Presidential Debate

Trump's Call for Clinton's Prosecution Is Only Deemed 'Outrageous' Because of the Target

The nominee can protect herself with ease. What about everyday Americans?

|

Debate coverage
Richard B. Levine/Newscom

Some of the post-debate punditry from last night is particularly outraged by this promise from Donald Trump in regards to Hillary Clinton's scandal over her private server and emails:

If I win, I'm going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there's never been so many lies, so much deception.

Never been anything like it and we're going to have a special prosecutor. When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that have been long-term workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails and you get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails and then acid watch them or bleach them. A very expensive process, so we're going to get a special prosecutor because people have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one fifth of what you've done. And it's a disgrace and honestly, you ought to be ashamed.

Clinton responded by commenting that it is good that somebody with Trump's "temperament" is not in charge or the law in the United States, and Trump shot back, "Because you'd be in jail."

This exchange has led to "Oh my God, Trump wants to jail his political enemies, and this is further proof he wants to turn America into a banana republic" punditry and some analysis of how a president might be able to abuse executive power.

I have absolutely no doubt that Trump idolizes strongman-style leaders. He's made it abundantly clear that he cares only about "getting things done" and has no concern—or even grasp—of the limitations of the president.

Nevertheless, the pearl-clutching response to this deliberately ignores the very real anger over how Clinton seems to have been treated differently by the same Department of Justice that tends to throw the book at "normal" Americans. In actuality, even Trump knows full well he can't just send Clinton to a prison cell. He said he's going to investigate her. He believes she'll end up in jail as a result of this investigation. And as Jacob Sullum noted earlier, Clinton remains remarkably insouciant about the reality of how potentially serious her private email server scandal was.

Lost in the massive media blitz that began on Friday over Trump's disgusting way of talking about women was the fact that Jeffrey Hurant, the CEO of gay escort site Rentboy.com, would plead guilty to federal charges of promoting prostitution and would not appeal the government's demand that he fork over $10 million in revenue the site had earned.

Hurant is not accused of doing anything more than facilitating consensual sexual contact between men. When the Department of Homeland Security first helped the New York Police shut them down, there was no evidence of human trafficking or nonconsensual activity. But they were also making a lot of money, and that's exactly what the government jumped at, immediately attempting to seize Rentboy's profits. And they've succeeded.

Why is there more outrage about Trump wanting to have Clinton investigated by the Department of Justice than there is about how the DOJ and federal government treats everybody else? Note that later in this same debate Clinton said that she wanted to have a special prosecutor to examine trade deals between the companies within the United States and other countries:

First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States and Donald is buying it to build his buildings. That is something I fought against as a senator and I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure we don't get taken advantage of by China, on steel or anything else.

So is she going to go after China, or Trump, here? She has said before, repeatedly, that she wants a prosecutor that answers directly to the president, to intervene in these trade cases. Will this prosecutor be targeting the countries or American businesses who "take advantage" of sweet deals? Why is this less of a source of outrage?

And in the debate, Clinton again emphasized her desire to name Supreme Court justices that were inclined to strike down the Citizens United decision. While opponents of that ruling insist on casting the decision as about the influence of "dark money" on politics, the reality of the case was that it was about the right to produce and air a documentary that was critical of Clinton herself. Let's be clear that one of the potential consequences of overturning this decision could very well lead to the criminalization of certain types of privately funded political speech. That sounds pretty "banana republic" to me.

Lest our readers forget, Reason itself has been targeted by prosecutors with political agendas in just the past two years, both in attempts to attack speech that questions climate change science or to go after commenters who say unkind things about a drug war-promoting judge.

By all means be outraged by Trump threatening to send the Justice Department after Clinton. But all he's doing here is threatening to treat her the same way the government treats the rest of us. That's where the real outrage should be focused.

Advertisement

NEXT: Last Night's Presidential Debate Showed that No One Likes Obamacare—and No One Has a Plan to Fix It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. By all means be outraged by Trump threatening to send the Justice Department after Clinton. But all he’s doing here is threatening to treat her the same way the government treats the rest of us. That’s where the real outrage should be focused.

    I will ignore the first part here about outrage. I’m perfectly content with Trump promising to enforce the law as clearly written against Hillary. Banana republics are places where the laws are applied in an arbitrary manner. Sort of like giving her a pass and applying a mens rea standard that Democrats refuse to support for anyone else being investigated.

    Hillary should be in a jail cell. That’s the appropriate execution of justice.

    1. Not only Hillary. James Comey, John Koskinen and a lot of his underlings, Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious gang among many others should be tried and jailed as well.

      Imagine anyone on the above list under Department of Justice subpoena in front of, say, Attorney General Trey Gowdy and you will imagine a lot of government functionaries waking up with night sweats if Trump gets elected.

