Migrant Caravan Spooks Trump and Threatens Trade, SCOTUS Protects Trigger-Happy Cops (Again), Iranians Love Fake McDonalds: Reason Roundup

Plus: Market doesn't react well to looming trade war and bikini-barista suit explores meaning of "anal cleft."

|

STRINGER/REUTERS/Newscom

Migrants marching toward U.S. border want asylum. A group of Central American migrants marching toward the U.S.-Mexico border has presented the perfect fodder for President Trump's warnings about border security and alt-right fears about hordes of invading brown people. On Tuesday morning, the president warned on Twitter that a "caravan of people from Honduras" was "heading to our 'Weak Laws' Border" and "Congress MUST ACT NOW!"

A few details about the migrant "caravan":

  • It was organized by immigration advocacy group Pueblo Sin Fronteras.
  • The journey began near the Guatemalan border on March 25 and will span some 2,000 miles by the time they reach the U.S. border, the stated destination.
  • The group says members will be applying for asylum.

Without directly mentioning the migrant situation, Mexico Interior Minister Alfonso Navarrete tweeted on Monday that he had spoken to Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Homeland Security secretary, and they had "agreed to analyze the best ways to attend to the flows of migrants in accordance with the laws of each country."

What does this have to do with trade? From Reuters:

Mexico must walk a delicate line with the United States as the countries are in the midst of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) along with Canada. At the same time, Mexican left-wing presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has an 18-point lead ahead of the July 1 election, according to a poll published on Monday. A Lopez Obrador victory could usher in a Mexican government less accommodating toward the United States on both trade and immigration issues.

Trump—who mentioned NAFTA in his Tuesday morning tweet—has been calling on Mexican authorities to stop the Central American group before they reach the U.S. border. But if the Central Americans entered Mexico legally, they are generally allowed to go around the country at will and Mexican authorities can't legally stop them. The Mexican Senate's Human Rights Commission Chair is urging the country to protect the migrants' rights.

Many of the migrants are from Honduras, "which which has high levels of violence and has been rocked by political upheaval in recent months following the re-election of U.S.-backed president, Juan Orlando Hernández in an intensely disputed election," reports Reuters.

Maria Elena Colindres Ortega, a member of caravan and, until January, a member of Congress in Honduras, said she is fleeing the political upheaval at home. "We've had to live through fraudulent electoral process," she said. "We're suffering a progressive militarization and lack of institutions, and … they're criminalizing those who protested."

A border patrol chief in the Rio Grande Valley told the news agency they weren't worried: "Not to be flippant, but it's similar numbers to what we are seeing every day pretty much."

SCOTUS WATCH

A Monday Supreme Court ruling shields an Arizona cop from being sued by a woman he shot (reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision). Police were called to the scene because a woman was allegedly hacking at a tree with a knife. When they arrived, they found Amy Hughes in her front yard with her roommate. She was holding a kitchen knife. All three officers drew their guns. When Hughes was ordered to drop the knife and didn't, one of the officers filed multiple shots at her.

Hughes lived, and sued for $150,000 in damages. "The court's decision came without ordering full briefing or argument, a rare step indicating that the majority thought the case easy to decide," notes NPR. The court's (short, unsigned) opinion said it wasn't even clear that the officer was guilty of excessive force, but even if he was he couldn't be held liable in civil court because he has qualified immunity, since shooting Hughes didn't violate "any clearly established statutory or constitutional right" that "a reasonable person could have known" about.

"Evidently, the right not to be gunned down by the police is not nearly specific enough for the Court to take notice," Above the Law Executive Editor Elie Mystal writes.

We can't hold cops accountable for their actions, because right now it is perfectly legal for cops to shoot you for any reason or no reason at all. Prosecutors aren't willing to stop them, judges aren't willing to stop them, and politicians are certainly not willing to stop them. The Supreme Court… they don't even want to HEAR it. They don't even want to argue about it anymore. If a cop shoots you, the Supreme presumption is that you deserved it — and even if you didn't, your life is not protected by "clearly established law."

I don't know what set of facts could convince the current Court to break qualified immunity, the majority doesn't even seem to be intellectually curious about the facts. They're more worried about the keeping state actors free from civil liability than they are about stopping the killings and brutality.

Judge Sotomayor did write a dissent, signed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warning that the majority decision sent the message that cops can "shoot first and think later."

