Reason Roundup

Decoding Trump's Dinesh D'Souza Pardon: Reason Roundup

Plus: trade wars, sex-worker protests, and the "Intellectual Dark Web" down under.


(1) BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS/Newscom (2) William Farrington/Polaris/Newscom (3) SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Pardon power. After issuing a full presidential pardon for conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza yesterday, President Donald Trump indicated his openness to pardoning other famous felons, including homemaking mogul Martha Stewart and former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

D'Souza pleaded guilty in 2014 to a straw-donor scheme designed to benefit New York Republican candidate Wendy Long, who was trying to oust Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. He was sentenced to five years probation, including eight months in a "community confinement center." Upon news of the pardon, D'Souza tweeted that "KARMA IS A BITCH" and lashed out at former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara, who handled his case.

Trump's pardon of D'Souza and suggestion of other pardons "delivered an indirect but unmistakable message to personal attorney Michael Cohen, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and others ensnared in Trump-related investigations that they, too, could be spared punishment in the future," suggests the Washington Post politics team:

D'Souza, Blagojevich and Stewart had been convicted of such crimes as campaign-finance violations or lying to investigators—charges similar to those brought against Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and other Trump associates indicted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's Russia investigation. Cohen, meanwhile, is under investigation by federal prosecutors in New York for possible campaign-finance violations and other possible crimes.

D'Souza marks Trump's six presidential pardon, each issued unilaterally (as opposed to the traditional process which includes ample Justice Department review). Other pardons have included former Dick Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby (charge: perjury and obstruction of justice) and former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio (charge: contempt of a federal court order).

"The handful of pardons that President Trump has granted so far may appear to be scattershot, but they're beginning to show a distinct pattern—not just of who he believes is worthy of mercy, but of how he thinks about the justice system as a whole and about his power to bend it to his will," writes the New York Times editorial board today.

The Times suggests that Trump's pardons could be "a signal of loyalty and reassurance to friends and family members who may soon find themselves facing similar criminal charges," but it also suggests an alternative motive: Trump trying to get back at those he perceives as enemies in federal law enforcement.

Besides Mr. Bharara, there's James Comey, who prosecuted Ms. Stewart, and Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted both Mr. Blagojevich and Mr. Libby, and is a friend of Mr. Comey's.

In any case, they conclude, the message behind the pardons should worry us "more than Mr. Trump clearing the record of some noxious clown." And they cite this tweet:

Still another explanation: Trump just doesn't like seeing his celebrity friends facing the same consequences as us plebes do. "He has a gravitational pull towards [pardoning celebrities] because that is the world he used to exist in—a lot of those folks are people who used to be his friends," Scottie Nell Hughes told The Daily Beast. "However, I believe this is opening a door, and if he doesn't follow through with [more] people who are not well-known, I think that will be extremely disappointing."



For more on Trump's new tariff moves, see Eric Boehm's analysis here. "The trade war that seemed improbable for weeks is now slipping closer to inevitable," he writes. "All sides are still talking to each other and there's faint hope for a last second deal, but that looks increasingly unlikely."

On Thursday, Trump announced that a 25 percent on steel and a 10 percent aluminum tariff would take effect at midnight.

"The tariffs on steel and aluminum," Eric explains, "are being imposed on the administration's vague and unfounded claims that foreign metal somehow undercuts America's national security. The White House is already gearing up to make a similarly laughable argument for tariffs on cars. But how tariffs on European cars and Canadian steel will address the administration's worries about a trade imbalance with China—something that isn't even really a problem—remains completely unclear."


NEXT: Brickbat: Tennessee Two-Step

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump’s pardon of D’Souza…

    1. Your best first yet.

    2. Hello.

      Bee is a Canadian cunt.

      So much for civil discourse they always yap on about.

      Meanwhile, her show got some sort of award. Harvard bestows a medal on a criminal in Hilary.

      I swear.

    3. … is another reason that Trump was the right choice as president.

  2. The president is upset that Comedy Central hasn’t fired show-host Samantha Bee for calling his daughter a “feckless cunt.”

    He doesn’t know it’s TBS?