      1. If Clinton is not elected, Obama will pardon Clinton and the rest.

        1. You can’t pardon them without charging and being convicted of a particular crime. You can’t just grant blanket immunity for possible crimes yet to be tried.

          1. You can’t pardon them for crimes they’ve haven’t yet committed, but you can certainly pardon them for crimes without a conviction. Nixon was issued such a pardon. That said, the Clintons have so much dirt ongoing that it’s virtually impossible for them to be entirely covered by a pardon…whatever happens after the date of that pardon won’t be covered. And if he lets them off entirely, Obama will be putting himself in the crosshairs for his own investigation and special prosecutor.

            I would also say that Clinton gets a pardon even if she wins, to eliminate the possibility of impeachment for her behavior.

          2. Yeah you can, dictator president Wilson did just that in an attempt to compel a journalist to reveal his sources.

      2. My Aunty got white Hyundai Elantra GT Hatchback only from working part?time online… learn the facts here now….

        http://www.wagemax30.com/

    2. If you think that was bad, just wait. What Hillary will do as POTUS will make that seem very trivial, not even worthy of being mentioned. The rule of law is about to die, it’s already on it’s deathbed.

      1. The rule of law is about to die, it’s already on it’s deathbed.

        I’d say that by voting for Hillary Clinton American people will acknowledge that they don’t care about the rule of law. The country will enter into a new social contract.

      2. The rule of law is about to die, it’s already on it’s deathbed.

        What’s the New Deal? Chopped Liver?

    3. Hillary Clinton has already used the law to punish someone that they needed to throw under the bus to hide what they did in Benghazi. Ask the guy that made the youtube video that these imbeciles claimed cause the Benghazi attack how he feels about it.

      1. And don’t forget “travelgate”, where the head of the travel group in the White House was indicted for fraud to make room for Hillary’s pals. The Clinton’s have no compunction about sending innocent people to jail if it further’s their cause.

    4. “Hillary should be in a jail cell. That’s the appropriate execution of justice.”

      Not in a banana republic, monkey boy.

      1. Yeah, in a banana republic Trump would simply have her executed for crimes against the state. So be happy he’d just throw her wrinkled ass in the clink with the rest of the proles.

        1. “Yeah, in a banana republic….”

          No, that’s a communist republic. In a banana republic, the Clintons would be allowed to continue to live their lavish lifestyles on the Cote d’Azur or some other suitably foreign place with golf and sun.

          1. No, that’s a communist republic

            Pedantry spotted.

            1. “Pedantry spotted.”

              Cote d’Azur is even more pedantic. It’s French for blue coat.

          2. “In a banana republic, the Clintons would be allowed to continue to live their lavish lifestyles on the Cote d’Azur or some other suitably foreign place with golf and sun.”

            Does the Hampton’s count? Maybe that’s not sunny enough.

            1. “Does the Hampton’s count?”

              I suppose it does. Call it American exceptionalism.

              1. I’m sure you imagine sophomoric comment to be ‘clever’.
                Ever get anyone to visit your blog who didn’t get there by mistake?

                1. “I’m sure you imagine sophomoric comment to be ‘clever’.”

                  Clever has never been a problem for me.

                  “Ever get anyone to visit your blog who didn’t get there by mistake?”

                  Besides you? Not sure.

    5. Yeah, I can’t figure out why I should be outraged at the prosecution of somebody who broke the law, repeatedly, over years, for her own personal enrichment.

      1. Its one of the few things I have agreed with Trump about.

    6. Heck this goes way back. I joined Uncle Sams Canoe club in 1994. We were still suffering from the fallout of tailhook. When that scandal broke and years after Democratic politicians and the media were on a crusade against the military. Anyone and I mean anyone who looked at a female subordinate wrong was soon staring down the barrel of an Article 15 punishment if not a Court Marshall. The admin used tailhook to sack 300 senior officers many of whom had nothing to do with the scandal. If a married male leader had sex with a female subordinate then made a false official statement about it they would have been hung by the balls. A Female B-52 pilot was kicked out for having an affair with a civilian who was married to an enlisted female. Then the whole Monica thing broke and all those who were out there on their crusade against military sexual behavior suddenly were defending Bill. It is proof there are laws for us and laws for the likes of the elites.

    7. Heck this goes way back. I joined Uncle Sams Canoe club in 1994. We were still suffering from the fallout of tailhook. When that scandal broke and years after Democratic politicians and the media were on a crusade against the military. Anyone and I mean anyone who looked at a female subordinate wrong was soon staring down the barrel of an Article 15 punishment if not a Court Marshall. The admin used tailhook to sack 300 senior officers many of whom had nothing to do with the scandal. If a married male leader had sex with a female subordinate then made a false official statement about it they would have been hung by the balls. A Female B-52 pilot was kicked out for having an affair with a civilian who was married to an enlisted female. Then the whole Monica thing broke and all those who were out there on their crusade against military sexual behavior suddenly were defending Bill. It is proof there are laws for us and laws for the likes of the elites.