FREE MARKETS

How bootleg fast food conquered Iran (Mash Donalds, anyone?). "Forty years ago, opening KFC franchise in Tehran was a sign of progress. Today, it's against the law," reports Atlas Obscura. But even after religious clerics took control, "most Iranians maintained an appreciation for Western culture, whether that meant banned literature or McDonald's-style burgers. If there was one thing the government couldn't suppress, it was taste. "

These days, knock off fast food franchises bearing similar names—Pizza Hot, Mash Donalds, Sheak Shack, Kentucky House—and logos, and menus (to an extent) of American fast-food counterparts are popular.

In the end, the restaurant owners play a balancing act: imitating Western chains enough to draw Iranians who want to try those brands, but not so closely that the government accuses them of corrupting and Westernizing the country.

QUICK HITS

  • President Trump "joined his personal attorney on Monday in asking a federal judge to order into arbitration a lawsuit" filed by Stormy Daniels, "a move that would put the proceedings behind closed doors rather than in front of a jury."
  • Immigration judges now have case quotas.
  • The stock market is not reacting well to a looming U.S.-Chinese trade war.
  • The Washington city of Everett argues that "anal cleft" is easy to define in an appeal on a federal injunction to block the city's attempted dress code for bikini baristas.
  • Reality Winner, who leaked national Security Agency docs to the media in 2017, is looking forward to subpoenaing documents from the CIA, Homeland Security, and security firms targeted by Russian hackers.
  • The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from anti-abortion activists over a ban on releasing videos they secretly recorded with Planned Parenthood officials and other abortion providers in 2014 and 2015.
  • "A case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court threatens to [allow] worldwide damages for infringement of U.S. patents," warn the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the R Street Institute.

NEXT: Judge Sykes on Justice Gorsuch

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. You had one job, Elizabeth.

    1. Alt-text?

  2. …a move that would put the proceedings behind closed doors rather than in front of a jury.

    Hush money doesn’t mean what it used to.

  3. Immigration judges now have case quotas.

    The conveyor belt of justice just picked up speed.

  4. The stock market is not reacting well to a looming U.S.-Chinese trade war.

    Since when do Americans let the market decide anything’s worth?

  5. The Washington city of Everett argues that “anal cleft” is easy to define…

    They’ve pored over hundreds of photographic evidence to hone their skills.

    1. It may be easy to define, but I don’t think it means what they think it does. The term they were looking for is “intergluteal cleft”. “Anal cleft” would be something very few people want to see in public.

  6. the majority decision sent the message that cops can “shoot first and think later.”\

    More like a confirmation of what we already know.

    1. I really had to give Sotomayer and RBG some credit for their dissent. Disappointing that they were the only two.

      1. Sotomayer’s dissent was solid. Broken clock, something something.

        1. She seems to be right on quite a bit more than expected.

          1. When it comes to police, I agree. When it comes to the entirety of the First and Second Amendment, not so much.

            1. Most of the Supremes come from a privileged background and probably never had to deal with a cop before. Sotomayor is the only one that comes from a poor background, I believe. Because of this, she has been excellent on police and 4th Amendment issues.

              This case shows that the whole concept of a Supreme Court is ridiculous. 9 people, many frankly not that bright, deciding things for 300 million? Absolutely preposterous.

              1. Most of the justices, actually do not come from privileged backgrounds. Thomas grew-up poorer than Sotomayor in the segregated South. Alito and Scalia were both the children of immigrants and grew-up in ethnic ghettos.

                Sotomayor’s opinions are not that different from Scalia’s positions regarding the 4th Amendment. But, I think you are right that she has taken positions that the other justices have merely flirted with. I’m not sure if that is due to her background or her political persuasion, though.

        2. She was on the right side of Citizens United too. She has been surprisingly not-awful compared to other recent appointees Kagan and Alito and Roberts.

  7. Reality Winner-

    Stop right there.

  8. So are links just not a thing anymore?

    1. Yes, this is what there is now.

    2. And don’t come around looking for satisfaction in the evening either. They got nuthin.

    3. Are you not entertained?

  9. The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from anti-abortion activists over a ban on releasing videos they secretly recorded with Planned Parenthood officials and other abortion providers in 2014 and 2015.

    Luckily the courts ruled that the First Amendment is not yet viable and available for termination.