    1. To be fair, she hasn’t changed her routine from when she was on the Daily Show.

    2. She now works for TDS.

  3. Obama pardoned a Puerto Rican terrorist who had killed a cop and whom Clinton had not let out of prison because he refused to repudiate violence. And Progs cheered or said nothing. Trump pardons a guy who gave a few thousand dollars over the legal limit to a losing Senate campaign and according to Progs, it is the end of fairness and the rule of law.

    1. Partisan politics rule 13. It’s always the end of fairness and rule of law when the other team does it.

      1. Applies for both sides..

        1. Sure. But I’m pretty confident that I say the pardon of Dinesh isn’t the hill to die on, fight for, or send troops to. It’s pretty much just a head shaker and move on.

      2. Even funnier is any convictions coming out of Mueller’s team will have Trump pardon them.

        Another prediction is that the left cannot say shit when Hillary is investigated in the future, since Trump and Republicans let Mueller do ‘his’ investigation for over 16 months.

        1. Another prediction is that the left cannot say shit when Hillary is investigated in the future

          Oh, I’m pretty sure they can and will.

        2. Hillary and the Clinton’s will not be investigated, and even if they are I doubt anything will be found. It’s just not going to happen.

          If nothing else, there are few political families with as much experience as the Clintons at obstructing justice and getting away with it. I expect that experience will continue to serve them well.

    2. Yes we know John. All pardons are totally okay because of Clinton’s one pardon.

      1. The power to pardon is a constitutional enumerated power of the President.

        Either they’re all okay or we discuss how some were a bad use of that power and other were a good use of that power.

        1. A power may be legitimately exercised without it being a proper or wise use of that power.

      2. It was Obama’s pardon. And yes this pardon is right and just

        1. Clinton pardoned Marc Rich who donated $450,000 to the Clinton library. Also pardoned Rodger Clinton and Susan McDougal. Susan kept her mouth shut during the Whitewater investigation.

          Trump would not be the first to pardon a partner in crime.

      3. Yes, jeff, we all know that norms and rules only apply when they don’t interfere with the cause, because whataboutism and bush.

        1. I’m pretty sure Jeff is just some kid, and by ‘kid’ I mean some guy in his early twenties at most. He clearly has zero memory of the Clinton administration. Honestly, I’d guess at least half the posters here fall into that category, but I could be way off base. There are plenty of older people who are just as naive or have had their memories of the past fall into the hole.

    3. So reason appears to be quite concerned that trump pardoned d’souza for engaging in nekulturny political speech, but they totally believe in free speech a la citizens united. See, you have to be thinking good, acceptable thoughts for civil liberties to apply. If you are defying the long march of history, then they don’t matter.

      Let me guess, they’re now worried that republicans will expect the same laws be enforced against rosie o’donnel, because everyone knows rules are subject to your feelings at all times. That’s what makes them so useful.

      1. Pretty much this. I’m sure D’Souza wasn’t investigated because of certain films he might have made, that would be crazy, and yet we’re continually told that Trump is the one eroding freedom of the press. Yeah, sure, ok. I guess the Press wasn’t paying attention when the Obama administration was wiretapping them and prosecuting them. That had no effect on freedom of the press, right, whereas Trump saying mean things is a real threat!

        Idiocy. American media outlets are slitting their own throats, and I’d really like it if they would stop it because eventually it will be used as an example of why we need regulation of the Press. If not under Trump, under some other jackass.

    4. Honestly, I find it hard to reconcile ENB’s reactions to the Trump pardons with libertarian principle.

      D’Souza – a guy Preet Bharara (you know, the same guy who threatened to prosecute posters here for their comments) did a fishing expedition after he made a movie critical of Obama and the Democrats
      Scooter Libby – a who was prosecuted for lying to the FBI when there was no underlying crime on his part.
      Jack Johnson – a guy who was prosecuted for violating the incredibly racist and incredibly unlibertarian Mann Act
      Kristian Saucier – a guy who was prosecuted for taking pictures on his submarine with no particularly nefarious intentions.
      Joe Arpaio – this one I won’t defend other than it was obviously political

      Except for one,they seem like pardons an ostensibly libertarian magazine would support.