      1. I don’t like defending Hillary (and I’m not) but doesn’t your story just point out that there is military law and civilian law? The military has strict laws on fraternization which aren’t part of civilian law. So it would be proof that there is military law and civilian law which I don’t think needs proofing.

    8. Hillary should be publicly beheaded as a traitor to the constitution.

  2. It’s principals (not principles) all the way down.

    1. haha silly rabbit, hating Hillary Clinton is totally a principle.

  3. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails and you get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails and then acid watch them or bleach them. A very expensive process,

    What the flying fuck is he talking about

    1. He’s talking about destroying evidence under subpoena by using Bleachbit to delete them all so they can’t be recovered. I thought that was pretty obvious.

    2. He is talking about the fact that Clinton rather than having her server seized and examined by the FBI, responded to a subpoena by deleting 33,000 emails she deemed “person” before turning over only those she say fit to turn over.

      Do you just not read very well Hugh? It is not difficult.

    3. The degaussing tool that Paul Combetta used to fully destroy an archive of HRC’s emails from her email server. It was call BleachBit.

      1. Ah, I had no idea there was a tool with that name. Once again Trump has outclassed me with his superior tech savvy.

        1. Hugh, the way Trump was talking about “acid washing” I thought he meant that Clinton had thrown her computer in a vat of hydrofluoride acid– Breaking Bad style. When I heard that she had merely deleted them and made sure they stayed deleted I thought– “oh, ok”

          He’s a total scum, don’t you think? He basically convinced me to vote HRC– a long, long, long road for me.

          1. No one had to force you to do such a stupid thing. You’re just that dumb.

          2. Trumps scumbagary has nothing to do with HRC. The way that file was deleted, is the digital equivalent of throwing the individual file in a vat of acid. Destroying the hard drive would raise a few more eyebrows, no?

            1. So fucking what? Maybe she didn’t want right-wing assholes prowling through her emails to her kid?

              1. She doesn’t get to decide that, fuckboy.

              2. So fucking what? Maybe she didn’t want right-wing assholes prowling through her emails to her kid?

                So that makes her violation of a subpoena, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, and commissioning of multiple other crimes A-OK?

                1. “So that makes her violation of a subpoena, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, and commissioning of multiple other crimes A-OK?”

                  Trey Goudy tried to get that stillborn jalopy going for two years at taxpayer expense before it blew up in his face. Good luck, prosecutor, on getting this one to trial. You’ll need it.

                  1. We all know Hillary got away with it. Try answering his question, dipshit.

                2. “So that makes her violation of a subpoena, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, and commissioning of multiple other crimes A-OK?”

                  Well according to the Obama Administration? Yes.

              3. Yea, that’s the ticket. They where all about her kids. Never mind the thousands of work related emails they FBI was able to recover. She swears that the other 30,000 where all work related. Just like she did the 3,000 they where able to recover.

              4. “…Maybe she didn’t want right-wing assholes prowling through her emails to her kid?…”

                Oh, that’s right! “The Vast, Right-wing Conspiracy”. All aimed at that poor, lying piece of shit.

              5. “So fucking what? Maybe she didn’t want right-wing assholes prowling through her emails to her kid?”

                So, knowing that government emails can be the subject of FOIA requests, why didn’t she just keep her personal business on her personal email? Nothing stops her from just getting a Gmail account like everyone else.

                1. Or, since she was so worried about security, setting up her own private email server to handle her private, personal, email. Like tons of other people have done.

                  Doesn’t want to carry two devices? Give the private device to an intern/bagman and let him hold on to it when you’re not using it.

              6. Then maybe she should have adhered to lawful practice, kept her work and personal emails seperate.

                You know what I couldn’t do as a government employee? Use my government account for personal stuff nor use my personal account for government business.

                And I didn’t handle anything classified through email at all.

          3. Nobody on this website ever believed you were voting for anyone other than Clinton in this election. You’re a shill and a liar. Now go pay your mortgage.

            1. Idiots like this will continue to believe that vermin like Hillary have their best interests at heart, right up until the moment they get in her way and all of a sudden they are branded “enemies of the State”.

            2. I’m really confused about him. Part of me wants to call out Poe’s law because I genuinely can’t tell if he’s playing the part of a rabid, moronic prog or actually is one. I believe he actually is one, but it’s close. I try to imagine why anyone would stay and comment on a site where his kind is obviously not welcome, only to be lambasted routinely. Were he one of us and sock-puppeting everything we hate about the snide left, there would be perverse form of entertainment in it for whoever operates the account.