    1. As Michael Hihn has explained several times, occasionally rights come into conflict with each other and it’s up to the judiciary to draw boundaries. I’m glad that in this case, the fundamental Constitutional right to access abortion care seems to have prevailed over so-called “undercover journalism.”

      1. If I am talking to you, I give up my right to keep what I am saying private. This is a basic law of privilege. For example, if I go blab to someone what I told my attorney, I have waived my attorney-client privilege and cannot assert it when that person tells someone else or if I am subpoenaed and asked about what I said.

        There is no conflict of rights here. Those people said what they said and they have no right to demand the other party keep their conversation secret. It is funny as hell to watch you retards swear up and down that Trump’s NDA with Stormy Danials is not enforceable but then here claim that Planned Parenthood can get the courts to effectively enforce an NDA where none existed. If Stormy Daniels can tell the world about Trump’s dick in spite of an NDA, then these people can release these videos where there never was an NDA.

        Hihn is a dangerous retard. He is one of the dumbest people on earth. But he makes up for it by being fanatical and having absolutely no morals or principles. Try not to follow his lead even as a troll.

        1. He also keeps quoting Heller out of context.

          1. Guntards be brainwashed robots.

            DENY the NRA was POWERLESS against the Assault Weapons Ban (what it was called) … for ten long years ,.. because the ban has been constitutional since 1939, re-affirmed by Scalia in Heller.– thus it could only be repealed or reach its 10 year expiration,

            Severe is a mental affliction,

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he’s getting that gun ban.

              1. PISSED that I repeatedly prove him full of shit on what’s constitutional.
                What we do is up to the people … which also pisses off the Authoritarian Right.

                What kind of thug stalks me for over a year … logging in for the SOLE PURPOSE of bullying and verbal assault.

                And if’s “whining” if I call him out … which is what Goebbels said about the Jews and gas ovens.

                1. PISSED that I keep repeatedly owning him like Kunta Kinte because he can’t read the documents he links and can’t stand that his own words come back to haunt him.

                  And it’s called “bullying” when I call him out…because he thinks mean words is the equivalent of being sent to a concentration camp and gassed. Guess I’ll just have to keep making him my bitch.

                  1. How fucking stupid is a conservard cyber-bully??? MOAR PROOF!

                    And it’s called “bullying” when I call him out…because he thinks mean words is the equivalent of being sent to a concentration camp and gassed

                    Conservard cyber-bullies ALL repeat the same robotic slogan … DENY that verbal aggression exists ,… thus, cyber-bullying is IMPOSSIBLE

                    Like the progtard pussies, they REFUSE personal accountability for their own actions … SHITTING on “traditional values” Moral parasites.

                    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

                    Verbal Aggressiveness …A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication … Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

                    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.
                    (snort)

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has another strokeout because I owned his ass like Kunta Kinte.

        2. You make a good point about the hypocrisy with Stormy Daniels, but we’re also in a post-hypocrisy world so you are probably just wasting your time.

        3. It is futile to use reason to refute an unreasonable troll.

          The troll has no interest in argumentation based upon facts and reason. To others, the refutation is obvious, and usually not very interesting.

          Sadly, it’s probably best to ignore the trolls, or reply very few words that identify the troll as such.

        4. There are no such videos, And anyone but a TOTAL goober would have spotted the bullshit instantly. The scrolling text words were NOT the words we could s0 easily hear. They WANTED to beleeb, thus eager to be brainwashed.

          Because Left – Right = Zero.

        5. Dumbass gets PISSED when I call him out.

          How do YOU say conflicting rights should be resolved — when they are BOTH absolute —as all fundamental rights are?

          Or are YOU the retard on fundamental moral principle? (smirk)

          1. That’s a response to John. That he keeps running from,

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano still can’t specify which rights are in conflict and how they conflict. That’s what he keeps running from.

              1. ONE MORE TIME
                Right to Life.
                When people die. (snort)

                Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

                Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN)
                Per 100,000 population
                5.3 United States
                3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
                1.7 Canada
                1.0 Australia
                0.9 UK

                FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
                FACT: United States had 317 mass shootings from 1999-2013.
                http://www.politifact.com/trut…..ed-states/
                UK = 0.2 mass shootings per year (ZERO school shootings since 1996)
                US = 79.3 mass shootings per year = 39,600% higher in US (Seventeen school shootings this year)
                Is that YOUR “sanctity of life,” conservatrad

                Incon-veeeeeen-yent questions:

                1) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

                2) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                3) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

                (NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)

                Left – Right = Zero

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his gun ban again.

