Both Trump and Biden apparently tried to extort the Ukraine

It now looks like both President Trump and then-Vice President Joe Biden used the threat of withholding money to get Ukrainian officials to do their bidding.

Trump now admits he ordered millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine to be withheld a few days before he called the Ukrainian president and asked him to investigate Biden for corruption.

Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine unless a prosecutor, who was looking into a company in which Biden’s son was involved, was fired. He was fired.

Pot calls kettle black.

48 comments on “Both Trump and Biden apparently tried to extort the Ukraine

  1. Anonymous says:

    Whoa Thomas….pull it back a little.

    That’s some seriously harsh indictment of a sitting president there.


    “I fear for our republic” “our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves” “Constitutionalists”

    I just don’t get it man. Is it REALLY just so tough to say that this….individual currently seated in the executive offices in this country has acted so contrary to all those “principles” you held so dearly and spoke about so eloquently during the terms of President Obama? Go back and look at some of the vehement attacks you made then, as I have, and bring some of that to bear here for once.

    Are those principles only important when your using them as a sword against some democrat or do you really believe they’re important? For crying out loud.

  2. Rincon says:

    NPR has a slightly different take on this story. There is no mention of any investigation of Hunter Biden by the Ukranian prosecutor. If he was actually being investigated, this would be a serious lapse on the part of NPR. Instead, NPR says, ” the Obama administration actually supported an investigation into the gas company because the owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, was close to the ousted president and they had both fled the country.”

    According to Factcheck, ” But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.

    A month earlier, International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption.”

    And, “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,”

    Also, “In May, Ukraine’s top prosecutor at the time said the younger Biden — a former board member for a gas company in Ukraine — was not investigated.
    “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing,” Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general, told Bloomberg News. Lutsenko, who resigned in August, said a corruption investigation into leaders of Ukrainian gas companies concerned a potential money-laundering transaction that had occurred before Hunter Biden joined the board.”

    Note that Fox never actually disagreed with NPR and Factcheck. It just left out a few important details. Fox said, of the ousted prosecutor, “he also had been leading an investigation into Burisma’s owner.” They never claimed that the investigation was into anything directly involving Hunter Biden. Instead, they merely quoted Trump – hardly an unimpeachable source (pun intended 🙂

    So it seems that, either NPR and Factcheck are lying through their teeth or Fox News just didn’t include a couple of “details”. This is a complex story, and more information may still come to light, but for now, I think it’s far more likely that Fox fudged a little, which I have found them to have done repeatedly in the past.

  3. Steve says:

    “Fox fudged a little” Pointedly, yes. Especially their cable outlet. Which is what was linked in Mitch’s story.
    Fox broadcast stations are not so biased.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I still remember for a long time after 911 how after every action committed by a person of middle eastern decent that might be labeled as a terrorist incident, loud calls went up from the usual posters on these boards attacking the entire Muslim religion and all it’s institutions and all countries where Muslims lived as being complicit in those actions simply because they did not condemn the attacks.

    Bill, Barbra, Vern, Athos, Winston, and so many of the other regular crowd here now suddenly silent about the actions of the president.

    All that talk, for all those years, and “the rule of law” “our beloved republic” “the founding fathers” “tyranny” etc. Etc. Etc.

    It’s truly disheartening to realize that every single one of them were just hypocrites. Not a patriot in the bunch. Just a bunch of hypocritical partisan cultists.


  5. Steve says:

    “Patrick” the original partisan cultist calls a bunch of people, who may (or may not) support the current Commander In Chief, partisan cultists.

    Thanks for the grin…groan.

  6. bc says:

    Bottom line here is the President of the United States pressured the president of another country to undertake a partisan investigation of a man who seeks to oppose this President in the upcoming election. He pressured the leader of another country to get involved in our electoral process and dig up dirt that he could use against his opponent, the fact that it looks like he held up aid to that country to add to that pressure only makes it worse.

