White House Days Numbered for H.R. McMaster, Stormy Splits GOP and Democrats, 'Gang Injunctions' Are Bad for Liberty: A.M. Links

|

  • EDUARDO MUNOZ/REUTERS/Newscom

    Belief in Stormy Daniels' affair with Donald Trump, and assessments of the morality of it, comes down to strongly partisan lines.

  • National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is allegedly on his way out.
  • A federal judge put a temporary halt to Los Angeles police enforcing civil court orders known as gang injunctions, finding they "impose significant restrictions on plaintiffs' liberty" and are likely unconstitutional.
  • Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want another special prosecutor appointed, this one to look into how the FBI handled its probe into possible Russia election meddling before the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.
  • Fired New York City Metropolitan Opera director is suing over his firing for alleged sexual misconduct. "Cynically hijacking the good will of the #MeToo movement," the Met general manager Peter Gelb "brazenly seized on these allegations as a pretext to end a longstanding personal campaign to force Levine out of the Met," claims his lawsuit.
  • Here are Americans' favorite sex toys by state.
  • Don't embalm your brain.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Three Heroes at My Lai

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. Here are Americans’ favorite sex toys by state.

    Don’t ever change, ENB!

    1. Hello.

      God, what a stupid story this one about the porn actress is.

    2. Ha, or Daily Mail, come to think of it.

      1. It’s the greatest news outlet in the universe.

        1. Gonna asterisk out the word “cock” right under a big photo of a bunch of rubber ones.

          1. Those are silicone. Your misunderstanding of dildo material is embarrassing.

            1. I’d bow before your superior knowledge, but i’m afraid of what might happen while i’m bent over.

              1. You will learn a lot about yourself and the world.

          2. Gonna asterisk out the word “cock” right under a big photo of a bunch of rubber ones.

            Also, word on the street is that if you just say ‘C-ring’ everybody that needs to know exactly what you’re talking about, knows exactly what you’re talking about.

  2. Belief in Stormy Daniels’ affair with Donald Trump, and assesments of the morality of it, comes down to strongly partisan lines.

    Where does one fall if he doesn’t care one way or the other?

    1. I am shocked, stunned, surprised, flummoxed and flabbergasted that opinions break down on partisan lines. Next you’ll be telling me that the feminists who said that Bill Clinton’s groping of women and exposing of himself was a “private matter having no bearing on his public duties” now consider Trump’s engaging in similar conduct to be an impeachable offense!

  3. Don’t embalm your brain.

    And don’t put salt in your eyes

    1. I stick to pickling my liver.

  4. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is allegedly on his way out.

    Hey, we all knew the president’s catchphrase going in.

  5. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is allegedly on his way out.

    H.R. Pufnstuf, however, is on his way back in.

    1. I want nothing to do with that freakshow. It was before my time but in reruns it terrified me. Goddamn hippies.

      1. What ya’ gonna do when things get ruff?

        1. Call the Bugaloos

    2. *Innocent millenial googles “H.R. Pufnstuf”

      HOLY MUTHERFUCK WHAT THE HELL IS THAT NIGHTMARE

      1. The late ’60s had some really good drugs.

      2. I never saw the show myself, but some how dreamed it every night of my youth.

      3. Check out the other Krofft shows.

    3. Witchy-poo is still out there, plotting.

  6. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want another special prosecutor appointed, this one to look into how the FBI handled its probe into possible Russia election meddling before the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

    This is going to result in Paul Manafort being indicted a few more times, isnt it?

    1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    2. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  7. Big Strap-On Owns New York!

    My goodness.

    1. And Cali.

      1. It’s no surprise the coastal elites like to take it in the brown.

        1. They do it to each other and then there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with doing it to the rest of us.

        2. Wtf they are the only two states to lead with strap ons. What does this mean? Highest lesbian populations maybe?

    2. “Alaskans like buttplugs”

      This’ll only encourage him more.

    3. I can only assume that Chicago needs more common sense dildo control (probably NSFW).

  8. A federal judge put a temporary halt to Los Angeles police enforcing civil court orders known as gang injunctions, finding they “impose significant restrictions on plaintiffs’ liberty” and are likely unconstitutional.

    And one annoying cop won’t stop saying they’re going after these guys gangham style.

    1. How can a court hold unconstitutional an injunction issued by another court whose judgments it lacks authority to reverse?