      1. it’s pretty clearly not the magazine’s principles she’s trying to advance

  4. Trump has also been tweeting about today’s jobs report ahead of the official announcement, even though the numbers are strictly embargoed because of the effect they have on markets.

    Information wants to be free.

  5. Donald J. Trump

    He just paid $7 for a $2 candy bar, didn’t he.

    1. It had raisins in it. RAISINS.

      This is worse than the ketchup on steaks thing.

    2. Then he ate it with a knife and a fork.

      1. That’s how classy guys do it

  6. Denmark bans the covering of faces in public places, effectively outlawing burqas and niqabs.

    Denmark has had enough of Muslim ladies being able to go out in public.

    1. If they stop going out in public, that will expose the lie that these women cover their faces voluntarily and that face covering is a religious freedom issue rather than a form of oppression of women.

      1. Should we ban head-coverings for the Amish and Mennonites in order to free them from their oppression?

        1. Head covering and face covering are entirely different things. Wearing a hat does not deprive you of your identity nor impair your ability to communicate. Nor does it imply that you are responsible for other people’s sexual urges.

          The Amish in the region where I live have compromised their practices by putting reflectors and lights on their buggies. They do this rather than staying home after dark, knowing they will not be beaten to death by male relatives by compromising in this way.

          1. Beekeepers, welders, and fencers hardest hit.

            1. I lolled at how silly and inept that tortured comparison was

          2. The command to wear a veil while praying is predicated on the fact that woman was made from man and is therefore subservient to man or the individual husband. Anabaptists extend that to all the time. How is that not oppression?

            Where I live, Muslims and Mennonites can choose to wear or not wear their cultural garb. None of them have been beaten to death regardless of what they chose.

            1. For context:

              3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

              4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

              5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

              6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

              7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

              8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

              9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

              10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

              11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

              12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

              13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

              14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

              1. 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

                So, just out of curiosity, why is Jesus always depicted as like, a hippie?

                1. Probably influence from Greek and Roman art after Christianity became a non-ethnic religion. Jewish Christians in the early period didn’t depict him that way.

                  1. Probably also the reason why God often looks like Zeus.

                    Also, Jesus doesn’t really have to follow the same rules.

                    1. Paul made up those rules. Dude never overcame his Pharisee past.

                2. You just know he would be riding around with his disciples in a converted WV van today.

                  “Fill’er up, Judas.”
                  “Why am I always the one doing these things?”

              2. Paul was kind of a dick. He had some serious hangups. And it’s not helped by some translations that emphasize his sexual obsession.

            2. How is that not oppression?

              Please read my posts before responding to them. As I said, wearing a hat or a bonnet is entirely different from covering the face; and, because we know that Muslim men frequently engage in violent coercion of women to comply with religious standards, the women’s compliance with face covering has to suspected of being coerced.

          3. What if face coverings protect me from leering rapists?

            1. Then you should choose your friends more carefully.

              1. They’re not his friends.

      2. How can it be “oppression” when the so-called victim voluntarily agreed to the conditions?

        1. What if they are so dedicated to their religion that they refuse to leave the house without head covering? And so just refuse to leave the house.

          I don’t believe this proves your point Vernon.

          1. For the third time, head covering and face covering are very different.

            1. apparently the difference is too difficult for some to grasp

    2. I misread the first part of that line and thought they were going after cats with the ban on covering of feces.

      1. You want to start the cat revolution early? Cause that would do it.

        1. Not to mention the revolution of cat owners.

  7. Unemployment at lowest rate in half a century and wages rise over 2% for the first time in decades.…..olitics=Tw

    1. Election 2018 is going to be a bloodbath for Democrats.

      Chances are, more voters will employed when they vote. That will likely reflect positively for non-Democrat politicians.

      1. According to Forbes, 52 percent of Americans recieved government assistance. So the number of employed might not make such a diffeence as you might think.

        1. How much of that 52% is social security? And that isn’t 52% of people who actually vote

          1. Roughly 110% of people who receive government money vote. Chicago accounts for 150% of that number.

            1. Is that factoring in all the dead people in Chicago that receive government benefits?

              1. 115% of people in Chicago are dead voters who receive government benefits. It is known.

                The rest are thugs or Rahm Emmanuel. Scratch that… just thugs.

