
Boileau, 58, has since pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of
trespassing, and he was sentenced to 90 days in jail.
Feb. 15, 2019: The FBI in Maryland arrested
a Marine veteran and U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant, Christopher Paul
Hasson, who they said was stockpiling weapons and “espoused” racist and
anti-immigrant views for years as he sought to “murder innocent
civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country.” In court documents,
prosecutors said the 49-year-old “domestic terrorist” compiled a “hit
list” of prominent Democrats. Two months later, while seeking Hasson’s
release from jail before trial, his public defender, Elizabeth Oyer,
told a federal judge: “This looks like the sort of list that our
commander-in-chief might have compiled while watching Fox News in the
morning. … Is it legitimately frustrating that offensive language and
ideology has now become part of our national vocabulary? Yes, it is very
frustrating. But … it is hard to differentiate it from the random
musings of someone like Donald Trump who uses similar epithets in his
everyday language and tweets.” Hasson faces weapons-related charges and
was being detained as he awaits trial. He has pleaded not guilty.
March 16, 2019: Anthony Comello, 24, of Staten Island,
New York, was taken into custody for allegedly killing Francesco “Franky
Boy” Cali, the reputed head of the infamous Gambino crime family. It
marked the first mob boss murder in New York in 30 years, law
enforcement officials told ABC News the murder may have stemmed from
Comello’s romantic relationship with a Cali family member. Court
documents since filed in state court by Comello’s defense attorney,
Robert Gottlieb, said Comello suffers from mental defect and was a
believer in the “conspiratorial fringe right-wing political group”
QAnon. In addition, Gottlieb wrote:
“Beginning with the election of President Trump in November 2016,
Anthony Comello’s family began to notice changes to his personality. …
Mr. Comello became certain that he was enjoying the protection of
President Trump himself, and that he had the president’s full support.
Mr. Comello grew to believe that several well-known politicians and
celebrities were actually members of the Deep State, and were actively
trying to bring about the destruction of America.” Comello has been
charged with one count of murder and two counts of criminal possession
of a weapon. His trial is pending, and he has pleaded not guilty.
April 5, 2019: The FBI arrested a 55-year-old man
from upstate New York for allegedly threatening to kill Rep. Ilhan
Omar, D-Minn., one of the first two Muslim women elected to the U.S.
Congress. She is an outspoken critic of Trump, and Trump has frequently
launched public attacks against her and three other female lawmakers of
color. Two weeks before his arrest, Patrick Carlineo Jr. allegedly
called Omar’s office in Washington labeling the congresswoman a
“terrorist” and declaring: “I’ll put a bullet in her f—-ing skull.”
When an FBI agent then traced the call to Carlineo and interviewed him,
Carlineo “stated that he was a patriot, that he loves the President, and
that he hates radical Muslims in our government,” according to the FBI
agent’s summary of the interview. Federal prosecutors charged Carlineo
with threatening to assault and murder a United States official.
Carlineo is awaiting trial, although his defense attorney and federal
prosecutors are working on what his attorney called another “possible
resolution” of the case.
April 18, 2019: The FBI arrested John Joseph Kless of
Tamarac, Florida, for calling the Washington offices of three prominent
Democrats and threatening to kill each of them. At his home, authorities
found a loaded handgun in a backpack, an AR-15 rifle and hundreds of
rounds of ammunition. In later pleading guilty
to one charge of transmitting threats over state lines, Kless admitted
that in a threatening voicemail targeting Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.,
he stated: “You won’t f—ing tell Americans what to say, and you
definitely don’t tell our president, Donald Trump, what to say.” Tlaib, a
vocal critic of Trump, was scheduled to speak in Florida four days
later. Kless was awaiting sentencing. In a letter to the federal judge,
he said he “made a very big mistake,” never meant to hurt anyone, and
“was way out of line with my language and attitude.”
April 24, 2019: The FBI arrested 30-year-old
Matthew Haviland of North Kingstown, Rhode Island, for allegedly
sending a series of violent and threatening emails to a college
professor in Massachusetts who publicly expressed support for abortion
rights and strongly criticized Trump. In one of 28 emails sent to the
professor on March 10, 2019, Haviland allegedly called the professor
“pure evil” and said “all Democrats must be eradicated,” insisting the
country now has “a president who’s taking our country in a place of more
freedom rather than less.” In another email the same day, Haviland
allegedly wrote the professor: “I will rip every limb from your body and
… I will kill every member of your family.” According to court
documents, Haviland’s longtime friend later told the FBI that “within
the last year, Haviland’s views regarding abortion and politics have
become more extreme … at least in part because of the way the news media
portrays President Trump.” Haviland has been charged with cyberstalking
and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. His trial is pending.
June 5, 2019: The FBI arrested a Utah man for allegedly
calling the U.S. Capitol more than 2,000 times over several months and
threatening to kill Democratic lawmakers, whom he said were “trying to
destroy Trump’s presidency.” “I am going to take up my second amendment
right, and shoot you liberals in the head,” 54-year-old Scott Brian
Haven allegedly stated in one of the calls on Oct. 18, 2018, according
to charging documents. When an FBI agent later interviewed Haven, he
“explained the phone calls were made during periods of frustration with
the way Democrats were treating President Trump,” the charging documents
said. The FBI visit, however, didn’t stop Haven from making more
threats, including: On March 21, 2019, he called an unidentified U.S.
senator’s office to say that if Democrats refer to Trump as Hitler again
he will shoot them, and two days later he called an unidentified
congressman’s office to say he “was going to take [the congressman] out …
because he is trying to remove a duly elected President.” A federal
grand jury has since charged Haven with one count of transmitting a
threat over state lines. Haven pleaded not guilty and was awaiting trial.