  9. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is allegedly on his way out.

    Huff and puff and blow the white house down and stuff.

  10. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want another special prosecutor appointed…

    Next up: Senate Rules Committee demands a special prosecutor to look into how the Judiciary Committee came up with its demand for a special prosecutor.

  11. Belief in Stormy Daniels’ affair with Donald Trump, and assesments of the morality of it, comes down to strongly partisan lines.

    tempest in a tea party

    1. Not if she was threatened with physical harm. That would be a game changer, even for all of the flyover analphabets who voted for the guy who just loves bankruptcy, infidelity, litigation, paramours, prevarication, and stiffing the little guy.

      1. If she was and it could be directly attributed to Trump, it would. I seriously doubt however that is the case. I can’t see why Trump would have a reason to threaten her when he could just pay her off. And if he did, he could have easily done it in a way that could never be proven or attributed to him if it was. So, I imagine both sides will continue to believe what the want to believe about this and it ends up falling out of view at some point.

        1. While getting ready this morning, I watched Mika’s questions of Daniels’ attorney the bona fides of whom Jonathan Turley later vouched.

          Apparently Daniels’ lawyer was a student of Turley’s and the latter is familiar with his work / character. Not that it proves anything – I agree.

        2. Daniels is trying to make as much money and get as much fame for herself as she can.

          You can tell the motivations here. She is a porn star and evidently a prostitute. Normally the lefties would be going after people like her on Backpage and raiding sex trafficking locations by the day.

          Now Daniels is not a liar or scarlet letter whore….because Trump.

  12. Cynically hijacking the good will of the #MeToo movement,” the Met general manager Peter Gelb “brazenly seized on these allegations as a pretext to end a longstanding personal campaign to force Levine out of the Met” claims his lawsuit.

    Yeah, dismounting that tiger sure ain’t as fun as riding it.

    1. Levine hasn’t been physically able to do his job in years. He was kept around as a celebrity who could help fundraising. It was a mutually parasitic relationship, as there is no way the Met didn’t know, everyone knew, but they were happy to look the other way as long as he kept all the stakeholders happy. Takes a lot of gall for one parasite to sue the other. He should be *thanking* them for handing over the keys to the institution to him for so many years.

    2. I was surprised to learn that there’s good will associated with the #MeToo movement. It seems like it’s been mostly about shaming, ill-will, and victimhood one-upmanship against a backdrop of grope-happy and exposure-happy men rather than opening women’s shelters and arresting violent spouses, pimps, and madams to me. Maybe I’m wrong.

    1. I sort of like that the president and all his associates are under interminable investigation. That should be a constant and permanent feature of the presidency from now on.

      1. I’ve thinking the same thing. Every President should get their own special prosecutor. I want these scum fuckers looking over their shoulders.

        1. I want these scum fuckers looking over their shoulders.

          I agree, but only if the president is a member of a Team I do not like.

          1. I agree, but only if the president is a member of a Team I do not like.

            I don’t agree. What’s the man hours to impeachment rate? I need to see ROI. Are we not libertarians?

    2. Trump could start a nuclear war with Russia and Larry Tribe would be in a bomb shelter somewhere explaining how Trump was working for Putin. We are close to war with Russia today than at any time since before Gorbechev. And none of the clowns in the media seem to have noticed.

      1. “Do you want a war” is the Putin propaganda response anytime he’s ever called out for invading other countries, assassinating people with weapons of mass destruction, murdering Syrian civilians, etc. Putin is the proximate cause of all of the problems we have with Russia and there is war it’s on Putin.

        1. I completely agree. But, it would be nice if the media would start reporting on what is actually going on rather than chasing Trump Russia fantasies.

          1. I’m sorry I bit your nose off below. Trump is the main reason there’s even a special prosecutor by the way. Trump has lied his ass off about his personal, campagin and business contacts with Russia for no good reason if he has nothing nefarious to hide. You can’t fault people for suspecting something is rotten.

            1. Trump worked for the Russians and is in their pocket so much he is standing up to them all over the world in contrast to Obama who told them “hey I will have more flexibility after I am re-elected” and rolled over to them at every possible opportunity.

              If Obama wasn’t on the Russian payroll, he should have been because he spent 8 years sucking Putin’s cock and letting him get away with murder for free. Obama apparently wasn’t even bright enough to be a proper whore and gave it away for free.