  10. “A case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court threatens to [allow] worldwide damages for infringement of U.S. patents,” warn the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the R Street Institute… arguing against extraterritorial damages.

    We are going to win the patent trade war.

    1. And right after that, we’re going to win the patent troll war. Or lose it. Which it is depends on which side you’re on.

    2. But what about the copyright trade war? Disney’s been winning a string of battles to get copyright extended to “life of the author plus heat death of the universe”, will they ever lose one?

  11. “…most Iranians maintained an appreciation for Western culture, whether that meant banned literature or McDonald’s-style burgers. If there was one thing the government couldn’t suppress, it was taste. “

    Good or bad taste?

    1. How do you say “Bulging Eyes Chicken” in Farsi?

  12. But if the Central Americans entered Mexico legally, they are generally allowed to go around the country at will and Mexican authorities can’t legally stop them.

    So why keep going?

    1. Because if you physically reach the US your asylum claim has a better chance of succeeding?

    2. I was under the impression that Mexico’s immigration laws are rather stringent. Maybe this is being done because the cameras are on them. Nonetheless, if you were given the choice wouldn’t you rather go to the US than Mexico?

      1. According to part of what I copied, they entered Mexico legally. Although I guess it could be an actual question from Ms Brown.

        And sure, I’d rather be in the US than Mexico, but I’m also not interested in forcing bakers to bake me a cake.

        1. They entered Mexico legally for the purpose of transit. If they stay, Mexico will deport them. Mexico is letting them in for the specific purpose of them traveling to the US and overloading the US immigration system. It is, while not a technical act of war, a hostile act on Mexico’s part, akin to harboring criminals from US Justice or counterfeiting US dollars.

          1. Come on, John, be fair here. I agree with the general point that this is dirty pool by Mexico, but it is not a “hostile act” by Mexico. It’s the same shit that they’ve been doing for a while now. They are real tough when it comes to enforcing their own borders, but allow people to pass through if they are just trying to get into the US. It’s wrong, but it’s not different from Mexico’s attitude toward the US in general. This is a country that was part of the non-aligned states during the Cold War. Mexico is not an ‘ally’, but they’re certainly not an ‘adversary’. They are like ‘frenemies’ or something

            1. What if we did something for the specific purpose of screwing up the government of Mexico? In fairness to Mexico, Eric Holder sending guns to Mexican drug gangs so that when they were used in murders Holder would have a stronger argument for gun control was a hostile act on the US part towards Mexico. So we are not without sin here. But, neither are they.

              1. I’m not defending Mexico or its actions, I’m just saying that they are not ‘hostile actors’.

              2. I’m not clear how this is screws up the US government. Our immigration system is a mess because of US policies and politics. If Mexico legalized drug production that would make the WoD harder, but that would the fault of the US for fighting the WoD.

              3. I see somebody didn’t remember the Alamo. Mexico might still be a little touchy on the subject of having half their country stolen by the US.

                1. I see somebody didn’t remember the Alamo. Mexico might still be a little touchy on the subject of having half their country stolen by the US.

                  The Alamo took place during the Texas Revolution, not the Mexican War. Texas wasn’t even annexed to the US until 1845.

                  1. The Alamo took place during the Texas Revolution, not the Mexican War. Texas wasn’t even annexed to the US until 1845.

                    Do you think that Mexicans don’t view Texas as having been taken from them by the US?

            2. Come on, John, be fair here. I agree with the general point that this is dirty pool by Mexico, but it is not a “hostile act” by Mexico. It’s the same shit that they’ve been doing for a while now.

              …which is a hostile act. Start taxing remittances 100% until they cut that shit out. It wouldn’t be an act of war, either.

          2. They entered Mexico legally for the purpose of transit.

            I see.

  13. Migrants marching toward U.S. border want asylum. A group of Central American migrants marching toward the U.S.-Mexico border has presented the perfect fodder for President Trump’s warnings about border security and alt-right fears about hordes of invading brown people.

    Wow, the alt-right is totally despicable aren’t they? Where’s their compassion?