Aug. 3, 2019: A gunman opened fire
at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 people and injuring 24
others. The FBI labeled the massacre an act of “domestic terrorism,” and
police determined that the alleged shooter, 21-year-old Patrick
Crusius, posted a lengthy anti-immigrant diatribe online before the
attack. “We attribute that manifesto directly to him,” according to El
Paso police chief Greg Allen. Describing the coming assault as “a
response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” the screed’s writer said
“the media” would “blame Trump’s rhetoric” for the attack but insisted
his anti-immigrant views “predate Trump” — an apparent acknowledgement
that at least some of his views align with some of Trump’s public
statements. The writer began his online essay by stating that he
generally “support[s]” the previous writings of the man who killed 51
Muslim worshippers in New Zealand earlier this year. In that case, the
shooter in New Zealand said he absolutely did not support Trump as “a
policy maker and leader” — but “[a]s a symbol of renewed white identity
and common purpose? Sure.” Crusius has been charged with capital murder
by the state of Texas.
THE CEO OF TWITTER, JACK DORSEY AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TWITTER, SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED FOR THE PROMOTION OF HATE CRIMES AND MURDER
Congress has called out both Facebook and Twitter for the promotion of hate speech and even terroristic acts.
While it appears that Facebook is now putting a stop to white supremacists on Facebook and the spreading of their hate? It seems the CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey and the Board of Directors of Twitter will never do the same to stop the spread of hate and white supremacy and their racist bullshit on Twitter. Why? Because it turns out of they actually went after the White Supremacists spreading hate on Twitter? Why they would be having to ban a whole lot of Republican Politicians, including that proven bigot, racist, misogynist pig, treasonous Cock Sucker for Putin, Donald J Trump and the rest of his white supremacist cunts Trumpanzees whose tweets would violate those algorythyms that show white supremacists spreading hate on Twitter.
Why can’t Twitter stop Trump’s hateful tweets about Ilhan Omar?
Congresswoman received death threats following video Trump posted – but he didn’t technically violate the rules
The rules just aren’t the same for Donald Trump as they are for the rest of us. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apparently admitted as much this week on a phone call with Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar.
As reported by the Washington Post,
Dorsey, often criticized for his inaction when it comes removing
hateful and threatening content from the platform, was asked by Omar why
he hadn’t taken down a video posted by Trump earlier in the month. The
video, which spliced together misleading and out of context comments
from Omar about the issue of Islamophobia with footage of the 9/11
attacks, was clearly targeted harassment to anyone who saw it.
Indeed Omar said she saw a sharp uptick in death threats after it was posted. But since it came from Trump, and not an average Twitter user, there was nothing Dorsey could do, he said. The tweet didn’t technically violate the rules in any case, he added. (Anyone who has used Twitter will understand the frustration at trying to parse what exactly those rules are.)
The call with Omar came the same day Dorsey met with Trump in the
White House, a meeting in which the president is said to have largely
complained about his follower count.
“During their conversation, [Dorsey] emphasized that death threats, incitement to violence and hateful conduct are not allowed on Twitter,” the social media platform said in a statement to the Post. “We’ve significantly invested in technology to proactively surface this type of content and will continue to focus on reducing the burden on the individual being targeted.”
Dorsey has said in the past that the public interest value of Trump’s tweets outweigh the harm of his occasional calls for violence or threats against foreign governments or members of the media
“Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial
tweets would hide important information people should be able to see
and debate,” the company explained in statement last year. “It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”
More recently Dorsey declined to say whether a hypothetical direct call from Trump to murder a journalist would be grounds for his banishment.
The permissive double standard applied to Trump on Twitter hasn’t stopped him from regularly suggesting that he is himself being treated unfairly. This week Trump tweeted that Twitter doesn’t “treat me well as a Republican. Very discriminatory…”
In fact it seems more probable that Republicans such as Trump are given much more leeway than others.
A recent story from Motherboard reported that one of the reasons Twitter has had trouble removing white supremacist content from the platform, as they have largely done with the Islamic State, is that the algorithms they use might end up affecting Republican politicians.
“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” Trump once said in a prescient boast.
When it comes to his behavior as reported in the Mueller report, as
well as his social media habits, it seems like Trump behaves like he can
get away with anything. So far he’s right.
Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.
A Twitter employee who works on machine learning believes that a proactive, algorithmic solution to white supremacy would also catch Republican politicians.
At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt
question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off
its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content?
executive responded by explaining that Twitter follows the law, and a
technical employee who works on machine learning and artificial
intelligence issues went up to the mic to add some context. (As
Motherboard has previously reported, algorithms are the next great hope for platforms trying to moderate the posts of their hundreds of millions, or billions, of users.)
every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a
platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it
can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language
broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS
for inconveniencing some others, he said.