              Meanwhile, Hillary paid a British spy to write a dossier of information collected entirely from Russian agents to use against Trump and turned it over the FBI who then lied about its origins and used it to spy on Trump associates and Trump by extension. But it was Trump who colluded with the Russians. Yeah, that is what happened. Give me a fucking break.

            2. It just will never sink into your brain that Trump ran on helping Americans and that is what he is doing.

              Why would he help the Russians at the expense of Americans? He has not and will not as his 1st year as president has shown.

      2. Trump could start a nuclear war with Russia and Larry Tribe would be in a bomb shelter somewhere explaining how Trump was working for Putin. We are close to war with Russia today than at any time since before Gorbechev. And none of the clowns in the media seem to have noticed.

        Also, if Trump *is* in Putin’s pocket, Putin is really playing the spying/espionage long game. Troll-farm psyops can sew confusion, but you aren’t going to topple anything to lasting effect on that basis alone and an assassination attempt on a intelligence asset in the UK risks UN involvement. If you had one or more UN member states wholly in your pocket, it would be better to assassinate there. Especially, if your psyops troll farm were worth half a damn in said country.

    3. The campaign targeted engineers and technical staff with access to industrial controls, suggesting the hackers were interested in disrupting operations, though FireEye has seen no evidence that they actually took that step, Read said.

      “Cyber attacks” sounds so much cooler than “sending somebody a scam e-mail and hoping they’re dumb enough to fall for it”.

  13. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is allegedly on his way out.

    Whenever these staff changes happen in Drumpf’s regime, it’s a sure bet they were ordered directly by Putin. That’s what happened with Tillerson ? he got his job because Russia wanted him there, then he was forced out when he grew a spine and stood up to his puppet masters.

      1. I appreciate the kind words, but I can’t take too much credit. I just know which political commentators to follow outside of Reason. In this example, Kurt Eichenwald and Laurence Tribe have supplied brilliant analysis of Tillerson’s firing in the context of #TrumpRussia.

  14. http://thehill.com/policy/nati…..rveillance

    The FBI agent who ran the warrantless surveillance program told Comey in 2014 that the program was worthless and did nothing but violate people’s privacy. Yet, Comey did nothing. Here is a program that Obama’s own supporters hated. The head of that program says it wasn’t working. So, why didn’t they kill it? Obama could have been the hero and killed off the ineffective Bush created program that spied on everyone.

    One of the things that struck me about the texts between the FBI agent and his mistress was how casual they were about the plan to spy on Trump. You would think lying to the FISA court to spy on the associates of a major party nominee for President would be a big fucking deal and kind of a big line to cross. It didn’t seem to be. No way was Trump the first person they spied on. They were too casual about doing it to him for it to be the first time. Comey didn’t kill this program because while it may not have been effective for stopping terrorism, it was likely very effective for other purposes.

    1. You’re so fucking dishonest. They never spied on Trump. They had every legal and practical reason to spy on Carter Page because of his active and past associations with Russian spys. And when the warrant on Page was first reported Trump pretended like he didn’t know the guy and was barely and briefly even associated with him but now you and others conflate spying on Page with spying on Trump.

      1. They lied to the FISA court telling them that the Dosier was a product of US intelligence to get the warrant on Page. And yes they were spying on Trump, otherwise, why would the Dosier be relevant to the application? The only reason Page was of any interest was because of his connection to Trump. It is what it is. Lying about it doesn’t change it. I don’t care if you love or hate Trump, that is what happened. You either have the integrity to admit it or you don’t. If you don’t, then you are a dumb ass hack who will rationalize anything so long as it helps your team.

        And Page worked fo the FBI. He was a paid FBI informant. He wasn’t a Russian spy you fucking half wit. And his “association” with Russian spies was the result of his working for the FBI, something they also failed to tell the FISA Court.

        Just stop fucking lying. I am not in the mood.

      2. They had every legal and practical reason to spy on Carter Page because of his active and past associations with Russian spys

        That’s pretty damn dishonest. The Page disclosed his situation, and even worked with the FBI, who cleared him. Then after all of that, he joined the Trump Campaign and they used his past that they had cleared as an excuse to attempt to spy on Trump.