              Then I remember that I know people every-bit as enamored with the Kool-Aid. It’s not enough to simply drink it unquestioningly. There are some who do it knowing what it is but having deep faith that it will be purified and it will just work out this time even if all the evidence is to the contrary. All it takes to explain the behavior beyond that is that missionaries exist. This is exactly the loathing a missionary ought to feel when everyone shuts the door in his face all day because nobody wants to talk to a wackalaoon.

          4. “…He basically convinced me to vote HRC…”

            You’re a laugh riot, you are.
            Fucking scum…

          5. That is a Hillary campaign talking point, word for word. NBC even “fact checked” it in coordination with her campaign.

            “I thought he meant that Clinton had thrown her computer in a vat of hydrofluoric acid”

            You thought that because you’re fucking dumb.

          6. I thought he meant that Clinton had thrown her computer in a vat of hydrofluoride acid

            Translation: spergspergspergspergsperg spergspergspergsperg spergspergspergsperg

          7. I have read an abbreviated biography of Karl Marx. I intend to write some excerpts and comments on it later, probably today. I hope you are around AmSoc.

            It is fucking priceless.

          8. If you needed a sign that you’re a hyper partisan, the fact you think that withholding evidence from the department of justice is a reason to vote for Hillary is proof positive.

            You’ll never see it that way I imagine. Not until you’re the one harmed by your own ideological results. Then again, that implies you actually have an ideology beyond ‘gimme’. Citation needed that you have any moral compass at all.

          9. Christ. He’s talking the same way Clinton was when she tossed out that ‘what, with a cloth’ line. Imagine that, a couple 60+ year olds who aren’t plugged in to the latest tech talk.

            But its OK when Clinton does it, right?

          10. You’re only voting for HRC because a pure Leninist’Trotskyist candidate isn’t available to you. The idea that your deadbeat ass has even the slightest libertarian inclinations is beyond absurd.

      2. Why didn’t he just say that in plain English? The quoted section reads like Esperanto.

        1. It’s Trump. Plain English isn’t his strong suit. Plus, I really don’t think he grasps exactly what it was that took place.

          1. Considering Hillary cant even use a PC (this is verified fact), I dont think Trump’s failure to grasp this is a big point of difference between them.

            Remember her, “like with a cloth” comment?

            1. HRC is / was playing dumb. She may not know the in’s and out’s. But, someone who knew what they where doing helped her ‘wipe’ her emails. They washed all of her emails through 3 different servers before the FBI got their hands on the final system. And, from what I understand, they never got their hands on the original server. But, apparently, the FBI didn’t see any problems with all the shenanigans that where going on.

              1. I know she was playing dumb with that comment, but it came out from some of the other details that she couldnt get email from a PC because she literally didnt know how to use one.

                1. That’s what they say. But, I’m gonna call BS on that too. These days, a PC’s UI isn’t all the different from a Blackberry or iPad. And, I’m sure after sending at least 63,000 emails, she had the gist of how email works. At that point the platform doesn’t matter. She’s playing dumb at every level. And, it seems to be working beautifully.

        2. Because Trump has a very obtuse way of speaking off the cuff and he could only half remember the precise term of art for the process used.

          1. Which is consistent with many 70 year olds understanding of such technology.

        3. “Why didn’t he just say that in plain English?”

          Trump isn’t that smart.

          1. Clearly, he’s bi-lingual, so he can’t be totally stupid.

            1. “Clearly, he’s bi-lingual, so he can’t be totally stupid.”

              He’s surprisingly poor at expressing himself given his background in the entertainment business.

          2. Trump needs to hear himself in order to know what he is saying….

  4. Hey Scott,

    Who’s more likely to go after a reason commenters untoward comments regarding the future POTUS. The famously litigious Mr. Trump who wants to jail his political rival or Mrs. Clinton? Probably Clinton– she had Vince Foster silenced. Why wouldn’t she silence you?

    1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    2. Well, we have actual history of the Obama administration going after Reason Commenters, so I guess we have to decide which one of them is more like Obama.

      1. They went after Reason commenters? Where? In like a real court or was this some Justice Dept. official who got his panties in a wad and didn’t do squat? Poor you guys.

        1. You missed the Woodchipper incident?

          1. He just chooses to ignore/dismiss it like he does with all inconvenient facts.

            1. A true prog.

          2. Yeah, sure. I said 2 things at the time. First, we shouldn’t dismiss right-wing threats out of hand since– along with their kissing cousins, Islamist losers– right-wing losers are the most likely group to shoot up their local post office. Second, no one would prosecute some dumb commenter on reason.com for making threats. Did anyone go to jail or have their lives ruined? I trust not since we all would have heard about it a billion times.

            1. “Did anyone go to jail or have their lives ruined?”

              That’s the standard you use?

            2. Holy fuck, you’re a dishonest and stupid piece of shit.

              1. Holy fuck, you’re a dishonest and stupid piece of shit.

                Yes, but look how well he’s derailed a discussion of Hillary’s crimes. With the help of the people arguing with him, of course.