In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.
The employee argued that, on a technical
level, content from Republican politicians could get swept up by
algorithms aggressively removing white supremacist material. Banning
politicians wouldn’t be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging
all of the white supremacist propaganda, he argued.
There is no
indication that this position is an official policy of Twitter, and the
company told Motherboard that this “is not [an] accurate
characterization of our policies or enforcement—on any level.” But the
Twitter employee’s comments highlight the sometimes overlooked debate
within the moderation of tech platforms: are moderation issues purely
technical and algorithmic, or do societal norms play a greater role than
some may acknowledge?
Twitter has not publicly explained
why it has been able to so successfully eradicate ISIS while it
continues to struggle with white nationalism. As a company, Twitter
won’t say that it can’t treat white supremacy in the same way as it
treated ISIS. But external experts Motherboard spoke to said that the
measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white
supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously
flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the
very least, their supporters. So it’s no surprise, then, that employees
at the company have realized that as well.
This is because the
proactive measures taken against ISIS are more akin to the removal of
spam or child porn than the more nuanced way that social media platforms traditionally police content,
which can involve using algorithms to surface content but ultimately
relies on humans to actually review and remove it (or leave it up.) A
Twitter spokesperson told Motherboard that 91 percent of the company’s
terrorism-related suspensions in a 6 month period in 2018 were thanks to
internal, automated tools.
The argument that external experts made to Motherboard aligns with
what the Twitter employee aired: Society as a whole uncontroversially
and unequivocally demanded that Twitter take action against ISIS in the
wake of beheading videos spreading far and wide on the platform. The
automated approach that Twitter took to eradicating ISIS was successful:
“I haven’t seen a legit ISIS supporter on Twitter who lasts longer than
15 seconds for two-and-a-half years,” Amarnath Amarasingam, an
extremism researcher at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, told
Motherboard in a phone call. Society and politicians were willing to
accept that some accounts were mistakenly suspended by Twitter during
that process (for example, accounts belonging to the hacktivist group Anonymous that were reporting ISIS accounts to Twitter as part of an operation called #OpISIS were themselves banned).
That same eradicate-everything approach, applied to white supremacy, is much more controversial.
“Most people can agree a beheading video or some kind of ISIS content should be proactively removed, but when we try to talk about the alt-right or white nationalism, we get into dangerous territory, where we’re talking about [Iowa Rep.] Steve King or maybe even some of Trump’s tweets, so it becomes hard for social media companies to say all of this ‘this content should be removed,’” Amarasingam said.
going to be controversy here that we didn’t see with ISIS, because
there are more white nationalists than there are ISIS supporters, and
white nationalists are closer to the levers of political power in the US
and Europe than ISIS ever was.”
In March, King promoted an open white nationalist on Twitter for the third time. King quote tweeted Faith Goldy, a Canadian white nationalist. Earlier this month, Facebook banned Goldy under the site’s new policy banning white nationalism; Goldy has 122,000 followers on Twitter and has not been banned at the time of writing. Last year, Twitter banned Republican politician and white nationalist Paul Nehlen for a racist tweet he sent about actress and princess Meghan Markle, but prior to the ban, Nehlen gained a wide following on the platform while tweeting openly white nationalist content about, for example, the “Jewish media.”
Any move that could be perceived as being anti-Republican is likely to stir backlash against the company, which has been criticized by President Trump and other prominent Republicans for having an “anti-conservative bias.” Tuesday, on the same day Trump met with Twitter’s Dorsey, the President tweeted that Twitter “[doesn’t] treat me well as a Republican. Very discriminatory,” Trump tweeted. “No wonder Congress wants to get involved—and they should.”
JM Berger, author of Extremism and a number of reports on ISIS and far-right extremists on Twitter, told Motherboard that in his own research, he has found that “a very large number of white nationalists identify themselves as avid Trump supporters.”
down on white nationalists will therefore involve removing a lot of
people who identify to a greater or lesser extent as Trump supporters,
and some people in Trump circles and pro-Trump media will certainly
seize on this to complain they are being persecuted,” Berger said.
“There’s going to be controversy here that we didn’t see with ISIS,
because there are more white nationalists than there are ISIS
supporters, and white nationalists are closer to the levers of political
power in the US and Europe than ISIS ever was.”
Twitter currently has no good way of suspending specific white
supremacists without human intervention, and so it continues to use
human moderators to evaluate tweets. In an email, a company spokesperson
told Motherboard that “different content and behaviors require
“For terrorist-related content
we’ve a lot of success with proprietary technology but for other types
of content that violate our policies—which can often [be] much more
contextual—we see the best benefits by using technology and human review
in tandem,” the company said.
Twitter hasn’t done a particularly good job of removing white supremacist content and has shown a reluctance to take any action of any kind against “world leaders” even when their tweets violate Twitter’s rules. But Berger agrees with Twitter in that the problem the company is facing with white supremacy is fundamentally different than the one it faced with ISIS on a practical level.
ISIS, the group’s obsessive branding, tight social networks and small
numbers made it easier to avoid collateral damage when the companies
cracked down (although there was some),” he said. “White nationalists,
in contrast, have inconsistent branding, diffuse social networks and a
large body of sympathetic people in the population, so the risk of
collateral damage might be perceived as being higher, but it really
depends on where the company draws its lines around content.”
