FBI

Trump's Critics Worry That He's Undermining Trust in the FBI, As If That's a Bad Thing

More Republican skepticism of law enforcement agencies is a welcome development.

|

Wikimedia Comons

According to a Survey Monkey poll conducted last Thursday and Friday, 38 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of the FBI, compared to 64 percent of Democrats. A "news analysis" in The New York Times blames that counterintuitive partisan divide on Donald Trump, who "has engaged in a scorched-earth assault on the pillars of the criminal justice system in a way that no other occupant of the White House has done." The Times worries that Trump is "tearing at the credibility of some of the most important institutions in American life to save himself."

The charge rings true in the sense that Trump is mendacious and unprincipled, the sort of man who would say anything for political gain. But forgive me if I have trouble feeling bad for the poor FBI. Whatever the merits of Trump's complaints about the investigation of links between his campaign and Russian agents who tried to influence the presidential election, the controversy will do some good if it makes Republicans less inclined to trust the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

Even putting aside the bureau's long history of corruption and incompetence, the controversy over the Russia investigation is a useful reminder that the FBI consists of fallible humans with their own ambitions, agendas, and opinions, which may not always be conducive to a dispassionate search for truth and justice. Case in point: An agent who called Trump an "idiot" and hoped he would lose the election was involved in both the Russia probe and the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email practices as secretary of state. Somewhat less shocking: The FBI may have exaggerated the evidence that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was a Russian agent. Even less shocking, for anyone familiar with how easy it is to get permission for a wiretap under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): The exaggeration was probably unnecessary.

Although the charges raised by the Republican memo about the FBI's surveillance of Page are troubling, Democrats dispute several key points, including the role that information from former British spy Christopher Steele played in the warrant applications and whether the FBI revealed that Steele, whose work was underwritten by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, had a political agenda. But the fact remains that law enforcement officials have a strong incentive to exaggerate when they apply for warrants, a tendency that is especially problematic when the applications and the orders issued in response to them are classified, as they are under FISA. Another point highlighted by this case: Probable cause, defined by the Supreme Court as "a fair probability," is not a very hard standard to meet, especially when it applies not to the likelihood that someone has committed a crime but to the likelihood that he is a foreign agent, which may or may not involve breaking any laws.

I don't know that the Republicans who are suddenly mistrustful of the FBI will absorb any of these lessons, which would require reasoning in a principled way rather than reacting out of partisan reflex. But there is a chance that at least some of them will come away from this episode with a new appreciation for the cracks in "the pillars of the criminal justice system," just as some Republicans embrace sentencing reform after serving time in prison. That would be a heartening development.

By contrast, the uncritical embrace of the FBI by some of Trump's opponents is pretty sickening. The Times portrays Trump's spat with the bureau as a black-and-white conflict between a dishonest demagogue and dedicated professionals who only want to uphold the law:

More than a dozen officials who work at or recently left the Justice Department and the F.B.I. said they feared that the president was mortgaging the credibility of those agencies for his own short-term political gain as he seeks to undercut the Russia inquiry…

"Thanks to this rhetoric, there is a subset of the public that won't believe what comes out of the Mueller investigation," said Christopher Hunter, a former F.B.I. agent and prosecutor who left the Justice Department at the end of last year. Mr. Hunter said he worried that juries might be more skeptical of testimony from agents even in criminal trials unrelated to Mr. Trump. "All it takes to sink a case," he said, "is for one juror to disbelieve the F.B.I."…

David Strauss, a University of Chicago law professor, said Mr. Trump's accusations against the F.B.I. and the Justice Department were not mere political rhetoric, but messages with consequences. "We have a president who seems to have no understanding of the professional ethos of the Justice Department, who has no understanding how these people think about their jobs," he said…

Josh Campbell, who spent a decade at the F.B.I. and worked directly for Mr. Comey at one time, wrote in The Times on Saturday that he was resigning so that he could speak out. "These political attacks on the bureau must stop," he wrote. "If those critics of the agency persuade the public that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted, they will also have succeeded in making our nation less safe."