  15. The Swedish CEO Who Runs His Company Like a CrossFit Gym

    Intrigued by our lunch meeting with Bunge, one of us embarked on an ethnographic study of the company which has now lasted for over a year. Since September 2016, Torkild has spent a couple of days a week at the Bj?rn Borg headquarters, attending workshops, meetings, and fitness tests; having lunch with and talking with employees; and participating in sports hours (25 to date). As part of this research, we have learned that team leaders run wall squat competitions with their teams, that staff members measure their physical strength through push-up competitions, and that many break the monotony of work with a game of ping pong. One Friday morning, a male employee walked into the kitchen area, topless, to show that he had achieved his physical target: a six-pack abdomen.

    1. Cults can make for very efficient and hard workers.

    2. Sounds like a boatload of class-action lawsuits waiting to happen.

  16. Don’t embalm your brain.

    It’s not rocket science.

  17. http://www.propublica.org/arti…..in-torture

    Gina Haspel apparently didn’t run a CIA torture program. Oops. Hey, why let the facts get in the way of the narrative and stop anyone from destroying an innocent person’s reputation?

    1. She managed to climb the ranks of the CIA. “Innocent” is maybe not the best descriptor.

      1. She didn’t do this. So she is innocent of this. But why let the truth get in the way of a good slander?

        1. You’re right and this mistake will help her through the nomination process so there was a consequence for the fake news.

          1. Yeah, being called a torturer and having every liberal beta male douchebag on social media make BDSM jokes about you totally helps with your confirmation and is something anyone should want.

            You appear to be a Prog. So, of course, you don’t have a problem with lies and slander.

            1. You appear to be a Prog.

              Label
              Dismiss
              DECLARE VICTORY!

              1. Yeah Crusty, ignore the paragraph above it.

                You really do never get any brighter do you? One of these days I keep thinking you will. But you never do.

            2. No, I’m more of a divided govt guy so I guess that makes me bipolitcal.

    2. Did you actually read your own cite? She wasn’t in charge when Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were water-boarded, she was only in charge when Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was water-boarded. Her only connection to the Abu Zubaydah water-boarding was pushing for the destruction of any evidence of it. So no, she did run a CIA torture program, she just wasn’t running it at the time one particular guy was tortured.

      1. The charge she tortured that guy. And she didn’t.

  18. comes down to strongly partisan lines.

    **Shocked face**

  19. They have butt plugs in Utah?

    1. I think they are called cactuses.

  20. A federal judge put a temporary halt to Los Angeles police enforcing civil court orders known as gang injunctions, finding they “impose significant restrictions on plaintiffs’ liberty” and are likely unconstitutional.

    This is certainly bad news – if any criminal gang deserves restrictions on their liberty it would be the LAPD, and yet here’s some badge-licking law-n-order judge striking down the use of injunctions against them. They really are above the law, aren’t they?

    1. One mustn’t impose on the freedom of cops to do whatever the fuck they want to civilians.

    1. Alabama might turn blue, so no way is Reason going to address corruption in that state now that Jones is Senator.

  21. The Subways Melted Down Real Good Last Night

    On Thursday evening, at the end of a beautiful, sunny day, nearly every line on the New York City subway was delayed during the evening rush because of a cascading series of incidents that virtually paralyzed the system.

    It’s worth it to live in the concrete jungle where dreams are made of.

    1. It’s honestly shocking that the Chinese and Russians don’t screw with us more than they do. Our systems are stunningly vulnerable, especially in densely-packed urban areas.

      Imagine the chaos if a cyber attacker managed to shut off the food stamp loading software for about three months.

      1. At least the NYC subway runs on technology from the 1920s. The Russians ain’t doing anything to it.

    2. I didn’t notice anything. Seemed faster than usual, in fact.

      1. Think hard. We’re you actually walking?

        1. Not unless I recently developed the ability to walk on water.

          1. If you turn out to be Jesus, though, it would explain why Preet thought that “special place in hell” comment constituted a threat.

          2. If the choice is between you walking on water, or the government trains running efficiently, then the choice is harder than you think.

          3. you take the ferry?

  22. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want another special prosecutor appointed

    Just imagine if Oprah was dolling out special prosecutors.

  23. http://pjmedia.com/blog/livebl…..ry-226267/

    So the Obama FBI dropped 500,000 names from the wanted fugitive database on the theory that if you couldn’t prove they had crossed state lines the feds had no authority to keep them on the database. For the first time in history, the Obama people became concerned about the limits of federal power? yeah right.