            2. You’re on a roll today.

          2. Actually, higher income people vote at higher rates. Which would help skew away from predicted end result where people who get government handouts just vote for people who give them more handouts. But we’re getting closer to that every year.

            Social security is government assistance, is much greater* than the amount paid in, and is constantly supplemented by handouts to the elderly [thinking Medicare Part D] that have no relation to the amount paid in. There’s no reason to to exempt SS from “people on government assistance who would vote for more handouts”.

            [*Money shot:

            So, this couple [retiring in 2010] will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes … In 1980, this [one spouse working] 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.


            1. The piece is correct in the aggregate but also highly misleading. Beginning in 2010 a two earner couple making the median income actually can expext a negative rate of return on just their social security payments. That ponzi scheme is literally collapsing before our eyes. But when you factor in the other goodies then nearly everyone comes out ahead except for the high earners who actually do pre-pay their medicare.

        2. LOL. Social Security and Medicare do not a Hillary voter make.

          Were that true she’d be the one facing re-election.

          1. My inlaws flipped Dem on the grounds of making sure any reforms were after they died.

            1. Nice. Boomers I’m guessing.

              They must love their grandkids.

              Thankfully intelligence is not heritable.

              Or so I’ve heard.

              1. you heard wrong

        3. What kind of government assistance?

          I am a veteran that uses the VA health system and don’t vote Democrat.

          1. Why would you vote Dem? You’re a socialist.

            1. I don’t vote Democrat because they have socialists in their midst. Nazis were socialists.

    2. Get back to me when labfor or emratio are going up at the same time. Unlike our team blue friends or reason libertines I try to follow a consistent set of standards.

    3. Yeah, except that they’re still using bullshit unemployment numbers. Just because Trump took over it doesn’t mean that they stopped bullshitting about employment.

  8. Sex workers across the country have organized June 2 protests against a recently passed federal law banning prostitution advertising.

    Surely DC madams have enough dirt to retaliate against Congress.

    1. If not the “madams”, then the boys.

    2. The ones that do value their health though.

    3. Who do you think told them to pass it in the first place? The DC madams are a bunch of rent seeking crony capitalists.

  9. Trump has also been tweeting about today’s jobs report ahead of the official announcement, even though the numbers are strictly embargoed because of the effect they have on markets.

    embargo, montego, baby why dont we go

    1. to bermuda bahama come on pretty mama

  10. Because the law allows people to cover their faces for a “recognizable purpose,” such as in cold weather, Justice Minister Soeren Pape Poulsen said, police officers will have to use “common sense,” according to the AP.

    “It’s cold here, compared to the Middle East.”

    1. Here’s hoping “common sense” means something different to Danish cops than it does to American ones.

      1. Probably more like “kroner sense”, if you catch my drift.

        1. it’s not south America bro

      2. I lived there for a bit, then at least, it absolutely did

  11. D’Souza, Blagojevich and Stewart had been convicted of such crimes as campaign-finance violations or lying to investigators…

    Convictions which speech-loving libertarians rightly decry?

    1. Phreet Bahara or what ever his name is tears over this are delicious.

    2. Blagojevich was also convicted of extortion; I don’t think free speech covers that.

      1. He was trying to sell Obama’s senate seat. What could be more free market than that?

        1. I never saw his attempts to demand donations in return for subsidies as free market before. Mind changed; let’s free him!

        2. It wasn’t Blagojevich’s seat to sell, that seat belonged to Emil Jones.

        3. And he was trying to sell it to the son of the guy who speaks with a mouth full of marbles: Jesse Jackson.

      2. I’m struggling to see how a Blago commutation is a good thing. The guy is a corrupt dirtbag who deserves everything he got.

        1. Its a dig that Democrats only go after their own when they have to. Otherwise they ignore criminal activity by lefties.

          Of course Blagojevich is a shitbag. That does not make his pardon and subsequent lefty tear shedding any less great. This is speculation too. The media does tend to make things up, ya know?