    I say let the migrants in and give them immediate citizenship! #NoBanNoWall

    1. They’re seeking asylum and doing so according to the current laws. I realize the part of your brain that deals with sympathy and compaasion is damaged or maybe you’d have made the effort understand the situation a little better before playing your worn out game.

      1. So you’re dumb enough to fall for obvious troll. I guess that explains why you didn’t understand my question.

        1. Oh shit, it’s getting lit!

      2. sympathy and compaasion

        Easy to be sympathetic and compassionate when you don’t have to live in the shitty barrios they create.

        1. That’s nonsense. Barrios have some solid food. I’d rather a Mexican ethnic ghetto than the generic yuppies that now populate most major cities

          1. Exactly! The high rate of violent crime and rampant racism in these ghettos is nothing compared to the enrichment they provide our society through selling Americanized food!

          2. Not surprising that the go-to response in these cases is always “MUH ETHNIC FOOD”.

            The reality is that you don’t need a trash-strewn barrio to get decent Tex-Mex. We have the recipes now.

            I’d rather a Mexican ethnic ghetto than the generic yuppies that now populate most major cities

            Oh, bullshit. If that was the case, you’d be living there already.

            1. My response is not “muh ethnic food” nor am I making some tired plea for ‘diversity’. I am saying that the dismissive attitude toward ethnic ghettos is moronic. If you visit any ethnic ghetto or grew-up in one, such as me, you will see that they are not black holes of crime. Most of them are family-oriented communities. You can take issue with illegal immigration, but it is another thing to have animus toward immigrants.

              1. ^this

              2. My response is not “muh ethnic food” nor am I making some tired plea for ‘diversity’.
                That’s nonsense. Barrios have some solid food.

                Come on.

                If you visit any ethnic ghetto or grew-up in one, such as me, you will see that they are not black holes of crime.

                My dad’s family is Mexican and lived in a barrio. I saw first-hand what trash-heaps they are–and yes, their neighborhood was a black hole of crime.

                Most of them are family-oriented communities

                Sure, the daughters typically start getting molested after their quinceneara.

          3. I agree. Let’s do a one-for-one swap with our southern neighbors and deport every woody woodpecker haircut wearing, skinny jeans sporting, pretend lumberjack to Mexico where they don’t have to battle the evil second amendment.

    2. Someone getting asylum is authorized to get full welfare benefits.

      So all American taxpayers will get the bill.

  14. “The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from anti-abortion activists over a ban on releasing videos they secretly recorded with Planned Parenthood officials and other abortion providers in 2014 and 2015.”

    Free speech is good, but not if they besmirch the God of Planned Parenthood with truth.

    1. Holding my breath for a right up about how this is an affront to free speech, but then I remembered that this is the same publication that makes a “libertarian” *wink* *wink* case for continuing federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

      1. I read in Vox that PP only gets around $500 million annually. I’m a libertarian and I value fiscal restraint, but I have no problem with that amount.

        1. Come on, man. Give it a rest.

        2. Then be a libertarian with your own money and stop stealing from the taxpayers.

    2. I honestly haven’t read anything about the case. Is it an issue of privacy laws? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for ending federal funding for PP, but I could see this as a situation where ends don’t justify the means. If I didn’t consent to being filmed, I wouldn’t want the tapes released either.

      1. And yet we have seen the media cycle obsessed over undercover videos of Cambridge Analytics. It’s not like undercover videos are something unusual that never occur. This is a purely political prosecution and it doesn’t make so called ‘free speech defenders’ look all that great when they balk at defending the pro-life activists.

        1. I dunno. I try to look at a situation as being right or wrong independent of the surrounding political discourse or the ensuing ramifications; that slips towards moral relativism. I don’t think people should be allowed to publicly disseminate secret video from private settings. It would set a bad precedent that would surely be taking advantage of by government authority.

          1. That’s a fair position, but wouldn’t you, at least, want such a law to be applied equally? Because clearly it is not being equally enforced in this scenario.

            1. Consider animal right stings that occur regularly in California and are released to the public. California has never tried to silence their videos. I find it exceptionally strange that people who once argued for the legalization of gay marriage under the notion that the government should treat all unions equally are perfectly fine with the government treating speech unequally. Marriage isn’t even a natural right

              1. Animal rights activists are the worst. I don’t typically like to slander groups of people collectively, but for them I’ll make an exception.