    The Obama administration wanted these people off of the database and wanted them to escape justice. What other conclusion is there? They actually wanted criminals to go free. That is pretty astounding when you think about it.

    1. They do this all the time in local jurisdictions for municipal warrants. At one time there were some 200,000 active warrants in our city for traffic and failure to appear in a city of 400,000. It’s a statute of limitations thing, a way for the police to redirect resources to more pressing concerns and an acknowledgment that America over criminalizes it’s citizens.

      1. They do it for warrants that are out of date or for minor crimes that occurred so long ago prosecution is impossible. They do not, however, engage in blanket purges of warrants from the system with no regard to the seriousness of the offense or the age of the warrant. That is what Obama did here. He purged every warrant regardless of age or seriousness if there wasn’t proof the person crossed state lines. That means people wanted for murder or any other serious crime got purged from the list. Murder warrants generally don’t get purged.

        Try again.

    2. Repeat After Me: Imagine If A Republican Had Done The Exact Same Thing…

      This Republican would be hailed as a defender of Second Amendment rights and respecting the limits of federal police power concerning criminal matters occurring entirely within a state.

      1. A Republican could at least believably give the reason that they were respecting the commerce clause and the limits of federal power. But last I looked Democrats don’t agree with Republicans on that issue.

        So what is Obama’s reasoning? And if the GOP did it, they would have been morons too. So, how about you stop trolling for a moment and deal with reality as it is? Obama did do it and there is no fucking explanation why he did it and no credible way to explain it other than he just wanted criminals to go free.

        This is why I consider you a troll. It is not that you have different opinions. It is that you refuse to take the facts as they are when it doesn’t match your politics.

        1. It’s just that you’re such an unapologetic hypocrite, John.

        2. Yes we know John. Republicans are good people with good motives. Democrats are bad people with bad motives. It is known.

          And if the GOP did it, they would have been morons too.

          I highly doubt you would have condemned any Republican for doing exactly what Obama did in this instance.

          So what is Obama’s reasoning?

          Gee I don’t know, maybe the stated one is actually the correct one?

          It is that you refuse to take the facts as they are when it doesn’t match your politics.

          Coming from the guy who just threw out a whole boatload of facts and substituted them for his opinion that “Obama intentionally wanted criminals roaming our streets”

      2. This Republican would be hailed as a defender of Second Amendment rights and respecting the limits of federal police power concerning criminal matters occurring entirely within a state.

        Holy Fucking wow! The mere existence 2nd Am. and Republicans is proof of fugitive’s guilt. Jesus Christ! are you even aware you off-handedly validate every bloodthirsty, white supremacist, gun nuts stance when you say shit like this?

        I didn’t much like the implication John was making that people on the list should’ve necessarily remained on the list but… wow… any concern like that takes a back seat to you’re absurdity.

        1. Why? Have these individuals been convicted of anything? My understanding from reading the (very brief) article is that these individuals have outstanding warrants for their arrest, meaning that the state hasn’t yet had the opportunity to prove in a court of law that they are guilty of a crime. Shouldn’t citizens retain all of their rights otherwise? I’m actually serious here. We wouldn’t want revoking a person’s Second Amendment rights to be dependent on a state merely issuing an arrest warrant.

          1. Shouldn’t citizens retain all of their rights otherwise? I’m actually serious here. We wouldn’t want revoking a person’s Second Amendment rights to be dependent on a state merely issuing an arrest warrant.

            First, this isn’t or isn’t exactly what you’ve argued. John states that the Obama administration gave zero consideration or justification as to why these people were dropped from the list. You refute him by figuratively saying, “Because gun rights exist, some people should’ve stayed on the list.” or “Republicans would’ve let gun-owning criminals off the list.” (which is actually agreeing with John). If John’s complaint was that the list was knowingly full of white collar criminals and kid diddlers, the 2A is moot. If John’s point was that the list was full of international arms dealers and school shooters, the 2A is *still* a moot point.

            Second, what do you think an arrest (or other) warrant is? They don’t issue an arrest warrant to hunt you down across state lines and return the gun that you failed to report as lost or stolen and that just happened showed up at a crime scene. As John was trying to indicate, there may be wholly pragmatic and/or legal reasons for dropping people off the list. The Administration didn’t provide any of them and ‘because Republicans’ or ‘because Democrats’ or ‘because 2A’ doesn’t actually clarify things in the least.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.