    As much as I hate to say the words, this is what the founders meant when they talked about “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, to abuse the power invested in him by us for his own benefit. The very definition of corruption.

  7. Anonymous says:


    I guess the next thing we will hear from all those folks previously identified is “he was never a conservative anyway.” Or “I voted for the other guy” or maybe possibly “he was really a NY liberal indeed”. Or “Hillary, BENGAZI, emails, Obama…something something”

    Bunch of hypocrites.

  8. I always said he’s not really a Republican.

  9. Steve says:

    I didn’t Vote DT’s and I won’t give the DT’s my vote in 20 either.
    But “our Republic” will shake off the DT’s like it was a bad case of Clinton/Nixon.

    See what I did there?

  10. Rincon says:

    With the exception of Anonymous and myself, Trump received very little criticism in this space. Even the above story was an attempt to lump Biden’s behavior with that of Trump despite the fact that the only “crime” Hunter Biden appears to be guilty of was using the power and influence of his family to attain a probably unnaturally high position. Everyone was silent about Jared Kushner and Donald Jr., even though they have blatantly been doing the same thing, only at a higher level.

  11. Steve says:

    Not enough to not vote for the DT’s.

    Gotta join the hate crime crew.

    Got it.

  12. bc says:

    I don’t care about Hunter Biden, he is a loser like the Trump kids hanging onto their daddy’s coattails. I am somewhat interested in Biden and his actions as VPOTUS, did he really work to shield the company that Hunter worked for? Does not much sound like it, seems to have been a forgone conclusion that the prosecutor had to go. But unseemly for certain and Biden will have to answer to this before election time.

    I am very interested in the fact that the sitting POTUS called upon the head of state of a country that is dependent on us for military assistance and asked as a favor if that head of state would conduct an investigation of the leading opposition candidate for President in next years election. An open invitation for an outside country to become involved in our election!

  13. Rincon says:

    Well put, bc. It is true that Steve has always expressed some misgivings about Trump, although with far less vehemence than with Hillary and Obama.

  14. Steve says:

    “some misgivings”

    I call the dude “the DT’s”, I didn’t vote for DT, I won’t this time either, that isn’t enough for you peeps?
    Geez, it’s almost as though we gotta sign on for Cherokee Lizzy to make you feel good!

    Ima not gonna do that!

    And I really don’t care what you think of my “some misgivings” get this through your thick ass skull headed iron brain, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a DT supporter.

  15. Rincon says:

    Done with your little tantrum? Hardly a class act, Steve. And I didn’t call you a Trump supporter. You’re putting words in my mouth.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Still silence? But the news, and the real slime, just keep coming doesn’t it? How do you people just keep swallowing without choking?

    “President Trump met in the White House on Friday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, and discussed prospective gun legislation and whether the N.R.A. could provide support for the president as he faces impeachment and a more difficult re-election campaign, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

    During the meeting, Mr. LaPierre asked that the White House “stop the games” over gun control legislation, people familiar with the meeting said. It was not clear whether Mr. Trump asked Mr. LaPierre for his support, or what that support would look like.”

  17. Anonymous says:

    When does it get to be too much for even the right to gag on I wonder? He just keeps pumping the slime in and so far very few on the right are choking.


    Can’t we even get a comment about the lack of transparency Thomas? Or is this just more free speech?

    “President Trump told two senior Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting 2017 that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s election interference in 2016, saying the U.S. did the same thing to other countries.

    Three former officials with knowledge of the matter told The Washington Post that Trump’s comments sparked alarm among White House staffers, prompting them to restrict access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people with the highest security clearances to prevent the conversation from being leaked. ”

  18. Steve says:

    Give’m an inch, they demand the yardstick.

    And the band plays on.

  19. Anonymous says:

    All from a single days news and not only do we get silence here from the usual suspects that brays every day for 8 years while President Obama was in office about woe be to our republic, we get stories about Joe Biden?