But just because eradicating white supremacy on Twitter is a hard problem doesn’t mean the company should get a pass. After Facebook explicitly banned white supremacy and white nationalism, Motherboard asked YouTube and Twitter whether they would make similar changes. Neither company would commit to making that explicit change, and referred us to their existing rules.
has a responsibility to stomp out all voices of hate on its platform,”
Brandi Collins-Dexter, senior campaign director at activist group Color
Of Change told Motherboard in a statement. “Instead, the company is
giving a free ride to conservative politicians whose dangerous rhetoric
enables the growth of the white supremacist movement into the mainstream
and the rise of hate, online and off.”
Twitter and YouTube Won’t Commit to Ban White Nationalism After Facebook Makes Policy Switch
Following a Motherboard investigation, Facebook banned white nationalism and white separatism. But Twitter and YouTube, two platforms with their own nationalism problems, won’t commit to following Facebook’s lead.
Keegan Hankes, a research analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) Intelligence Project, told Motherboard in a phone call Tuesday “I think there is absolutely a need for other platforms to adopt similar policies” to Facebook. “Both YouTube and Twitter have been amongst the worst at getting this content dealt with on their platforms,” Hankes added.
Hankes added the SPLC does have a relationship with YouTube, but with Twitter not nearly as much.
“They’ve been very, very stubborn and basically unwilling to ban people
that are outright white supremacists from their platform,” he added.
When they do ban people, they’re happy to play a game of whack-a-mole,
instead of having a systematic approach, he added.
“They’re still basically at square one for the most part,” Hankes said.
Tech Platforms Obliterated ISIS Online. They Could Use The Same Tools On White Nationalism.
Before killing 50 people during Friday prayers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and injuring 40 more, the gunman apparently decided to fully exploit social media by releasing a manifesto, posting a Twitter thread showing off his weapons, and going live on Facebook as he launched the attack.
gunman’s coordinated social media strategy wasn’t unique, though. The
way he manipulated social media for maximum impact is almost identical
to how ISIS, at its peak, was using those very same platforms.
While most mainstream social networks have become aggressive
about removing pro-ISIS content from the average user’s feed, far-right
extremism and white nationalism continue to thrive. Only the most
egregious nodes in the radicalization network have been removed from
every platform. The question now is: Will Christchurch change anything?
A 2016 study by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism shows that white nationalists and neo-Nazi supporters had a much larger impact
on Twitter than ISIS members and supporters at the time. When looking
at about 4,000 accounts of each category, white nationalists and
neo-Nazis outperformed ISIS in number of tweets and followers, with an
average follower count that was 22 times greater than ISIS-affiliated
Twitter accounts. The study concluded that by 2016, ISIS had become a
target of “large-scale efforts” by Twitter to drive supporters off the
platform, like using AI-based technology to automatically flag
militant Muslim extremist content, while white nationalists and
neo-Nazi supporters were given much more leeway, in large part because
their networks were far less cohesive.
The answer to why this kind of cross-network deplatforming hasn’t happened with white nationalist extremism may be found in a 2018 VOX-Pol report
authored by the same researcher as the George Washington University
study cited above: “The task of crafting a response to the alt-right is
considerably more complex and fraught with landmines, largely as a
result of the movement’s inherently political nature and its proximity
to political power.”
But tech companies and governments can easily agree on removing violent
terrorist content; they’ve been less inclined to do this with white
nationalist content, which cloaks itself in free speech arguments and
which a new wave of populist world leaders are loath to criticize.
Christchurch could be another moment for platforms to draw a line in the
sand between what is and is not acceptable on their platforms.
Moderating white nationalist extremism is hard because it’s drenched in
irony and largely spread online via memes, obscure symbols, and
references. The Christchurch gunman ironically told the viewers of his
livestream to “Subscribe to Pewdiepie.” His alleged announcement post on
8chan was full of trolly dark web in-jokes. And the cover of his
manifesto had a Sonnenrad on it — a sunwheel symbol commonly used by
And unlike ISIS, far-right extremism isn’t as centralized. The
Christchurch gunman and Christopher Hasson, the white nationalist Coast
Guard officer who was arrested last month for allegedly plotting to
assassinate politicians and media figures and carry out large-scale
terror attacks using biological weapons, were both inspired
by Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Cesar Sayoc, also known as the
“MAGA Bomber,” and the Tree of Life synagogue shooter, both appear to
have been partially radicalized via 4chan and Facebook memes.
It may now be genuinely impossible to disentangle anti-Muslim hate speech
on Facebook and YouTube from the more coordinated racist 4chan meme
pages or white nationalist communities growing on these platforms.
“Islamophobia happens to be something that made these companies lots and
lots of money,” Whitney Phillips, an assistant professor at Syracuse
University whose research includes online harassment, recently told BuzzFeed News. She said this type of content leads to engagement, which keeps people using the platform, which generates ad revenue.