If you think it is self-evidently a bad thing that "juries might be more skeptical of testimony from agents even in criminal trials unrelated to Mr. Trump," the rest of this self-serving twaddle will not bother you. Question the FBI, the FBI says, and you are endangering national security. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the dedicated professionals and the dishonest demagogues.

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.

116 responses to “Trump's Critics Worry That He's Undermining Trust in the FBI, As If That's a Bad Thing

  1. The exaggeration was probably unnecessary.

    This was one of the more unfortunate points made in the week’s Fifth Column cast. That any falsehoods by the FBI in its application to the FISA court weren’t necessary is irrelevant. Lying to get a warrant should be unacceptable to anyone under any circumstance.

    If you’re a critic of parallel construction (as I am), then you should also find this distasteful. And it’s not hard to imagine that the lengths law enforcement would go to ensnare a pissant mid-level drug dealing functionary that means nothing to them personally outside of resume padding wouldn’t also be used (and maybe with extra vigor) against a man who could destroy from the White House democracy as we know it.

    1. Lying about the FBI lying for the Carter Page warrant is still lying.

      If Republicans cared about this, they had time.

      Since 1978.

      1. Well, this is a libertarian website.

      2. I don’t know to what you refer in 1978, but we do need an agency to investigate crimes, especially in regards to state and local governments violating individual rights.

        Look at the good side, Trump now has a majority of Republican voters not trusting the FBI, and rightly so IMHO since Obama corrupted it. I feel a purge coming, via trials of many who acted on political motivations rather than truth and justice. It looks like Trump gave the secret society plenty of rope to hang itself, by trying to undermine him via a setup to get impeachment on obstruction of justice for something that’s not a crime (“collusion” with Russia, it’d have to be something like a crime in the US, say asking Putin to hack his opponents for which there’s no evidence thanks to Democrats either bleach bit erasing their servers, or refusing to allow the FBI to examine them) that didn’t happen.

        And there’s worse. Consider Dem Rep. Jarrold Nadler’s 2/4 memo with this gem:

        “There is no reason to dispute the Nunes memo’s assertion that the FBI was actively investigating the Trump campaign months before they approached the [FISA] court about Carter Page.”

        So we’ve a Democrat telling us Obama spied on “the Trump campaign” months before they obtained a FISA warrant. Let’s hear all about it, and on what basis (other than Trump was Hillary’s opponent) it was done!
        Clearly unconstitutional.

        1. It was corrupt before Obozo got there, what he did was turn the DOJ/FBI into a Dem/progressive partner.

    2. Parallel Construction was my nickname in architecture school.

  2. “If those critics of the agency persuade the public that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted, they will also have succeeded in making our nation less safe.”

    Also a good argument for suppressing information about any and all of the numerous FBI scandals throughout its history – so, although it’s true that they wrote a blackmail letter to Coretta Scott King about her husband Martin Luther King, knowledge of this fact would make black people less trusting of the feds, therefore it’s better to suppress that awkward fact.

    /sarc, naturally

    1. In fact, just purge the Internet of any reference to FBI misconduct, and burn the books documenting it. The country will be more secure as a result.

      /sarc

    2. Well, they do work in a building named after a man who used propaganda, intimidation and down right blackmail to foster and maintain the FBI’s boy scout image. I doubt things have changed much since the J. Edgar days, it’s still part of their DNA.

  3. Remember how, whenever the NY Times got secret documents, they’d first refer the documents to the FBI for vetting purposes. /sarc

  4. THANK YOU REASON. Libertarians need to stop crying about how the trust in government is undermined. This is a GOOD thing. The FBI is full of good and noble people but it’s overgrown and as a result gets into trouble and shenanigans and ends up creating more problems. They need to be pruned back, just like all branches of the government. Similarly, Trump is discrediting the presidency and that’s also a GOOD thing not a national crisis. It all goes to show we don’t need government and don’t need their ‘protection’. And the Republicans have been pretty good about approving qualified people for replacement posts who aren’t necessarily better for the Drumpfenc?cken, e.g. Gorsuch and Mueller. So stop crying and rejoice!!!