            3. Second, no one would prosecute some dumb commenter on reason.com for making threats. Did anyone go to jail or have their lives ruined? I trust not since we all would have heard about it a billion times.

              Only because Reason had the desire and the resources to fight the subpoena.

            4. “First, we shouldn’t dismiss right-wing threats out of hand since– along with their kissing cousins, Islamist losers– right-wing losers are the most likely group to shoot up their local post office.”

              Left-wingers? They LOVE peace, especially when it come from killing others.
              “The term Holodomor refers specifically to the brutal artificial famine imposed by Stalin’s regime on Soviet Ukraine and primarily ethnically Ukrainian areas in the Northern Caucasus in 1932-33.
              […]
              Between 1932-34, approximately 4 million deaths are attributed to starvation within the borders of Soviet Ukraine.”
              http://holodomorct.org/history.html

            5. Did anyone go to jail or have their lives ruined?

              Mr. One True Libertarian is awfully blase about the wielding of government force.

          3. The shortbus was in the shop that week.

        2. Justice Dept. Official is part of the executive.

          1. Diane, how long will you guys celebrate your triumph over this Justice Department official who didn’t investigate anything, didn’t indict anyone, and didn’t put anyone in jail? What’s the statute of limitations?

            1. Asshole, do you know what the Diane Reynolds handle is from? Go look it up and report back here with what you find.

            2. this Justice Department official who didn’t investigate anything

              Agamemmnon (whose handle I likely spelled wrrong) would likely beg to differ

              1. By sending the first email, they were investigating.

    3. I dunno, but I do know one President whose Justice Department has already gone after Reason commenters: Your hero, Barack Obama.

    4. Who’s more likely to go after a reason commenters untoward comments regarding the future POTUS. The famously litigious Mr. Trump who wants to jail his political rival or Mrs. Clinton? Probably Clinton– she had Vince Foster silenced. Why wouldn’t she silence you?

      The candidate that is against Citizens United, obviously. If Hillary thinks the government can ban CU from showing an anti-Hillary documentary why would she be opposed to the FEC going after the Reason Foundation and its publications, including the commenters?

      1. Just adding this here, but a string of Democrats have also come out and basically called for a Rico investigation of climate deniers that included the Reason foundation.

  5. This exchange has led to “Oh my God, Trump wants to jail his political enemies, and this is further proof he wants to turn America into a banana republic” punditry and some analysis of how a president might be able to abuse executive power.

    I just heard this on NPR. I don’t have strong personal feelings on it, but I seem to recall a body of evidence that suggests a certain call for exactly this type of action…

    1. Of course, Obama was just joking about auditing his enemies. And there is no way to interpret Trump’s statement as him saying Hillary should be held accountable for her actions under the law just like anyone else would be in similar circumstances.

      The media really are a bunch of dishonest shitweasels.

  6. “I’m going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.”

    Call me stupid, but, isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work. When there are conflicts of interest (political or otherwise) between the DOJ and the subject of an investigation. Aren’t they supposed to appoint a special prosecutor? At the very least shouldn’t they have empaneled an impartial Grand Jury?

    1. They should have, but they of course did not because they knew what the special prosecutor would find.

      1. They went so far as to give immunity to the key people that any prosecution would need to make sure this thing never, ever became a case. Hillary made sure of that by reminding Obama – whom himself lied about not knowing Hillary had this server and was using it to hide what she was doing and had actually communicated with her under a pseudonym – that if she went down for this, he would go down with her.

    2. Sounds like that “rule of law” and “impartial justice” that I heard about in 10th grade civics class 53 years ago

      1. That lesson has been replaced with something ‘gender fluid’ something.

    3. “empaneled an impartial Grand Jury?”

      There’s been too many efforts to blame grand juries for decisions by prosecutors – the grand jury should be a shield against the prosecutor, not a shield for ass-covering officials.

      On the other hand, I’d support having grand jurors with balls, conducting their own investigations into official corruption without the “guidance” of dubious prosecutorial officials. I’d even say that if the grand jury “presents” anyone for official misconduct, the case should go straight to trial, and the judge should appoint a special prosecutor with the duty to zealously reprsesent the grand jury’s point of view.

  7. I have absolutely no doubt that Trump idolizes strongman-style leaders.

    Well I’m suffocating under an avalanche of strongwoman idolization.

  8. The outrage of brights manifests as the mere kicking of tanks.

  9. For all their talk about how much they recognize privilege and inequality, apparently progressives of incapable of grasping that a wealthy, politically-connected (to understate things) white woman got preferential treatment compared to what an average person would have faced in that situation.

    1. IF you want to have fun, ask a Prog sometime how many loyal Democratic black politicians have had the book thrown at them by DOJ. DOJ is happy to throw loyal Democrats in prison as long as they are black. When it is a powerful white woman, not so much.