A spokesperson from Twitter provided BuzzFeed News with a copy of its
policy on extremism, in regards to how it moderates ISIS-related
content. “You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the
serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of
people,” the policy reads. “This includes, but is not limited to,
threatening or promoting terrorism.” The spokesperson would not comment
specifically on whether using neo-Nazi or white nationalist iconography
on Twitter also counted as threatening or promoting terrorism.
Like the hardcore white nationalist and neo-Nazi iconography used by the
Christchurch gunman, the more entry-level memes that likely radicalized
the MAGA bomber, and the pipeline from mainstream social networks to
more private clusters of extremist thought described by the Tree of Life
shooter, ISIS’s social media activity before the large-scale crackdown
in 2015 had similar tentpoles. It organized around hashtags, distributed
propaganda in multiple languages, transmitted coded language and
iconography, and siphoned possible recruits from larger mainstream
social networks into smaller private messaging platforms.
Twitter CEO Jack Patrick Dorsey should in fact, along with the Board of Directors of Twitter be held responsible for any acts of violence, or any acts of murder committed by Twitter White Supremacist Users, or encouraged by Donald J Trump or any White Supremacist.
As we can see from the stories above? Twitter CEO Jack Patrick Dorsey and the Twitter Board of Directors: Omid Kordestani, Patrick Pichette, Martha Lane Fox, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, David Rosenblatt, Brett Taylor, Robert Zoellick and Twitter’s CFO Ned Segal, should be held accountable for all the hate, all the bigotry, all the misogyny, all the shit that Donald J Trump spews on a daily basis to his psychotic, white supremacist twitter followers, to all the white supremacists, all the Republican racists, who also spew racist, bigoted, misogynist bullshit on Twitter. This also includes all the hate, all the bigotry and all the lgbtphobia spewed by White Supremacist Christians who use Twitter to spread their hate and bigotry.
These actions of Trump and his racist punks are in fact, responsible for some of the mass murders and the incredible high murder counts of lgbts in the US and across the world.
If Twitter’s CEO Jack Patrick Dorsey, and the Board of Directors Kordestani Pichette, Fox, Okonjo-Iweala, Rosenblatt, Taylor, Zoellick and CFO Segal are going to rake in millions of dollars in profits, and place the revenue of advertisers, that Racist Trump and his white supremacists bring into the coffers, bank accounts and pockets of these people? And if these actions of hate spewed by these white supremacists by Donald J Trump or by ChristoTaliban Fascists on Twitter caused a death? Then they should be held responsible for it.
BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY AND HONESTLY? TWITTER CEO JACK PATRICK DORSEY, CFO NED SEGAL, AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TWITTER, ALONG WITH TWITTER STOCKHOLDERS?
SHOULD NOT PROFIT FROM THE SPREAD OF HATE, THE SPREAD OF BIGOTRY, THE SPREAD OF MISOGYNY, THE SPREAD OF WHITE SUPREMACY OR OTHER FORMS OF HATE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PERPETRATED BY THE SUPPOSED PRESIDENT, DONALD J TRUMP, OR WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHO HAPPEN TO BE REPUBLICAN, OR CHRISTIAN WHO SPEW HATE AND DEATH AND BIGOTRY ON TWITTER AND HIDE IT BEHIND A RELIGIOUS RIGHT.
AND AS SUCH? JACK DORSEY, NED SEGAL AND ALL THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TWITTER SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR CRIMES.
So let’s take Handjob Hannity, who proclaims himself a Christian but even Jesus Christ himself would walk up to this pathological lying, false witness bearing, Pharisee for ChristoTalibans and ChristoFascist pig fuckers, and of course pathological lying, adulterous, rapist, pedo pervert, thief and con-artist and Putin Puppet Donald J Trump everywhere and punch him in his Cocksuckers for Traitor Trump well used outhouse piehole.
Though Sean Hannity and Adolph Hitler’s Propoganda Minister Joseph Goebbels have a whole lot in common, just like Traitor Trump and Adolph Hitler have a lot in common? The one thing none of these four Fascist pig fuckers have in common with a True Christian is the fact? They are not Christians at all. Even though they proclaimed themselves Christians.
A True Christian, Sean Hannity follows ALL the teachings of Jesus Christ. Most especially? The two greatest commandments, which rise above all the rest and even the Prophets. Those two commandments are actually the basis for all the other teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Teachings such as helping the poor, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and yeah, you fucking piece of shit assclown for ChristoFascists, treating immigrants as if they were members of your own family. They also do not lie or bear false witness, nor defend and support pathological lying adulterers who sold us out to Russia.
But Sean, I know damn well you and your fellow supposed ChristoFascist scumbag shitstains on the underwear of humanity at Fox News have never really read your bibles. You basically cherry-pick what you want to use from the bible to justify your hatred and your bigotry and your misogyny and your lies and your bearing false witness, but you are nothing more than the money changers, the Pharisees and Saduccees that Jesus himself condemned so much.
Matter of fact? Your version of Jesus? Is nothing like the real version of Jesus. The version of your ChristoFascist White Supremacist Jesus? Should actually be declared the real Satan of Christianity. And you and the rest of your disgusting fellow ChristoFascist scumbags should be called the demonic ones.
But here? I am going to violate one of the biblical NT rules and throw some bible verses on how you are supposed to treat immigrants, like I am throwing pearls before pig swines like you.