    You guys man.

    “Two Trump administration officials reportedly drafted a statement meant to be released by the Ukrainian government announcing investigations related to President Trump’s political rivals in the U.S.

    The New York Times reported Thursday that Kurt Volker, Trump’s former envoy to Ukraine who tendered his resignation last week, was involved in drafting the statement along with Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union (EU).”

    “”President Trump recalled then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch this spring amid complaints from his supporters, including that she was stymying efforts to get Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

    Trump’s recall of Yovanovitch has been a focal point in Democrats’ ongoing impeachment inquiry, which is largely centered around the president’s July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump called for a Biden probe while hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid hung in the balance.

    Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani told the Journal that Yovanovitch had shown anti-Trump bias in private conversations and was an obstacle to getting Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter. ”

    “The top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine reportedly sent a message to other diplomats in September saying that “it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” a revelation that comes amid House Democrats’ impeachment efforts against President Trump over his interactions with the Eastern European nation.

    The message by Kiev chargé d’affaires Bill Taylor was part of an exchange provided to Congress by former U.S Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, according to ABC News, which obtained the encrypted texts.”

  20. bc says:

    Key part of the quote noted above from the Kiev charge d’affairs, Bill Taylor is …”withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign”. Using the powers of the office for personal advancement is the definition of corruption. And now he has doubled down by asking the Chinese to get involved as well.

    We have sold out everything we stand for as Republicans for a couple of Supreme Court seats. I personally do not think it was worth it.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Kudos to you bc.

    The rest of the usual suspects though are just shameful.

  22. Anonymous says:

    “A second intelligence official is considering whether to file a whistleblower complaint and testify before Congress about their concerns over President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, The New York Times reported Friday, citing two people briefed on the matter.

    The Times reported that the officer has more direct information about the situation involving Trump than the first whistleblower, whose complaint filed in August helped spark the impeachment inquiry into Trump that House Democrats launched last week.”

    “They’re all agqinst me”

  23. Bill says:

    I have been distracted of late and didn’t really see these posts until just now. So, I know what Biden admitted on tape and I know that somehow or other his son, who was kicked out of the Navy for flunking a drug test was placed on the board of directors of a corrupt Ukranian Company and also managed to land billions of dollars out of China while riding around on Air Force 2, all of which does smell just a bit. I understand old fashion extortion. Biden committed it. He specifically said that he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if the prosecutor was not fired. I didn’t quite see that on behalf of POTUS. I do have problems with calling someone who has no direct knowledge a “whistleblower”. How can someone who merely ‘hears’ something make a ‘whistleblower’ complaint based on hearsay? It appears that the first whistleblower, who had no direct knowledge filed a whistleblower complaint, shortly after the official form was changed to eliminate the requirement of direct knowledge and now the second whistleblower is coming forward and is the same person that the first whistleblower claims as a source. By the way, since one of the basic tenets of criminal law there must be a specific crime involved, what is the specific crime that Trump supposedly has committed. I still don’t care for Trump personally but at this point, for this incident, I am unwilling to condemn him.

  24. bc says:

    Bill, the crime is simple. As the POTUS, Trump asked the leader of another country to dig up dirt on the leading opposition candidate for next years election, to become involved in our electoral process for his own benefit. The fact that it looks like he held up aid to that country to add to that pressure only makes it worse. The law is clear that foreign countries cannot be involved in our elections and he invited that involvement.

    There are a lot of partisan issues for and against Trump, the proper place to decide these is the election next year. However, it seems to me to be pretty clear that Donald Trump has abused the office that we gave him for his own use and that cannot stand.

    To use the powers of the office, powers that we gave him, for his own personal gain is the very definition of corruption, and for that he should stand for impeachment

  25. Bill says:

    Thanks for the comment. What specific law are you talking about?

    I would imagine that a criminal complaint would have to look something like this: “On or about (a specific date) Donald Trump did (describe the specific act or acts) all of which is a violation of (cite the specific criminal law).