      1. More blacks in prison. For the fairness of it all.

  10. Not Trump related. Germany votes to ban internal combustion engine.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..on-engine/

    1. It hopes to only have zero emission vehicles in 14 years. I am going to say no on that.

      1. If ever there was belief in unicorns this is it. ‘zero emission engine’ is impossible. When stored energy (chemically stored) is utilized there are going to be products from the red-ox reaction or from the utilization of that energy. Even unicorns fart. Water, CO2, Ozone,…somethinng is going to come out.

        1. Even unicorns fart.

          Perhaps the best reply to this zero emissions nonsense.

      2. “It hopes to only have zero emission vehicles in 14 years. I am going to say no on that.”

        There’s no way to convert all the large truck shipping over to zero emissions. For that matter, it’s not practical to convert any vehicle that’s not parked most of the time over to zero emissions.

        At best you could go with some kind of generated “zero emission” fuel like hydrogen. But fuel cell’s have been in development for 40 years, it seems unlikely they’ll finally be perfected in the next 14 years.

        1. Exactly. the emissions generated in production of the vehicle are also never taken into account and if that is parked most of the time, you’ve generated a ton of emissions to create a vehicle that isn’t used much which means a ton of carbon for not much to no savings. That and the efficiency of mass produced energy is negated by lost power in transmission. So, local generation where everyone has their own solar or wind or wave or thermal array seems the answer but the emissions generated in producing all those power capture and generation units negates the advantages of end point consumption and use.

          Really just squeezing the emissions balloon and choosing what pollutant you want to create where int he logistics and consumption tail.

    2. So now BMW and Mercedes are only going to make all electric cars that no one wants? Sounds like a brilliant plan to me.

      1. I’m sure they will continue to sell internal combustion engine cars on the export market, just not in Germany.

      2. The more likely scenario is that those companies rapidly lobby to put the current government out of a job. Given the overwhelming popularity of Germany’s current immigration policies, this will take a whopping 5 euros to be a success.

    3. First the refugee disaster and now this? Can we please get Germany some therapy? I don’t think it’s just a cry for attention anymore, I think Germany is serious about committing suicide.

      1. And to think that they’re soon going to be supporting the whole of the EU all by themselves after Brexit. Why don’t they just stop making beer also? If you’re going to commit suicide, get it over quickly.

        1. Well, if they import enough Muslim immigrants without assimilating them, then beer may be on the chopping block soon enough, considering there’s a pattern in the list of countries that currently ban alcohol.

          1. Indonesia has prohibition in small shops. Pennsylvania should be on that map and colored green.

    4. Stupid is as stupid does.

    5. Gentlemen, you’re not seeing the bigger economic opportunity here. No cars means the reintroduction of horse conveyance. Finally, we can open the artisanal buggy whip shoppe we’ve always dreamed about!

      1. And end unemployment by hiring people tho clean up the horse shit.

        1. More methane!

      2. How is this going to play into the neo-cons attempt to make driver’s licenses National ID cards? I would assume they will require all horse operators to have licenses.

        Any new horse riders come into town without licenses are to be shut down- shut down!

      3. Artisanal buggery whips are the best kind.

  11. Wasn’t the left calling for Bush and Cheney to be thrown in jail for war crimes for like the last decade? Even though Congress passed the AUMF?

    And now Trump suggests that Clinton would be in jail if he were president because she clearly broke the law, and yet Trump is the dictator?

    I don’t get it.

    1. Clinton good. Trump bad.

      1. No you have it backwards. Trump bad. Clinton good.

        1. “No you have it backwards. Trump bad. Clinton good.”

          You both have it wrong. Trump is literally Hitler and Clinton is the first Women President.

          Ok to be fair, some learned people believe that Trump is actually worse than Hitler.

    2. Yeah, if progressives are crowing about this, I’d ask what they were saying about Bush and Cheney in 2009. I recall a lot of complaining that there were no prosecutions.

      1. “I recall a lot of complaining that there were no prosecutions.”

        Thanks to Obama, there were no prosecutions of Bush or Cheney. Not for torture, not for lying the nation into war. Like it or not, no progressive is going to prosecute an ally while letting an enemy go free from a greater charge.

        1. So what you’re saying is that Trump cares more about the rule of law than Obama?

          1. “So what you’re saying is that Trump cares more about the rule of law than Obama?”

            I doubt it. But if Trump prosecutes, Bush, Cheney and Clinton, I’ll change my mind.

            1. “But if Trump prosecutes, Bush, Cheney and Clinton, I’ll change my mind.”

              Folks, this is trueman’s idea of a clever comment.

              1. “Folks, this is trueman’s idea….”

                The guy asked me a question, and I answered. Thanks for your support.

                1. You get attention, not support. Sort of like a rat infestation.

  12. Has anyone asked Nakoula Basseley Nakoula this morning what his opinion is of politicians jailing someone because it is politically advantageous to them?