So let me teach you Sean Hannity, and all the rest of your lying Fox News pundits how the bible tells you, you are supposed to treat foreigners and immigrants.
Leviticus 19:33,34 : ‘When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.’The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 24:22: ‘There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'”
Exodus 22: 21: You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 23: 9: “You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:18-19: He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 24:17: “You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge.
Deuteronomy 27:19: ‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.
Malachi 3:5: “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.
Hebrews 13:2: Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Psalms 146:9: The Lord watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
Jeremiah 7:5-7: “For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.
Jeremiah 22:3-5: Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. For if you will indeed obey this word, then there shall enter the gates of this house kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their servants and their people. But if you will not obey these words, I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation.
Ezekiel 47: 21-23: “So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, declares the Lord God.
1 Kings 8:41-43: “Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name’s sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name.
Zechariah 7:10: Do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”
Numbers 15:15,16: For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”
I expect Traitor Donald J Trump to play pretend at being a Christian. He has in fact proved many times by his actions, words and deeds he is no Christian. But you Sean? YOU proclaim how you are a Christian all the time. And we especially love your ChristoFascist bullshit lies and false witness against the supposed attacks on Christmas. Hey asshole, fuck you and your Christmas.
Here are a few examples of Sean Hannity’s ChristoFascist Christianity and his constantly disgusting bullshit on the supposed Fake War on Christmas.
Sean Hannity Says ‘CHRISTMAS IS UNDER SIEGE’ as Twitter Users Have a Field Day at His Expense
But day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, we have heard Sean Hannity of Fox News proclaim he is a Christian and each and every damn day? Sean Hannity? Proves, by his words, actions and deeds? He is no Christian.
Sean Hannity, you sold out your Jesus, your God, and your religion. You are noTrue Christian, because above all else? A True Christian follows the two greatest commandments of their Jesus, the Lord and Savior they proclaim to follow, especially the one where they are to love ALL their neighbors, as they are supposed to love their god, with all of their hearts all of their souls, all of their minds and all of their bodies and as they love themselves. Whether those neighbors happen to be an immigrant, an lgbt, an atheist, a Democrat, a liberal, or any one else for that matter. Which, with all the hate and bigotry and misogyny you have spewed out of your piehole, along with all the bearing false witness, and outright fucking lies you have shot out of your disgusting mouth? Proves you are no adherant to Jesus Christ or any of his teachings.
So how can Sean Hannity, the hate spreading, bigotry spreading, misogynist shit spreading, racists and bigots of Fox New call himself a True Christian, with all the hate in his heart he have spewed from his well used outhouse shithole he call his mouth, against lgbts, atheists, Pagans Muslims, and of course? Immigrants and still call himself a Christian? Even Jesus would reject him and his brand of Reich-Wing, White Supremacist, ChristoTaliban Christianity and any one like him who spews the same shit from their mouths that he does.
This is not being a Christian in the least bit. This is in fact? Anti-Christ actions and actions of the one Christians call Satan. These people are not Christ-like but Satan-like, especially in all the deceptions and pathological lies they spew on a daily basis.
Now here is a prime example of Sean Hannity of FOX News spewing lies and bearing false witness againstLGBTS and the AIDS epidemic, spewing homophopic comments that actually got old Sean fired from his job at UCSB. This is part of showing just how much Sean Hannity is no Christian. That Time Sean Hannity Got Fired for Homophobic Comments… and Went to the ACLU for Help (Podcast)
Fox News host Sean Hannity’s career began the last place you might expect: on the liberal campus of UC Santa Barbara, where he hosted a shock-jock radio show in which he tore into the news media and offered up flatly wrong theories about AIDS.
It was 1989. Hannity was a 27-year-old college dropout from Long
Island when he scored a job at UCSB’s radio station. But, as the Washington Post
reported, he was soon fired for offenses that included egging on a
guest “who claimed that AIDS was spreading among gay men because they
consumed each other’s feces,” and telling a lesbian mother he felt sorry
for her child. The details — and what he did next — are the subject of
our new “Shoot This Now” podcast, which you can listen on Apple or Spotify or here:
Now here is just one of the many lies and false witness that Sean Hannity has spewed just against immigrants, using Politifacts page about him:
Four years ago, then-Gov. Rick Perry misrepresented state-posted numbers and inaccurately claimed that thousands of Texas murders had lately been committed by unauthorized immigrants.
More recently, Fox News commentator Sean Hannity drew our attention when he dipped into the same pool of figures on his March 7, 2018 program, saying to a guest: “I went down to the border–I’ll give you facts–because I was on horseback, all-terrain vehicle, I was in helicopters, I was in boats and I sat through a security briefing in Texas with Rick Perry — 642,000 crimes committed by illegal immigrants against Texans alone.
“Here’s my question: Putting all those issues aside,” Hannity said,
“those that commit crimes in America, including some violent crimes,
even murder, those criminal aliens, do you support having them removed
from this country?”
“Absolutely, I have no problem with that,” news broadcaster Jorge Ramos replied. “I’m not here to defend real criminals.”