  5. Had this same article yesterday I believe.

    Now that Trump is the target, suddenly the GOP is skeptical of law enforcement. Do you really expect that to last? Do you really think it has to do with a change in principle?

    1. The past isn’t even relevant to the current discussion.

      It’s like Republicans don’t even remember Bush.

    2. You understand that the author answers (or at least addresses) your questions in the article, right?

      1. You expect him to read, then pontificate?

    3. Now that Trump is the target, suddenly democrats are trusting of law enforcement. Do you really expect that to last? Do you really think it has to do with a change in principle?

      To answer your question, no, I don’t expect that to last. No one seriously believe in a change in principle when it’s coming from a bunch of hacks.

      1. Except that’s not a comment reflecting reality. Democrats were never zealously against federal law enforcement. We may have been skeptical of some of Bush’s abuses of it, sure. This characterization exists only because Reason invented it in order to do the false equivalency bullshit that serves only to let Trump and Republicans off the hook.

        1. Boooooooooosh!

          “Never zealously against federal law enforcement. We may have been skeptical of some of Bush’s abuses of it.” That’s a very charitable (and completely inaccurate) way of looking at it. Another would be to say that a very large portion of democrats (but not all) were zealously against Bush’s abuses of it. And I say, rightfully so. Another would be to say that a very large portion of democrats were zealously against it when other Republicans were abusing it (especially 50s and 60s). Yet another would be to say that democrats largely looked the other way (or applauded) when conservatives were the targets.

          Are the Republicans complete, soulless hacks in their skepticism about the FBI right now? Absolutely. But, you’re being ridiculous if you suggest that democrats aren’t similar hacks. There’s nothing false about the equivalency just because you like your side better.

          1. And republicans currently aren’t “zealously against federal law enforcement”. They remain zealously for federal law enforcement. That’s why they aren’t doing anything that risks causing actual damage to the FBI/FISC. They’re just keeping this issue focused on the realm of partisan politics and salacious details to ensure that the FBI only gets a black eye; nothing more serious.

            Democrats also remain zealously for federal law enforcement. Both sides just object to the times when their own kind is targeted. But, aside from those little squabbles, at the core, they are both parties committed to authoritarianism. And authoritarians will always love the big, strong law enforcer.

            1. I don’t disagree with much of what you say, but my point is that whataboutism is Trump’s best friend these days, as it has long been for Republicans. What purpose is this “larger conversation” serving? Why now? There’s a very specific reason why now.

              Trump is more an authoritarian by demeanor than probably any president in history, so why not keep an extra sharp eye on him anyway?

              1. “Trump is more authoritarian by demeanor than probably any president in history”

                A statement only possible to believe if you are completely ignorant of the world before 2016 and obtain your understanding of political history solely through a combination of Sesame Street and Disney’s Hall of Presidents

              2. > Trump is more an authoritarian by demeanor than probably any president in history

                Please. You say that because you had your fingers in your ears when people justifiably complained about the following gems from Obama:

                1. flag.gov
                2. “Truth Teams” (said in stereotype German accent)
                3. Throwing Dinesh D’Souza in jail because his movie criticized the messiah
                4. Jailing the videographer who supposedly caused the Benghazi attack, because Obama didn’t want to get the blame he so richly deserved during an election year.
                5. Using the IRS against regular citizens and NO…other presidents had not done that. They had used audits against political opponents, which I don’t agree with either. But Obama’s malfeasance was particularly egregious.
                6. Ignoring clear voter intimidation because the voters were black and the Holder [social] justice department said voter protection laws are not for whites people.

                I could go in for hours.

                Trump is not even close to being the most authoritarian president. You were just asleep for 8 years, or thought it was ok because Obama was your guy.

                1. Your relationship with reality is: divorced with no custody rights.

                  1. Wow. What a substantive response. Exactly what one would expect from you. You didn’t address a single one of my examples. You just went right for the ad hominem, like the good progressive that you are.

