i get what you're saying, but let's be honest. Biden did what he did to protect his son. whether it was 10% of his motivation or 99% we dont know. there are clearly G7 factors at play. so we know it's not 0% and it's not 99%.

we can't roast Trump for doing bullshit with his kids then excuse Biden's behavior. the fact that his son and nepotism are a factor at all is bad bad bad.

agreed punish them all

That's the narrow view that ignores the wider reality of Euromaidan.
Shokin was stalling corruption cases- into russian-aligned targets. While actively investigating western-aligned targets. He went from protecting Burisma when it was run by a Russian oligarch, to investigating it when it was seized by the US / EU / Biden / CIA. The G7 countries and allies that wanted Shokin removed were all along that same side of the east/west divide. Shokin was just one of numerous officials purged

What is wrong with it? Two private citizens came together to make an agreement. Neither one threatened violence. Sounds like a free market transaction to me. Case closed!

What's your point, neofascist?

I'd like to know his point as well. If it was just that you can't comprehend basic English, we've known that for a long time.

Democrats fucked up. Trump won't get impeached, the votes aren't there. If they try and fail, this will be a pretty strong battle cry come 2020 and his supporters will show up en masse. The real loser here is Biden and having his nepotism so front and center really damage his chances of getting the nomination.

If Biden gets pushed to the side for this and a leftist gets the nomination, i think that's a net good for Trump. I think someone like Warren is a good candidate, smart, has well thought out ideas, problem mobilizing the centrists might be really tough for her, especially if she really does try to take on corporate america.

I'm not alt-right.

You have no right to talk, Left-of-Stalin

I've been busy with some serious IRL issues and was waiting for some things to play out before chiming in or rushing to conclusions.


I don't think there necessarily is "the" libertarian perspective on this issue.
I could see libertarians disagreeing on the merits of impeachment, the investigation, and the severity of the alleged action.

But we can use our innate skepticism of government and understanding of events to guide our views.

Dave Smith had a particularly excellent take on this:



Personally, I definitely don't support the selective impeachment of non-establishment candidates based on minor bullshit, hearsay and lies.
That would be shady and dooms any libertarian-leaning or anti-establishment president.

There are still some things that have yet to play out and it could end up being worse than we know right now. But there is no public proof of that at the moment.

From where I am sitting its looking like another illegitimate attempt to remove the president from office and to damage his standing during election season.
They have been at this for years.
There are a number of people in government positions that oppose Trump and want to undermine and remove him.
Apparently a CIA operative reported hearsay and they are being called a 'whistleblower'. Trump has had ongoing extreme troubles with leaks, and spats with heads of the CIA and FBI.

On the other hand Democrats have grasped at anything they can to try to remove Trump. They've wanted him out and have been calling for impeachment since he was elected.
Dems immediately rushed forward with impeachment proceedings based on this hearsay.
The contents of the transcript do not contain what was alleged.

Time and again they publicly presume any claims are true if its against Trump and his nominees, and push for impeachment even if its unfounded.
The Dem candidates have an incentive to do this as they are in a competition to win over increasingly radicalized/anti-trump democrats for the democratic nomination.


Its not even about the alleged act. They clearly don't give a flying fuck about their frontrunner bragging about getting the prosecutor fired in exchange for money.
Thats a very weak position to make a stand on.

I read the released transcript and it didn't seem bad and it refuted the claims of what people were saying about it. Asking them to check into the crowdstrike situation and look into legitimate concerns of corruption seems basically valid to me and is not the same as asking them to fabricate evidence against Biden in exchange for money as some people had claimed. I can however see that a president asking for them to look into events related to a political opponent is an uncomfortable situation.
But whats the alternative? Presidents aren't allowed to ask about legitimate concerns if it involves a political opponent? and they should be removed from office if they do? Doesn't seem right or optimal to me.


Adam Schiff in particular has repeatedly lied about the contents of classified and unreleased information on this issue and several others while acting as the head of the house intelligence committee. These weren't minor lies. He wholly fabricated the contents of the Ukraine transcript and lied about the Russiagate evidence in order to falsely make it seem like Trump was worse than he is and a traitor in order to undermine his position with the American people and to try to get him removed. He should be condemned and removed.


These actions and this agenda aimed at removing the head of state of the most powerful country on Earth for partisan reasons and ulterior motives regardless of the facts is very concerning and should be concerning no matter your political affiliation.
Its very destabilizing, divisive, and immoral.