Hannity then showed a video clip from a July 2014 Texas presentation
on 642,000 “criminal offenses” committed by “criminal immigrants” that
Hannity saw alongside Perry during a visit to McAllen on the
Hannity said next to Ramos: “Are you literally saying to me that
they’re lying? Because they’re not.” Hannity subsequently asked: “You
sound like you don’t care about the Americans who are victims of crime. …
You’re not answering my question; 642,000 crimes committed against
Texans alone in a seven-year period; that’s not your family, Jorge.
Where’s your sympathy for those victims of crime and why shouldn’t we
take those that are committing crimes and get rid of them tomorrow?”
Hannity closed the segment by asking Ramos to come to Texas for a
program devoted to the 642,000 crime victims.
We decided to fact-check Hannity’s claim that criminal immigrants committed 642,000 crimes against Texans in recent years.
Hannity relies on 2014 presentation
In the portion of the Texas presentation shown by Hannity, two state
officials and Hannity face a slide headlined “Criminal Alien Offenses,
October 2008 to July 2014,” as an unidentified presenter says that more
than 200,000 criminal immigrants are responsible for about 642,000
criminal offenses. Perry then tells Hannity: “That’s the cost of not
securing the border.”
More recently, Fox News commentator Sean Hannity drew our attention when he dipped into the same pool of figures on his March 7, 2018 program, saying to a guest: “I went down to the border–I’ll give you facts–because I was on horseback, all-terrain vehicle, I was in helicopters, I was in boats and I sat through a security briefing in Texas with Rick Perry — 642,000 crimes committed by illegal immigrants against Texans alone.
“Here’s my question: Putting all those issues aside,” Hannity said, “those that commit crimes in America, including some violent crimes, even murder, those criminal aliens, do you support having them removed from this country?”
“Absolutely, I have no problem with that,” news broadcaster Jorge Ramos replied. “I’m not here to defend real criminals.”
Hannity then showed a video clip from a July 2014 Texas presentation
on 642,000 “criminal offenses” committed by “criminal immigrants” that
Hannity saw alongside Perry during a visit to McAllen on the
Hannity said next to Ramos: “Are you literally saying to me that
they’re lying? Because they’re not.” Hannity subsequently asked: “You
sound like you don’t care about the Americans who are victims of crime. …
You’re not answering my question; 642,000 crimes committed against
Texans alone in a seven-year period; that’s not your family, Jorge.
Where’s your sympathy for those victims of crime and why shouldn’t we
take those that are committing crimes and get rid of them tomorrow?”
Hannity closed the segment by asking Ramos to come to Texas for a
program devoted to the 642,000 crime victims.
We decided to fact-check Hannity’s claim that criminal immigrants committed 642,000 crimes against Texans in recent years.
SOURCE: Excerpt from YouTube video showing Sean Hannity interview of Jorge Ramos, Hannity, Fox News Network, March 7, 2018 (3:30 mark)
To our inquiry, Carly Shanahan, a Fox News spokeswoman, said by email
that Hannity relied on the presentation for his claim. Shanahan
provided this transcript of the excerpted presentation:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “Criminal aliens have
been responsible for about 642,000 offenses, criminal offenses. You look
up there in the top left, sexual assaults, there’s close to 8,000
HANNITY: “Six hundred and forty-two thousand crimes since –“
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “In 2008.”
HANNITY: “In Texas alone?”
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “Yes.”
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “Over 200,000 individuals with a criminal history, they committed over 642,000 crimes.”
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “That’s the cost of not securing the border.”
Fact-checking Perry in 2014
In gauging Hannity’s tally, it’s worth revisiting our 2014 fact-check
of Perry. Perry, we found, had recapped arrests, not convictions,
encompassing the lifetimes of individuals arrested over a recent period.
Also, it looked to us like not all the arrested people were necessarily
living here illegally.
When we inquired into the figures aired by Perry, Tom Vinger of the
Texas Department of Public Safety pointed us to an agency web page,
“Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data,” that said: “From October 2008
through July 1, 2014, Texas has identified a total of 203,685 unique
criminal alien defendants booked into Texas county jails. Over their
criminal careers, these defendants are responsible for at least 642,564
individual criminal charges mostly consisting of Class B misdemeanors or
higher, including 3,070 homicides and 7,964 sexual assaults.” We didn’t
spot any breakout of convictions. Vinger told us generally that the
agency didn’t have additional information.
A couple of outside criminologists who reviewed the DPS-posted
information at our request told us the presented tally of charges–not
convictions–did not support Perry’s attribution of homicides to
Michael Walker, an adjunct professor at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice in New York and an expert in how the FBI gathers crime
statistics, said by phone that the DPS presentation telescoped the
arrest histories of the 203,685 individuals put in county jails in the
69 months that were reviewed. “Where did they offend–Texas? Oklahoma?
Mississippi?” Walker said, his point being that such information wasn’t
on the web page.
Walker and Ramiro Martinez, Jr., a Northeastern University professor,
each noted another weakness; the DPS presentation mixed together recent
charges with those that might have been leveled decades before.
Checking afresh in 2018
So, what of Hannity’s statement attributing 642,000 crimes against Texans to immigrants over a recent period?
After Hannity spoke, we reached out afresh to the DPS. By email, Vinger pointed us to an updated agency web page
stating that some 245,000 “criminal aliens” booked into local Texas
jails from June 2011 through February 2018 had together through their
“criminal careers” been charged with more than 650,000 offenses.