              2. Was there not a court ruling in the past couple months that state laws against identity fraud for animal rights activists gaining access to farms and ranches?

                We are getting very situational interpretations of the law. It is a sign of a corrupt judiciary.

            2. Oh yeah, I definitely agree it should be applied uniformly. But, have to stick by my principles regardless.

  15. The court’s (short, unsigned) opinion said it wasn’t even clear that the officer was guilty of excessive force, but even if he was he couldn’t be held liable in civil court because he has qualified immunity, since shooting Hughes didn’t violate “any clearly established statutory or constitutional right” that “a reasonable person could have known” about.

    Clearly established constitutional rights are suddenly a thing to be concerned with? Does that mean the enumerated ones are inviolable now?

    1. As an appeals court SCOTUS is more concerned with procedure than with the facts of a case. The Court is not supposed to be responsive to bloody shirt appeals.

  16. A group of Central American migrants marching toward the U.S.-Mexico border has presented the perfect fodder for President Trump’s warnings about border security and alt-right fears about hordes of invading brown people.

    I agree with the author. This has all the makings of a false flag operation by the Trump Administration.

    Why doesn’t Mexico accommodate them? Is the only reason Mexico opened its southern border because it knew these immigrants were just passing through?

  17. “A border patrol chief in the Rio Grande Valley told the news agency they weren’t worried: “Not to be flippant, but it’s similar numbers to what we are seeing every day pretty much.”

    My understanding is that this is an annual protest. They’ve been doing this every year for years.

    One more try . . .

    The morning Trump tweeted his outrage against Amazon, threatening them with taxes and accusing them of ripping off the Post Office, Amazon’s stock rose 1.1%. Investors don’t seem to have paid much attention to Trump’s tweets at all.

    Moral of the story?

    Things don’t become important because Trump tweets about them. To believe otherwise is to make an ass of you, not me.

    1. Actually, Trump tweeted about Amazon the other day, this morning he tweeted that the Post Office’s denial that they lose money on every Amazon package was wrong, because he knows. For some reason Trump didn’t supply a citation or a source for his knowledge, but I’m pretty sure we all know his source. And one article with the term “anal cleft” is enough.

  18. Pure speculation here:

    Andrew McCabe raised $554,520 for his legal defense fund on gofundme.

    http://www.gofundme.com/andrew…..efensefund

    Does this tell us something about the likely content of the Justice Department Inspector General’s report before it comes out? Does it recommend criminal charges?

    1. It tells us that there are an astoundingly large amount of people that are gullible.

      1. Or, it may show that quite a few people who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome put the money where their mouths are.

    2. He knows he’s been selected by the cabal to be the fall guy and therefore he’s royally fucked. He’s going to go down in history as the Negro Nixon’s G. Gordon Liddy.

    3. Maybe it is that. Or maybe McCabe is just a crook and is just going to pocket the money. Remember, there are no regulations of go fund me accounts. It is buyer be ware. So if he is never charged and just keeps the money, there is nothing any of the rubes who gave him the cash can do about it. I give it better than 50 50 that is what happens. It is just McCabe ripping off the rubes or laundering some bribe from someone for keeping his mouth shut. The guy is pure scum.

      1. George Soros just has a lot of employees.

      2. I think McCabe should partner up with the Clinton foundation and make some real money.

  19. It’s always wonderful when the Weigeloids are all off “working” on some Journolistic assignment. It’s like a super early weekend.

    1. So Citizen X and Crusty aren’t the same person after all?

      1. No, no, we’re both Weigel’s minions, working hard as part of a vast Journolistic conspiracy to call Mikey names on the internet.

  20. “Migrants marching toward U.S. border want asylum.”

    Asylum from what? Was there a war down there I didn’t here about? Or asylum from the consequences of their own shitty voting habits?

    1. Many of the migrants are from Honduras, “which has high levels of violence and has been rocked by political upheaval in recent months following the re-election of U.S.-backed president, Juan Orlando Hern?ndez in an intensely disputed election,”

      It’s them goddamn Russians interfering in their elections they want asylum from.

      1. It’s them goddamn Russians interfering in their elections they want asylum from.

        Me too,.

    2. “Hmmm…says here you went through a third country (Mexico) before applying for asylum. Denied.”