    Be specific.

    Remember as rule of construction of statutes: that criminal statute ambiguities are resolved in favor of the cccused.

    So, for clarity to myself and others, please fill in the blanks and be sure to give what provision of the U. S. Code is the violation that you would cite?

    Last time I looked, you can’t have a crime unless there is a specific law making an act or more rarely an omission, a crime.


  26. bc says:

    Thanks Bill. A quick Google shows that U.S. Code 52 § 30121 (a) that it is unlawful for a foreign national to make a donation of money or other thing of value in connection to a Federal, State of Local election. and it is unlawful for a person to solicit, accept or receive such contribution. Information has long been deemed to be something of value. Donald Trump solicited such help from the President of Ukraine in his July phone call.

    This is not a legal matter, there will be no indictment handed down or criminal complaint filed, this is a political process. The House of Representatives writes up articles of Impeachment based on its investigation of the Presidents conduct and decides if this conduct meets the Constitutional mandate of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Senate then conducts their trial to convict or acquit the President.

    Webster has Corruption as dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people such as government officials. That is a word that is tossed about by a lot of folks, but to me the central tenant of corruption has always been the use of a public office and the powers that go with it for the private use of the officeholder and not for the public at large. By seeking the help of a foreign leader to investigate the leading opposition candidate to provide information for his reelection campaign, information that benefits only him, Trump has violated the above law and more, has shown himself to be corrupt and not worthy of the office he holds and I believe that he should be impeached.

  27. BuzzFeed: WASHINGTON — Last week, a senior Justice Department official told reporters that they’d decided not to open a criminal investigation into President Donald Trump’s July call with the Ukrainian president because they couldn’t “quantify” Trump’s request for dirt on former vice president Joe Biden as a “thing of value.”

  28. Hans von Spakovsky: If getting dirt on an opponent were a “thing of value,” then any adverse information concerning a candidate—even informed criticism of a rival’s policy proposals—would also have to be considered a “thing of value,” and both would have to listed as a financial “contribution” to a campaign. Such a broad interpretation of the law would be potentially unconstitutional and impractical to administer or enforce. Moreover, it is not a position that has been taken by the FEC.

  29. Anonymous says:

    bc I credit you for the effort but I trust you understand that they are ultimately futile here.

    Bill has no interest in what the laws are or whether the facts when applied to the law would make the conclusion obvious to all.

    For you though let me add to your list of crimes that Trump clearly committed, and one of them at least by his own admission:


    You’re correct that he has betrayed the country but until Democrats control the Senate, and by then it will likely be moot, the chances that Trump will be tried for his crimes seem remote.

    I respect that Biden did come out today and gave his campaign a boost by stating that he would not pardon trump if he were elected so even though when trump leaves office it’s likely that he will be facing state charges across the country, it’s comforting, for the good of our beloved republic, to know that he won’t escape federal charges as well.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Even though Trump has strategically refused to nominate sufficient numbers of commissioners to the FEC, so that they could have a quorum, which has naturally prevented the agency from taking appropriate action against him, the chair of the agency, a bush appointee, has made it eminently clear that what Trump did was a violation of the law, Hans notwithstanding.

    “That’s because federal elections law prohibits any person from soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. The law doesn’t just apply to money — investigations or political dirt that benefit a particular campaign counts as “things of value” too. And in case Trump is unclear about this, the current chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has gone out of her way to try to explain it to him.

    On Friday’s edition of Morning Joe, FEC chair Ellen Weintraub declined to talk about the specifics of Trump’s case but noted that “the law is pretty clear. … It is absolutely illegal for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United States.”

  31. Anonymous says:

    I like my presidents to NOT intentionally manipulate the stock markets for the benefit of their associates, cronies, and co-conspirators.


    The president’s talk can move markets—and it’s made some futures traders billions. Did they know what he was going to say before he said it?”