  13. I don’t know which is worse, the soavean signaling with the word “disgusting” describing Trump’s choice of language or the thesaurusian use of the word “insouciant” in describing Clinton’s attitude. Either way, I feel I’ve been wronged by this article and am lodging my complaint here.

    1. Their use of “disgusting” is simply vile

      1. Deplorable.

        1. Derp-lorable.

  14. By all means be outraged by Trump threatening to send the Justice Department after Clinton.

    I’m not clear on why I should be outraged by that.

    1. He’s not saying you should. Just that you can be if you want to be.

      1. Which is another way of saying it is reasonable to be so. Why is it okay to be outraged at someone being held accountable for crimes?

    2. Yeah, I don’t get it either.

  15. in “Other retarded exchanges from the debates”… what is sure to be a bottomless resource…

    “You’re saying you never did that.”

    “I never did that.”

    “So we’re clear, that is the thing you never did.”

    “Never.”

    “And by never, you mean absolutely never ever ever.”

    “Such a thing did not happen at any point in my existence on this planet.”

    “So it never happened, is what you are saying.”

    “No.”

    THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT PUSSY, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

    1. I wonder, did he badger Hillary like that at any point?

    2. “What, never?
      No, never.
      What, never?
      Well, hardly ever.”

  16. Why is there more outrage about Trump wanting to have Clinton investigated by the Department of Justice than there is about how the DOJ and federal government treats everybody else?

    [Insert English Bob soliloquy]

    *You know the one.

    1. Bob’s your uncle.

  17. By all means be outraged by Trump threatening to send the Justice Department after Clinton.

    This is why everyone thinks you are a Prog pretending to be a Libertarian Scott. There is nothing outrageous about that at all. Hillary is a criminal and everyone knows it. Why do you find holding her accountable to be outrageous?

    1. Have to prove this in a court of law, Republican asshole. Let the other libertarians on this website instruct you on the constitutional guarantees around the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

      Did you know that Trump raped a 13-year old girl. He’s a criminal and a rapist.

      1. Have to prove this in a court of law […] Did you know that Trump raped a 13-year old girl. He’s a criminal and a rapist.

        Ummmmm…..

        1. Yep, precisely. Simpletons on this website think accusations=proof.

          1. “Simpletons on this website think accusations=proof.”

            Fucking imbeciles who visit here from time to time simply blow off proof when it doesn’t suit their narratives.
            Fucking imbecile…

          2. Thanks for coming by an hour after the thread died in order to score some easy points AMSOC.

      2. Have to prove this in a court of law

        I’d love to. Unfortunately, the prosecutor works for Hillary, so I won’t get the chance.

        1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

      3. Have to prove this in a court of law, Republican asshole

        By that logic, Nixon did nothing wrong, proglydyte.

    2. “Everyone”?

      Despite occasional puzzlers like what you quote, I find him to be one of the more consistently libertarian writers writing for Reason.

      I can see making that criticism of some of their writers, but Scott seems solid.

      OK, now you can accuse me of being in love with Scott and wanting to have his babies.

      1. Forget it, Zeb. It’s Red Tony Town.

      2. now you can accuse me of being in love with Scott and wanting to have his babies

        It’s just projection.

      3. Look, Zeb, Scott may have a long history of writing libertarian stuff, but John knows what he’s really thinking. And before you ask about his mind-reading ability, yes, it is both a gift and a curse.

        1. Yes, I judge what he is thinking by listening to what he says and holding him to the rational implications of it. It is called thinking. And yes for you it must be a curse since you can’t seem to ever do it.

          You people really are not fucking bright. You are just not.

      4. I suppose he is better than Chapman or Dalmia. If you want to damn him with faint praise, go right ahead.

    3. This is why everyone thinks you are a Prog pretending to be a Libertarian Scott.

      I am glad someone finally said it.

    1. “Dozens of Afghan troops training in US have vanished from military bases”

      That’s just because the religion of peace told them to go home and make some cookies. You Islamaphobes…

      1. Luckily, the Taliban has never infiltrated their people into the Afghan army! Oh, wait….

      2. More likely they just decided that going back to Afghanistan to get shot seems like a less good option.

    2. Well, I’d probably just walk away, as well, if I had a chance to live in America rather than a -stan.

    3. That bald eagle is a metaphor for 2016 America.

      1. Was gonna say the same thing.

    4. Florida Eagle Gets Stuck While Vandalizing Car

  18. And thus Shackford reveals himself to be a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.

    1. And simultaneously a member of the left wing conspiracy.

  19. He’s made it abundantly clear that he cares only about “getting things done” and has no concern?or even grasp?of the limitations of the president.

    So, he’s normal.

    1. I seem to recall reason not being very interested in the limitations of Presidential power when Obama rewrote and ignored immigration law.