      1. Or is the Mexican government going to set an example of Compassion and Generosity?

    3. Asylum from what?

      An oppressive regime. Lawlessness. Hundreds of random murders. Ever read or watch any news (beyond Fox/Breitbart/Infowars)?

      Was there a war down there I didn’t here about?

      Learn what asylum has meant for nearly a cedtury now,.

      Or asylum from the consequences of their own shitty voting habits?

      Trump has never been on their ballot.

      1. An oppressive regime. Lawlessness. Hundreds of random murders.

        I’ve got a novel idea: Why don’t we grant the American public asylum from the people who made this mess and come from a culture of oppression, lawlessness and rampant random murder?

        1. Repeat: Learn what asylum has meant for neatly a century now.

          What you propose must be labeled something else, since it’s the exact opposite if asylum.

  21. Reality Winner, who leaked national Security Agency docs to the media in 2017, is looking forward to subpoenaing documents from the CIA, Homeland Security, and security firms targeted by Russian hackers.

    I hope Reality Winner is also looking forward to receiving a bunch of paper that is nothing but black redaction lines.

  22. The stock market is not reacting well to a looming U.S.-Chinese trade war.

    But it’s going to be so easy to win!

    1. If China gets its way about buying oil in yuan rather than USD, you’ll see a yuge drop in the number of dollars we’re exporting. That’s a win, isn’t it?

      1. China owns enough of our debt to totally destroy our economy. And because their government has a multi-trillion-dollars in net assets, they could burn their entire US portfolio, still have a surplus and no trade competitors.

        While we have a reckless retard in the White House.

  23. Zombie raccoons!

    This is how the end begins, y’all.

    1. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources said it doesn’t sound like rabies, but rather a disease called distemper.

      If only there had been a way to be sure.

  24. So Libertarian candidate Justin Jones for Arkansas house made the news. By calling fags (his word choice) disgusting and claiming that “HIV is created by homosexuality”.

    1. Nothing says “view people as individuals” quite like smearing an entire group of people based upon their sexual preferences or religious beliefs (I’m looking at you Gary Johnson).

      1. Gary Johnson says you’re full of shit,
        Again.

        Especially when compared with the fascist Paulistas.

        1. GayJay doesn’t say much of anything, because he’s usually too stoned. Aleppo? What’s Aleppo?

          Bueller? Bueller?

          1. How many things — far more common — is Trump sp totally stupid on … almost every fucking day?
            That was also childish.

            1. How many things — far more common — is Trump sp totally stupid on … almost every fucking day?

              Far less than you, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano says “prove it,” gets his own posts jammed up his ass.

      2. If it’s just a preference, it shouldn’t be a big deal at all when someone finds it disgusting, right? I mean, if you find smoking disgusting, are you a bad person for voicing it? Are libertarians opposed to it? What about broccoli? Thai food? Pond scum? Politicians?

        There’s nothing for a libertarian to condemn in what the guy said, if we take at face value the claim that “homosexuality” is a “preference”. If anything, wouldn’t we expect that heterosexual people would be disgusted by it, because if not, they wouldn’t be heterosexual?

        1. Bigots always have some bullshit justification.

          And the “logic” of a 3 year old child

          1. Is that why you lie constantly?

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano says “prove it,” gets his own posts jammed up his ass.

    2. Meh. To be fair, degeneracy is disgusting to most people, and although HIV isn’t “created” by homosexuality, we can observe that it seems to have a startling connection to male homosexuals…

      ~67% of people with HIV in the US are men engaging in sex with other men.
      ~63% of new HIV cases are homosexual men.
      ~82% of all men who have HIV engage in sex with other men.

      An additional 3% can be attributed to men having sex with men and doing drugs, with a further 3% being attributed to drug use.

      Homosexual men make up less than 2% of the population. Roughly 15% male homosexuals in the US have HIV

      Pretty disgusting, when you think about it.

  25. LOVE your quick hit summaries, Elizabeth.

    But this will get the Trumptards scurrying like cockroaches again, hate-spewing psychos defending their Puppetmaster.
    Dutiful bots.

    1. You are a dangerous moron but make up for it by being fanatical and ignorant.

      1. But this will get the Trumptards scurrying like cockroaches again,

        You are a dangerous moron but make up for it by being fanatical and ignorant.

        Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

        ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

        psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
        (The Authoritarian Left AND The Authoritarian Right)

        Left – Right = Zero

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.