    But these wins were peanuts compared to the money made by a trader, or group of traders, who bought 420,000 September e-minis in the last 30 minutes of trading on June 28. That was some 40% of the day’s trading volume in September e-minis—making it a trade that could not easily be ignored. By then, President Trump was already in Osaka, Japan—14 hours ahead of Chicago—and on his way to a roughly hour-long meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping as part of the G20 summit. On Saturday in Osaka, after the market had closed in Chicago, Trump emerged from his meeting with Xi and announced that the intermittent trade talks were “back on track.” The following week was a good one in the stock market, thanks to the Trump announcement. On Thursday, June 27, the S&P 500 index stood at about 2915; a week or so later, it was just below 3000, a gain of 84 points, or $4,200 per e-mini contract. Whoever bought the 420,000 e-minis on June 28 had made a handsome profit of nearly $1.8 billion.

  32. Anonymous says:

    “In the case of Trump, market manipulation also yields political dividends. Perhaps the most obvious example dates to late August, when Trump, desperate to reignite trade talks with China, boasted during the G7 summit that his counterparts in Beijing had come back to the table. “We’ve gotten two calls—very, very good calls,” he told reporters. “They mean business.” The market rose more than 900 points over the next few days. But a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry said he was not aware of any such calls. An editor at the Global Times, the state-controlled newspaper, tweeted that he knew of no calls made in the days leading up to the G7 meeting and that “China won’t cave to US pressure.” Two U.S government officials later told CNN that Trump misspoke and “conflated” comments from China’s Vice Premier Liu He with direct communication from the Chinese. According to CNN, the officials said Trump was “eager to project optimism that might boost markets.”

    Indeed, this single Trump lie briefly inflated domestic markets by hundreds of billions of dollars. “What this describes is, quite literally, market manipulation that constitutes criminal violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,” commented George Conway, the conservative attorney and Trump critic.”

  33. Anonymous says:


    I’m sure you’re still watching and probably like me wretching because of what this truly evil creature in office is doing to the either abject silence of people like Bill and even Thomas, or to the weirder still CHEERS of “republicans” like Lindsey Graham and others.

    During a week when American patriots, at no small risk to themselves, testified under oath that Trump bribed and extorted a foreign government so as to receive a benefit from them his nefarious efforts to be re-elected, the people identified above either said nothing, or cheered his actions; is there truly NOTHING this far right wing reprobate can do to this country that would get these…”people” to say enough is enough? Are they really going to let him destroy this country all because it pisses “libs” off? is that their “win”? A country destroyed? WTF is wrong with these people?

    “William Taylor, the acting boss of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Kyiv, told House investigators on Monday that he’d been told that Trump wanted to put Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy “in a public box.” The testimony was closed-door, but his opening statement was obtained by some media outlets and confirmed by NPR.

    If Zelenskiy committed openly that he’d launch the investigations Trump wanted, in support of Trump’s aims for the 2020 election, that would secure military assistance and engagement with Washington, Taylor said he’d learned.”

    So now you’ve got the quid, the pro, and the quo. All tied up really neatly for you.

    And still….silence.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Good old Wall Street Journal with the scoops.

    “A lawyer for the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told The Wall Street Journal that Sondland told impeachment committee members that President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine amounted to a quid pro quo.

    Sondland’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, told the news outlet that Sondland revealed to House committees he thought that a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would only take place if the country agreed to investigate corruption allegations about his political rivals. ”

    But nary a word around here from our principled friends on the right.

    Sad really.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Army officer twice expressed his concerns about a Trump demanding the Ukraine investigate Trumps political opponents in exchange for promised military aid. And around here…silence from the members of the self proclaimed principled right.

    I fear for our beloved republic.
    Our founding fathers are turning in their graves.


  36. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, and that is his.

  37. Anonymous says:

    And one opinion is as good as another?

    That’s bullshit Thomas and you know it

  38. I never said one opinion is as good as another, rather that is his opinion. I’m not sure it points to an impeachable offense.

  39. Bill says:

    I really haven’t commented since I have been waiting for some one to give me the predicate facts and the citation to a statute upon which to base the most drastic of remedies, impeachment. I will not argue whether President Trump is a boor and egoist and is often irritating. In a civilized society we do not, or at least should not, impeach a President who was duly elected under the existing rules, simply on the basis of style.

    Meantime, everyone seems intent on pissing on each others legs and repeating their invective. Repetition does not increase validity.

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Well Thomas you’re entitled to your opinion but with the contrary opinions just piling up so fast you’re starting to remind me of the last old angry man in “12 Angry Men”

    Here’s what they guy who testified last week said

    Sondland appeared to demur during his closed-door deposition earlier this month about whether believed almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine was being withheld to secure the investigations. But in recent days, Sondland’s lawyer Robert Luskin has told the Wall Street Journal his client believes — and told House investigators — that Trump’s refusal to meet with Zelensky until the Ukrainians promised to launch the investigations amounted to a quid pro quo.”

    So he “demurred” originally and now, after the truth has come pouring out, he admits it. And this is no lefty stooge, this is a guy that donated millions to Trumps campaign.

    And as to Bill he’s worse than the last angry man.

  41. Bill says:

    Thamks, Anonymous for the cite. Interesting new material but the statement of this new witness will have to be examined as well as the witness himself.

    At this time, this statement is in conflict with other recollections and the transcript.

    All this witness is doing is giving his opinion that there was a quid pro quo and even if there was, would it be more or less egregious than what Vice President Biden admits he did when he demanded a prosecutor be fired as a condition precedent to the United States giving aid?

    I am willing to wait until this new statement and the witness are more closely examined.

  42. Anonymous says:

    So hard to keep up with the rightward spin here but have we now conceded the quid pro quo as the participants seem to or is that still an issue for some rightees?

    This never ending “there was no collusion and even if there was it’s not illegal to collide and even if it was when the president does it it can’t be illegal” defense is really something we must all tell our grand kids about. Mits history in the making to be sure and while out beloved founding fathers turn in their graves over not only the abuse of their child that republicans are committing, we should all fear for our believed republic as one poster here used to constantly repeat when she was referring to a democratic president anyway.

    Finally, is this trump appointee, who contributed millions to the nominal presidents campaign now considered part of the “deep state”?

    “In the revision, Sondland said he recalled a Sept. 1 meeting with Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the aid was contingent on a public statement from Zelensky regarding launching probes that would benefit Trump politically.

    “After a large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said.”

    Nice revision you got there Sondland…

    These guys man.

  43. So, U.S. told Ukraine they’d not get money until they promised to target corruption. Is that like telling a country it will not get money until it stops harboring terrorists? Quid pro quo.

  44. Steve says:


    So which version was the lie and which is less of a lie?

    OR which version is less true the the other?

    Revision means, at one point or another, the witness was not being truthful while under oath.

    Now, for the less “shamful” here, what is the word for lying under oath?

  45. Anonymous says:

    Except Thomas, pentagon spokesman certified immediately prior to Trumps illegal demands that the Ukraine was compliant with fighting corruption as they were required to prior to receiving the military aid.

    So even if you’d do anything to believe just this latest lie out of Trumps mouth about why he illegally extorted the Ukrainians, like most things this creature says; it’s already been proven a lie.

    So then now the quid the pro the quo and….what’s next?

  46. Anonymous says:

    That the right absolutely refuses to stop spinning and start worrying about what this heinous creature is doing to the country is explainable by the result of this poll.

    To summarize; the right doesn’t care about the country, they care only about whether by destroying it, they’d be “owning libs”.

    “62% of people who approve of the job Donald Trump is doing as president say they can’t think of anything he could do that would cause him to lose their support, according to a Monmouth University poll published Tuesday.”

    You guys man…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s