  6. The whole investigation arose from whining by sore losers.

    Never forget that.

    1. It’s getting tough to distinguish the whining sore losers from the whining sore winners.

      1. Not as tough as you think.

      2. No, it’s just you.

    2. I’d wine to if I still lost an election after I hired the FBI to win it for me!

      1. With that spelling it would be a miracle if you could complete the candidate registration forms in a coherent manner.

  7. More Republican skepticism of law enforcement agencies is a welcome development

    The problem is that skepticism will disappear Bout 2 seconds after Trump leaves office.

    1. The problem is that skepticism will disappear Bout 2 seconds after Trump leaves office.

      Sure, but unlike the identity politics bandwagons that Reason routinely jumps on in favor of the left, the goal is less regulation and failover is the status quo. The worst outcome is that we don’t lose any hills (or we go back to losing the hills that we weren’t winning anyway), as opposed to the identity politics game which requires us to sacrifice one or more hills to gain one or more hills that is/are supposedly better.

      I mean, heaven forbid that the GOP goes gonzo on the issue and starts insisting that wedding cake bakers absolutely cannot be spied upon.

      1. requires us to sacrifice one or more hills to gain one or more hills

        With losing several important hills to gain one mediocre hill being the typical outcome.

  8. Mr. Hunter said he worried that juries might be more skeptical of testimony from agents even in criminal trials unrelated to Mr. Trump. “All it takes to sink a case,” he said, “is for one juror to disbelieve the F.B.I.”…

    It’ll be anarchy!!

  9. If it was a development and not a reaction borne out of loyalty to Der Fuhrer.

    If the Republicans were concerned about excesses in law enforcement they’d join BLM, oppose brutality and not renew the FISA provisions instead of alleging malfeasance against Carter Page.

    But this is reason.com where Republicans pretend to be libertarians

    1. But this is reason.com where Republicans pretend to be libertarians

      If only because most of the left-leaning libertarians around here realized that the BLM movement stopped actually having anything to do with police violence about two months into the movement.

      1. “the BLM movement stopped actually having anything to do with police violence about two months into the movement.”

        God damn did that infuriate me, legitimate momentum was building for police accountability reform.

        1. Indeed. As my longtime Usenrt ally Chris Morton put it:

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..nt-3723114

          Black Lies Matter and Blue Lies Matter are perfect mirror images of each other.

          Both exist to create unaccountable classes of violent felons. Only their respective constituencies differ.

          Black Lies Matter wants to make young, Black, male felons untouchable by the law.

          Blue Lies Matter wants to make corrupt, violent sociopathic cops untouchable by the law.

          They’re both pathologically lying groups of sociopaths.

      2. If only because most of the left-leaning libertarians around here realized that the BLM movement stopped actually having anything to do with police violence about two months into the movement.

        Yeah, the libertarians really did hold on to hope in the face of the obvious.

      3. Less ironically, BLM is actually a great example of exactly what you were saying mad.casual

      4. Yeah, you guys did so much to support the cause.

        Fuck you for causing more dead innocents by being Team Red before having principles.

        1. Except that “hands up, don’t shoot!” never happened. When even a single-called organism like Eric Holder has to concede that evidence is sorely lacking, you know the story is utter horseshit, as usual.

    2. they’d join BLM

      LOL I get that the GOP is the stupid party but I think joining forces with a noted Communist front organization would be a bridge too far even for them.

      1. If I was “conspiracy-minded” I’d swear BLM was a PSYOP to herd right-wing LE-skeptics back into the pro-police camp.

        1. That would suppose a level of effectiveness that the government rarely displays, but I get your point.

          1. I actually hadn’t considered what SIV has proposed before, but it wouldn’t be outside of precedent. Look at the COINTELPRO operations, and how they were able to radicalize left-wing movements that were getting some traction in the past.