Those charges, the department says, resulted in more than 291,000
convictions “including 566 homicide convictions; 29,164 assault
convictions; 9,060 burglary convictions; 38,287 drug convictions; 274
kidnapping convictions; 20,082 theft convictions; 24,451 obstructing
police convictions; 2,202 robbery convictions; 3,244 sexual assault
convictions; and 4,036 weapon convictions.” Also, according to the
agency’s post, some 66 percent of the convictions–over 193,000–were
associated with individuals identified by their Homeland Security status
as being in the U.S. illegally at the time of their latest arrest.
Upshot: The DPS says that some 245,000 “criminal aliens” booked into
Texas jails over 81 recent months had in their lifetimes accumulated
291,000-plus convictions with nearly 7 in 10 of the convictions tied to
193,000 individuals identified as living in the country without legal
permission at their latest arrest.
These tallies, we otherwise noticed, roll in many nonviolent offenses. An accompanying chart
shows that 358,996 of the criminal-career charges (66 percent of them)
and 159,951 of the convictions (55 percent) were for offenses other than
the agency’s specific listed categories of homicide, assault, burglary,
kidnapping, drug or weapons violations, sexual assault, robbery,
obstructing police or theft. The web page doesn’t say what those other
We also circled back to the criminologists who helped us analyze
Perry’s claim. Neither saw substance to Hannity’s claim attributing
642,000 crimes to criminal immigrants over recent years.
Walker noted that the Texas chart cited by Hannity tallies
“offenses,” not “crimes.” Offenses, Walker said, refer to misdeeds
drawing no more than six months in jail meaning the 642,000 figure aired
by Hannity conflates crimes and lesser offenses.
A finer sort of the DPS-posted counts might deliver meaningful
information, Walker suggested. As it is, he said by phone, the tallied
“drug offenses could be for having a joint or trafficking heroin. Weapon
offenses” could involve a knife or gun or other weapon. Walker added by
email that the category titled “All Other Offenses” on the DPS chart
could refer to “such low-level acts as being a runaway, public
intoxication and minor drug use charges.” Also, the inclusion of many
lesser offenses might leave a misimpression, Walker said. “A person
could conceivably be a lifetime serial shoplifter,” Walker speculated,
or repeatedly charged with vagrancy.
By email, Martinez similarly advised that it’s hard to discern what
the DPS figures mean without specific definitions of each listed crime
category. Martinez said: “What is ‘obstructing police?’ ‘Weapons?’”
Generally, he wrote, the DPS tallies reflect what’s known about most
U.S. crime–a “sea of minor drug and property crimes.”
Hannity told Ramos that 642,000 crimes were committed against Texans by criminal immigrants in a recent seven-year period.
This claim misrepresents a 2014 state presentation indicating that more than 200,000 immigrants jailed in the state over a recent 69-month period had accumulated in their lifetimes 642,000 charges–not convictions. Not all the immigrants were living in the state illegally at the time of their latest arrest.
We rate the claim False.
So lets see what the bible has to say about this supposed Christian, Sean Hannity’s actions of bearing false witness and lying:
Proverbs 19:5: A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.
Proverbs 6:16-19: There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Exodus 20:16: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbors.
John 8:44: You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Revelations 21:8: But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Exodus 23:1-2: “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice,
Deuteronomy 19:15-21: “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.
Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
Well Sean, it looks like, from all the verses of the Bible I have posted? 1. YOU are not a Christian. 2. Even your own Jesus whom you proclaim to follow would reject you. 3. Looks like it is yourself who is going to be spending an eternity in hell.
YES, SEAN HANNITY, YOU CERTAINLY ARE NO CHRISTIAN, LET ALONE SHOULD YOU EVER CALL YOURSELF A HUMAN BEING. YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR LIKE YOUR HERO TRUMP. YOU ARE A BIGOT, RACIST, WHITE SUPREMACIST CUNT WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO HITLERS OWN DEATH CAMPS BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT FIT HIS IDEA OF WHAT AN ARYIAN SUPERIOR HUMAN IS. JUST LIKE HITLER WOULD SEND TRAITOR TRUMP, ALL HIS TRUMPANZEES, MUCH OF THE GOP AND MUCH OF THE CHRISTOFASCIST PIG FUCKERS LIKE YOU? TO HIS NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS, BECAUSE AGAIN, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF YOU FIT HIS ARYIAN NATION SUPERHUMAN OF BLOND HAIR, BLUE EYED GENIUSES.
NO SEAN, YOU ARE A SCUMBAG PIECE OF SHIT ONE WHO SPEWS WELL PROVEN LIES AND FALSEHOODS FROM YOUR WELL USED OUTHOUSE SHITHOLE YOU CALL A MOUTH.
NO SEAN, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO HEAVEN, YOU ARE GOING TO BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY IN THAT CHRISTIAN HELL YOU OH SO LOVE TO SPEAK ABOUT.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP SEAN HANNITY AND DO THE WORLD A FAVOR. TAKE A GUN, SHOVE IT UP YOUR FAT, PATHOLOGICAL LYING, PEVERTED, TREASONOUS ASS, PULL THE TRIGGER AND BLOW YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT.