I believe he's talking about this.

I know it was hard to find. I had to enter multiple words into a single search: "Germany" "2006" and "blackout".

Just wondering, what was you stance on impeachment when Obama was caught on a hot mic asking the Russian President to cool things off for a bit before the election so that he would have more flexibility to work with them, “particularly with missile defense”, after his re-election?

That was the US President effectively promising to relax the US missile defense policy so that Russia would stay quite for the next couple of months as to not to stir up anything to make Obama look bad. That was 1000 times worse than anything either said or implied in Trump's call but no one seriously entertained an impeachment of Obama after he won.

Previous response seems to have not saved:

At no point in Trumps call is there any threat of withholding aid. In fact he directly talks about wanting the EU to up their aid levels.

At the time of the call the aid package was on hold but according several Ukrainian diplomats, including the President himself, none of them knew that. There's actual documentation that the first anyone in the Ukraine heard about the aid being delayed was a month AFTER this call took place. It's hard to extort a 'victim' when neither of you talk about the threat and then it's shown they had no belief a threat was even implied.

With regards to the aid, at least 2 concerns have already been made public as to why it was delayed. The first is that the Ukrainian government was new and the administration wanted to feel them out a bit before giving them hundreds of million of dollars in secured aid. The second was that the administration was hoping that the EU countries would step up and foot more of the bill (as mentioned directly during the call). You can debate the merits of both but regardless they do give a reasonable excuse for temporarily withholding a $125 million dollar payout.

It's also most likely this was not reported by a WH staff member but by a CIA operative assigned to the WH. That person also had zero first hand knowledge of the call which is why the actual filing is full of inaccuracies and at best, half truths. The extortion claim itself, which you are repeating, is completely debunked by the transcript of the call as there was never a threat, either direct or implied.

If you read the whistleblowers report you will also notice that it doesn't look like any other wb report you've ever seen before. It looks more like a legal document written up by a team of lawyers. That's led more than a few people to believe that this is much more organized than just a simple concerned Federal employee trying to route out corruption.

Even the IG in question's actions make this a strange case. The IGs office was 'handed' a report from a person who admittedly was not a direct witness to any of the events enclosed and is instead just writing their interpretation of someone else's recollections of a call between 2 other people. The IG then instead of going directly to the source, the transcript of the call, which they had the full legal authority to do, instead rubber stamps the complaint and rush it to the DOJ for review. That is odd on so many levels for something that, at least according to the Democrats in congress, is a violation of office such has never before been seen in the history of the country. You'd think the IG would at least want to check the written record to see if anything the wb states actually happened.

I've already said people can argue over some of the Biden stuff and there are arguments to be made on both sides but simply asking foreign governments for aid in an ongoing investigation into the possible fraud committed regarding the basis for the Russian conspiracy is not in and of itself help for his re-election campaign. There is an active DOJ investigation that involves persons from the UK, Italy, Australia, Ukraine, Russia and a host of other countries and their actions with regards to the Mueller probe and it's founding.

We already know some of the FISA warrants violated legal requirements to have multiple sources as they used Steele as one source and then articles sourced directly to Steele as a supposedly independent second source. Whether that was intentional to defraud the court or just due to shoddy or incompetent work is for the DOJ to determine.

The fact that the Mueller probe was hopelessly mired in politics means that any investigation into it will help or hurt one side or the other but that cannot exempt it from review as there are a lot of questions about how it all started. Too many of the key actors have already resigned or have been demoted due to their actions for there not to be questions raised.

To be fair to Biden, while his demanding a foreign government make changes to it's internal power structure by firing a high level bureaucrat and using US funds to do it, all the while his son is part of an ongoing investigation by that same bureaucrat, ticks every single box on the 'appearance of impropriety' bingo card, there is no direct proof A (the demand) was because of B (the investigation). There's always the chance he's just that much of an idiot.

If Obama ordered him to strong arm the Ukrainian President he should have recused himself and tasked someone from State to actually apply the needed pressure.

The fact Hunter Biden's only real 'jobs' were from Ukrainian and Chinese firms, which he had no experience with, and only after his father was put in charge of US diplomacy with Ukraine and China may have just been a real big coincidence. Just like the fact the Clinton Foundation donations dropped 50% after she lost the last election.

You must have missed a memo.

Except for a few slow learners like Schiff most people who are actually paying attention have given up on the "shake down" angle when it became public knowledge that the first time anyone from the Ukrainian government had any idea about the hold put on the US aid package was a month after the phone call between the leaders. It's hard to shake someone down when they don't even know there's a threat as it wasn't mentioned or even implied in the call. The only real talk about aid was mostly to talk about how the EU isn't pulling their fair share and should help out more (which happens to be one of the justifications given as to why the US delayed their aid package).

It's now about making it an impeachable offence to suggest a foreign government to revive a corruption investigation that involves the son of a political opponent. There are still reasonable views on both sides of that question but a lot of the wind was lost from the Dems sails when the 'threat' aspect was taken out of the picture.

Too many House Democrats are in districts that can easily go either way which is why Pelosi effectively lied about starting impeachment proceedings. To officially start proceedings she has to take it to the floor for a vote. That would put too many Democrats on the record which will either hurt them with the Dem base or with Independents and Republicans so she announces a fake impeachment proceeding which is effectively just a continuation of what they've been doing since he took office; pointless hearings and endless investigations into what amounts to normal day to day activities in Washington. Trump may do his politicking a bit to openly since he can't seem to stop himself from tweeting his every thought, but don't kid yourself, it's the same stuff that normally just happens behind closed doors, with just a few more colorful insults thrown in for good measure.

This may at some point actually get to the point that official proceedings can begin but it's far from a sure bet if he would be impeached even if they did. Not all Democrat congress critters are as crazy as 'the squad' and quite a few are still rather centrist. They just tend to keep their heads down because it's becoming SOP for the hard left members to actively campaign against anyone who doesn't 100% share their views.

Next years elections may actually be one of the most important in recent history but not because of who gets elected at the top of the ticket but who gets re-elected in congress. If some of the hard left take a hit and lose their seats (even if just to other Democrats) then other Liberal and centrist Dems may actually be able to be seen talking to their Republican counterparts without worrying about being run out of town or destroyed on social media.

The point is if you don't have a record of who owns the guns how do you enforce a UBC? If I have a rifle and sell it to you but there is no record of me having had a rifle in the first place than how does anyone know that I failed to perform a background check on a sale that no one besides me and you even know occurred?

It's like making a law requiring a license to pick flowers where the flowers aren't stored in any central location and no one has a list of where they may be growing. It's simply impossible to enforce unless a person is actually caught in the process of picking them.

It's already illegal to knowingly sell a weapon to someone you know would fail a background check so I'm not sure what this would do except create a larger backlog in the federal background check system.

While I don't disagree that training would be a nice requirement, though hard to enforce for a product that you can make in your shed with a little time and effort, there is actually no requirement for any of those things to own or operate a car.

My dog could own a car if he had the money to purchase one. He could also drive the car if his paws could reach the pedals. The only restrictions would be he would not be legally allowed to drive on public roads without licencing, registration and in most areas some form of insurance or bond but on private land he could go full Dukes of Hazard without having to worry about Boss Hogg or Cletus.

Those "missing" children are actually just children who were released to family members within the US (over 85% are released to parents or direct family members even according to the Snopes article) where they didn't answer the phones when called for follow ups.

They aren't missing in any sense of the word; HHS were just not able to perform a follow-up interview with their sponsors.

There have been a few cases of actual missing children but those are few and far between and usually due to the sponsor moving without updating HHS or misfiled paperwork.

That was actually another Trump regulation change; "The Right to Try Act".

Essentially patients are permitted to volunteer to use experimental drugs that do not yet have FDA approval but have passed at least some level of clinical trials.

The US market makes up almost 50% of worldwide drug sales.

#1 US = $339 billion
#2 Japan = $94 billion
#9 Canada = $21 billion

Drug companies simply don't prioritize foreign (from a US perspective) sales so they are willing to sell at much cheaper rates elsewhere because they know their cash cow is still mooing away. Once that milk dries up they will look to get their money elsewhere and you can guarantee it won't be from their own pockets.

It's basically the nature of the pharmaceutical business; for every one drug that makes it to market, hundreds were tried and failed so to ensure profit they milk those that do for all they are worth while the patent gives them a monopoly.

The reason the US prices are so much higher is primarily 2 fold:
1) They (drug companies) simply don't care about smaller markets. They'll give up large profits in smaller areas such as Canada, which when all is said and done comes out to a rounding error on their bottom lines, because they can maximize profits in the US.

2) Insurance hides the true cost of drugs from most customers. They can charge $2000/pill in the US because insurance will pay $2000/pill. If the majority had to pay out of pocket they would have to reduce the cost simply because most people couldn't afford it. For those that have to pay out of pocket then they are either screwed or can even apply to the companies themselves for drastically reduced prices.

Essentially the US is subsidizing the rest of the world when it comes to drug development. Some studies try to hide this by claiming the US is only responsible for 35% of new drugs developed but what they fail to include is the more important number that it's also responsible for almost 50% of all drugs sales. So even if you're a nice little French drug company developing your miracle pill in a well regulated market you know that you'll make your money back by selling to the Americans.

Once the golden goose American market is shut down a lot of companies, worldwide, will have to recalculate their risk/reward numbers. While that would benefit Americans as their cost would go down, everyone else in the world would end up paying more. As a Canadian I fully understand we're benefitting from the American system and while I'll take advantage of it while I can I understand that at some point the bill will come due and we'll have to start paying our fair share.

I believe this is what he was referring to:
From Aaron Rupar, VOX 'journalist': Trump suggests that he was a 9/11 First Responder

Turns out Konstantin Kilimnik was an important intel agent, for the US.