            Don’t get me wrong, the lefties still did the deeds and deserved punishment, but the Feds were infiltrating and pushing them to go that far all to make sure that the public support switched sides…

      2. Some have suggested that we have a stupid party and an evil party.

        I think the reality is closer to a stupid evil party and an evil stupid party.

    3. BLM. You mean that racialist astroturf group that has no coherent message beyond torturing statistics to falsely claim a bias against those of darker skin color in law enforcement activities?

      1. Finally. Someone who is willing to speak the truth about those circus clowns.

    4. If the Republicans were concerned about excesses in law enforcement they’d join BLM

      If BLM were more concerned about excesses in law enforcement instead of Only Black Lives Matter (and Shut Up, Wyppipo), you might have a point.

  10. counterintuitive partisan divide

    But it’s not.

    1. A hell of a lot of people can tell you exactly who Lon Horiuchi is and none of them are TEAM BLUE.

      The ACLU doesn’t send out fundraising letters that read:

      “armed terrorists dressed in Ninja black ? jack-booted thugs armed to the teeth who break down doors, open fire with automatic weapons and kill law-abiding citizens.”

      1. ^^^^ THIS!

        If I remember correctly, that’s a quote from American Rifleman.

  11. The FBI used opposition research from the Democratic party to obtain a warrant on the Republican Presidential candidate and his campaign during an election. If I need to say anymore than this to you please don’t reply, don’t waste my time.

    1. Those are wingnut talking points.

      The origin of the FISA warrant was Papadapolous and not the Steele dossier.

      1. Holy shit, it’s like you sit here waiting for an opportunity to suck Dem cock. What the fuck is wrong with you? Have some spine and get up off your knees.

        1. It is right off the Nunes memo:

          “The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.”

          You TEAM RED! fucks just listen to wingnut sources and remain ignorant.

          1. *gobblegobblegobble*

          2. But the dossier was the basis for the FISA warrant.

            You should leave Palin out of it, you are just a buttplug.

      2. I don’t think mouthing your own talking points in response to what you perceive to be other talking points has obscured the fact that you don’t understand the issues in play at all.

    2. Well, they didn’t just do that. They also used an article (Yahoo) that was sourced by the same source of the opposition research (Steele) and declared that the source of the article was not Steele, but a separate source, and that this corroborated the unverified claims of Steele’s claims. They also failed to disclose other pertinent information regarding Steele. They intentionally deceived the FISC to get surveillance on the Presidential Campaign of the opposition party.

      This was all not done by a bunch of random, low-level rogue employees, but was signed off by McCabe, Comey, and DAGs Yates, Boente and Rosenstein.

    3. It still amuses me that Carter Page is our president.

  12. I agree with the multi-party bashing here. I get it that the Republican Congress just re-upped the FISA process. But how you all can’t be super pissed at the Democrats is what my questions is.

    I get it the this Nunes character might have been playing politics with his memo, but some of the things that have been exposed are awful. Enough legit information is out there to certainly make it look like the FISA warrant was approved based on know false information. The evidence that this was used to spy on the Trump team is compelling. The evidence that the Hillary investigation was doctored is not as compelling, but there are legitimate questions. And the you have this questionable dossier paid for by the Hillary-DNC team. That is bad at minimum and worse when the group that prepared it had employees closely tied to the FBI-DOJ. Then you have Comey, which at one time or another both parties hated and it is abundantly clear that he is corrupt or incompetent to the core.

    I’m not much of a Republican sympathizer but if it takes siding with them for a bit to get the trash cleaned out of DC, then fine with me. This corruption should worry even American. If it gets spent under the rug, the Trump team will by spying on Oprah when her team is transitioning :-).

    I can’t say that I agree with Trump on much, corporate tax cuts were good, but it seems that whether or not he knew what he was talking about the draining the swamp has proven to be a excellent idea.

    1. Trump IS the Swamp.

      Just last year Congress voted 530-5 to impose harsh sanctions on Russia. Trump refused to implement them because he is swimming in Russian piss and mob money.

      1. Whether Trump is doing anything intentionally or not is up for debate, but from a libertarian perspective, not imposing sanctions is a very good thing

    2. “he evidence that the Hillary investigation was doctored is not as compelling”

      FAR MORE compelling actually.

      ABSOLUTE actually.

      1. Full immunity from her multiple committed national security felonies is pretty doctored… just not in the way you’re thinking.

  13. Trump is mendacious and unprincipled, the sort of man who would say anything for political gain.

    IOW, no different than any other politician.

  14. Trump is mendacious and unprincipled, the sort of man who would say anything for political gain.

    THERE GOES REASON SUCKING DEMS COCK AGAIN!

    1. It’s cute that you think this is proving me wrong.

      1. You’re a worthless TEAM RED! partisan hack with hack talking points.

  15. I’m pretty sure it’s the blatant treason that is undermining the “faith” in the FBI. Trump really has nothing to do with it.

  16. Trump is having a psychotic episode on live TV.

    1. He does that. Can we get back to our un-elected Federal officials blatantly attempting to rig a Presidential Election?

      If you want to autistic screech about Trump head over to CNN.

      1. It’s almost gotten feeble how Republicans and their apologists simply turn the truth backward without even any attempt at finesse.

        Russians attempted and succeeded at rigging the election. So the talking point, serving only to protect Trump the worst president of all time past and future (the guy you’re defending), is that, no the FBI did that! Except incompetently! Comey bringing the emails back up 11 days before the election meant to help Hillary, you see!

        1. You aren’t even trying anymore.

          1. UGH. That was MY point. And you just made it again.

            Reality says something.

            Republicans and their apologists: Nuh-uh it’s opposite day!

        2. “”Russians attempted and succeeded at rigging the election.””

          How did they rig the election again? Getting facebook to publish some BS memes, isn’t election rigging.

          1. Yes it is. At least that’s manifestly what their motive was. Just because the interference is propaganda-based and it’s cheap doesn’t mean it’s not effective.

            1. And how is it different from the mrdia riggong elections?

            2. “”Just because the interference is propaganda-based and it’s cheap doesn’t mean it’s not effective.””

              You said rigging, not interference. You still haven’t answered how the election was rigged. I’m certain you can’t, because it wasn’t. You can’t even prove that the BS memes were more accepted in states where Trump won vs states he lost.

        3. Russians attempted and succeeded at rigging the election.

          The Russians didn’t rig shit. You’re just pissed off that The Most Qualified Candidate Ever got beat by a real-estate huckster, and you’re flailing in the throes of denial because of your deluded belief that your political views are holy writ.

          Real life isn’t like your favorite teevee shows, princess. You can either learn to live with that, or go back to guzzling anti-anxiety meds by the bucketload and whining about the unfairness of it all to your therapist. Or better yet, show us you really mean business and set yourself on fire. That will really show Droomphaloompa!

        4. Russians attempted and succeeded at rigging the election

          Did Mexico’s president Nieto’s comparing Trump to Hitler and Mussolini qualify as a foreign government attempting to influence our election?

          How about the several other leaders of nations who didn’t hesitate to criticize Trump before the election?

          I guess I think the more criticism that’s thrown around the better. People that are in our government or trying to get into our government are going to do everything they can to control the message.

          We need everybody to make sure that happens, and if it comes from outside our country, they are doing us a favor.

  17. We have a president who seems to have no understanding of the professional ethos of the Justice Department…

    We also have a Justice Department that seems to have no understanding of the professional ethos of the Justice Department.

    1. What would it take for you to consider the FBI investigation to be legitimate?

      I mean besides the target having a (D) after her name.

      1. Nothing I said refers to a specific investigation, but a statement on the Justice Department as a whole.

        1. Apropos of nothing, of course.

          1. Nothing but the original quote.

            1. Go easy on him, Tony is special. Like the Olympics.

              1. So whether he wins or loses, he’s still a retard?

      2. What would it take for you to consider the FBI investigation to be legitimate?

        Actual criminal charges would be a really good start.

        Charging someone for lying to the FBI is a joke unless the person lying is under oath.