      1. They have also been notably uninterested in the expansion, via Presidential power, of “sex” discrimination to include “gender” discrimination.

    1. Trayvon Martin!

    2. Interesting that despite Hillary’s Soros-funded CTR army, her videos have more thumbs downs than thumbs up.

  20. By all means be outraged by Trump threatening to send the Justice Department after Clinton.

    I’ve been waiting nine fucking months (since the Iowa Caucuses) for this moment of truth to happen in a public forum.

  21. The Trump Train on Reason.com has left the station and is going full speed. WOOWOO!

  22. So is the fear and outrage by Democrats that a president Trump would have a pen and a phone?

    1. “So is the fear and outrage by Democrats that a president Trump would have a pen and a phone?”

      No Republican should ever have such power. /derp

  23. lives have been destroyed for doing one fifth of what you’ve done. And it’s a disgrace and honestly, you ought to be ashamed

    Props. Still not voting for him, but credit where credit is due.

  24. Looky here: more lawbreaking by the Clintons, this time with illegal coordination between her campaign and super-PACs.

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profil…..uper-pacs/

    Caveat – its a vague law, and Clinton lawyered the shit out of their coordination, so it might technically be legal. Depending on what else, other than targeting donors, they collaborated on.

  25. Caveat – its a vague law

    Which makes it easier to use selectively on one’s political opponents.

  26. “By all means be outraged by Trump threatening to send the Justice Department after Clinton.”

    No.

    As things stand she is above the law. Everyone knows it and everyone but her supporters are angry about that and her corruption that has crept like a cancer throughout the government. She has essentially destroyed the credibility of the FBI.

    What are the sales figures for “Hillary for Prison 2016”? They are pretty high.

    Here is some info from an outfit that clearly does not have a right to exist:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-…..4-percent/

  27. But wait, there’s more:

    Coordination of State Department business with the Foundation:

    In the following email dated March 17, 2015 disclosed today by Wikileaks, we find troubling details of the internal State Department process, which somehow made its way to Samlueson with details so nuanced it may only have come as a result of direct communication between the State Department (or DOS as Samuelson calls it) as Hillary’s young confidant, and which in turn she promptly conveyed to her team, regarding the FOIA request, in what appears to be a material breach of confidentiality

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-10/

  28. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  29. the shades of grey were amazing within this exchange. neither candidate had either the high ground, nor the low ground. it’s as if you combined them into one actual human being, there might’ve been something resembling a good point in there.

  30. Maybe Hillary deserves to be eaten alive by this vile tribal police state she has helped nurture, but Trump is the last motherfucker on this planet who should prosecuting that case.

  31. This exchange has led to “Oh my God, Trump wants to jail his political enemies, and this is further proof he wants to turn America into a banana republic” punditry and some analysis of how a president might be able to abuse executive power.

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia 20h20 hours ago

    Threatening to prosecute and imprison your opponent is the kind of thing that Third World potentates do!

    No further comment.

    Alice Maz ?@alicemazzy 16h16 hours ago

    man if clinton wins we’re going to have to listen to all these people act like their clappy tweets and shit saved the world from fascism

    Man – now I *have* to vote for Trump.

    Robby Soave ?@robbysoave 20h20 hours ago

    Trump on Hillary’s emails. “You acid wash them. Or bleach them.” Spoken like a man who has disposed of bodies Breaking Bad style

    Tweeted like a man who sorta watched a couple of episodes because everyone said it was so good but could never really get into it no matter how much he wanted to.

    Full Disclosure: I felt the same way about Breaking Bad. There’s parts that are completely freaking awesome. But 90% of it is boring family drama.

  32. Hillary Clinton belongs at the end of a noose.

  33. I found reference to Clinton “seemingly having received special treatment from DOJ” to be more than a little interesting, and as for “what about everyday Americans”, does anyone care about them? If so, who?

  34. I get my news from CNN – Clinton News Network.

  35. My Aunty got white Hyundai Elantra GT Hatchback only from working part?time online… learn the facts here now….

    http://www.wagemax30.com/

  36. Hurant is not accused of doing anything more than facilitating consensual sexual contact between men. When the Department of Homeland Security first helped the New York Police shut them down, there was no evidence of human trafficking or nonconsensual activity. But they were also making a lot of money, and that’s exactly what the government jumped at, immediately attempting to seize Rentboy’s profits. And they’ve succeeded.

    Yeah, the gov’t is no longer interested in enforcing justice, they are simply interested in getting a “cut”, of anything, legal or illegal.

    That’s why the bankers don’t go to jail, that would actually be justice and deter future behavior, the banks just pay fines which is a cost of business passed on to the customer.

    An absolute perversion of the criminal justice system.

    We are a banana Republic.

  37. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://www.careerstoday100.com

  38. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  39. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.