  18. I am very worried that this memo has undermined American trust in large, secretive, abusive, politically-motivated, unaccountable federal agencies.

    1. Onion?

  19. I sure glad that the FBI is an isolated case. Can you imagine if the IRS was up to political dealings?

  20. The economy is a highly complex system, too big and too complicated to leave up to simplistic notions like markets. Therefore, we need government. Now, planning the economy is a daunting task, with many unknowns, and unforseen consequences. However, we do know this:

    1. Government spending is good, because that’s the Spending of the People, and if it was bad spending, why would they be doing it?
    2. Deficits and debt are good, because a healthy economy can carry a healthy deficit. And, deficit spending grows the economy.
    3. Tax cuts are bad because taxes are the Taxes of the People, and they increase the deficit, and we all know how bad debt is.
    4. The stock market crash of 2008 was caused by a the repeal of Glass-Steagal, and unless we want a painful reminder of that, we should enact Glass-Steagal, and deficit spend, to save our pensions and retirement plans.
    5. The stock market bubble of the Drumpft is just fat-cat Wall Street billionaires getting rich by exploiting laborers, ultimately leading to a crash that may whipe us all off the map.

    Please, Mueller: stop the terror that is Drumpft.

    1. Still waiting for the /Sarc after your comment, but it’s not there.

      Jesus, where does one begin with this level of ignorance?

      I work for a semiconductor company. There is no way for any one employee to know everything about this complex business. But a small cabal of bureaucrats are supposed to know enough about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of businesses to control them effectively? Uh huh.

      And, no, spending our tax dollars does not stimulate the economy effectively, because the money 1) has to be taken out of the economy and simply moved around and 2) It goes where there is a potential political gain for whomever is in power.

      Central government control of the economy eventually leads to Venezuela, with its price controls that cause empty shelves, because they don’t allow businesses to charge what it really costs them to bring their products to market. You can see that in plain view with California’s rent control causing rental housing shortages and SURPRISE, either higher housing costs or ratty apartments from landlords letting them rot.

  21. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  22. i think that the good critics…dominoqiu
    qiu qiu online
    but i think that the best…

  23. This is silly.

    Republicans will still favor authoritarian law enforcement, especially when directed toward non-white people.

    Right-wingers always develop a brief but vivid libertarian streak, however, when a prominent Republican — Scooter Libby, Paul Manafort, Joe Arpaio, Donald Trump, Rick Scott — gets caught.

    Carry on, clingers. More faux libertarianism, please. Right-wingers look so adorable in unconvincing libertarian drag.

    1. My estimate is that 80% of all diverse populations want to be ruled by something. Whether it’s god or government, it doesn’t really make much difference in terms of outcomes.

      Good old team spirit probably accounts for why they split into camps with roughly 40% each of the population.

      The remaining 20% can be broken down as well. I’m in the “I don’t want to be a leader and I don’t want to be a follower” camp. I have no idea how many others fit in that camp. Ideally it’s just me, because I don’t want any followers 🙂

  24. If juries are on the alert to disbelieve uncorroborated testimony from FBI agents, or HSI or DEA or ATF or IRS or . . . agents, that would be wonderful for the protection of criminal defendants. If only it were true.

    Oh yeah, juries also need to be on the alert to doubt testimony from any other law enforcement agencies. Nearly all law enforcement agents/cops have an agenda as testifying witnesses: get the conviction. They have been trained that it is okay for them to lie during investigations, but it is a crime to lie to them. Many forget that sometimes they are supposed to tell the truth.

    And when you have a badge and a gun, most people look like suspects.

  25. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here……. Clik This Link inYour Browser

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  26. This is sad, trust is everything for law enforcement. If people don’t trust law enforcement when it comes to trials, what will hey do?

  27. I see what you mean… Jesse `s postlng is neat… on monday I bought a top of the range Jaguar E-type after I been earnin $7477 this-last/4 weeks and-even more than, 10-k last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable job Ive had . I started this seven months/ago and right away was making more than $73 per-hr . go right here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.