      3. Those open seats get sold all the time. Politicians are rarely investigated or indicted for it.

        On August 17, 2010, he was convicted on one of the 24 federal charges, a charge of lying to the FBI, and the jury was hung on 23 other counts. Upon retrial on June 27, 2011, he was found guilty of 17 of the 20 remaining charges, not guilty on one, and no verdict was rendered by the jury on two counts. He was found guilty on all charges pertaining to the Senate seat, as well as extortion relating to state funds being directed towards a children’s hospital and race track. However, he was acquitted on a charge pertaining to the tollway extortion and avoided a guilty verdict (by split decision) on attempting to extort Rahm Emanuel. -wikipedia

        He “extorted” lefty hack Rahm Emanuel, which is why the Obama Administration went after him.

        1. He was being investigated for years and was bugged before the 2008 elections. Obama didn’t have much to do with it.

          1. The prosecution happened under the Obama administration.

  12. Why aren’t they firing no talent Samantha Bee for the horrible language used on her low ratings show? A total double standard but that’s O.K., we are Winning, and will be doing so for a long time to come!

    Yuck, o period k period.

    1. Periods are a natural thing, you misogynist you.

  13. Majority including blacks and Hispanics feel they are better off under Trump.


    Worst racist ever!!

    1. Well yeah, but you have to take into account that this is all Obama’s doing. Just like how the shitty economy in Obama’s first three years was Bush’s fault and Obama did everything he could to improve it. It’s simple logic, like how Reagan was really reaping the benefits of Carter’s policies between 1983 and 1987. In 2019, the economy will crumble to dust under Trump’s mismanagement, although I’m sure he’ll blame it on the upcoming #BlueWave.

      /OpenBorders Liberal-tarian

      1. That was a B+ impression of a C- trolling attempt.

        1. In my defense, it started as a sarcastic remark before it got too long and I realized I was basically writing an OBL screed.

          1. Red Tony would have done it better. Of course he has the benefit of hindsight.

            1. …okay that was a great troll.

  14. Decoding Trump’s Dinesh D’Souza Pardon

    Trump is trolling lefties…again.

    The lefties spent a bunch of time and resources going after people that they didn’t like politically. Trump decided to keep the media occupied talking about that instead of the progress relating to the NK peace.

    1. 25th dimensional chess… where you pardon your captured pawn to distract the other players knight into not trying to capture your king. But that’s not enough, you also have to pardon a pawn and commute the sentence of a (c)rook from the other side so as not to appear to have pardoned your own pawn out of pure politics. Meanwhile, you have to tweet about a queen for queen trade because yours just got fired, causing all the other team’s pawns to be distracted to protect their own queen.

      That about cover it?

      1. If you don’t get how to play chess, then you just will never understand.

      2. I loved the line someone wrote about the pardon:
        “Trump is not playing 3D chess here. More likely, he is eating his pieces.”

        1. Yea. This coming from people who have been eating the chess board in frustration, since Trump was elected and has done so well as president.

        2. Which is worse, being the pigeon in pigeon chess or eating the board afterwards? Let’s as ben rhodes.

  15. the “Intellectual Dark Web” down under.

    Now, that’s *much* nicer than the c-word!

    1. My wife is gonna wonder why i’m calling hers that from now on, and i shan’t explain.

      1. Anyone else who calls it that will happily explain, then the joke’s on you.

      2. Poor Citizen X.

  16. The Houston DA’s office ? known for its zeal for capital punishment ? has a rock band “Death By Injection.” It belittles the taking of a life and frankly is some Nazi Germany level dehumanization. And the reporters just shrug their shoulders like, “huh, how fun and kooky.”
    ? David Menschel (@davidminpdx) June 1, 2018

    You know who else inspired musical acts?

    1. Spring time for leathal injection

      1. Winter for humanity
        We’re marching on to Paradise
        Death to the poors that we see

  17. …and lashed out at former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara, who handled his case.


  18. I would like to congratulate Robby for yesterday’s Samantha Bee apology article. It lead to one of the most glorious Internet meltdown comments ever. It had John, it had Tony, it had Shreek and Hihn. There were handle-swapping retards calling handle-swapping retards retards. There were alliances formed and broken within minutes. It’s like the Internet took the wettest, stinkiest shit and smeared it somehow into one beautiful message about what’s wrong with the world today.

    Congratulations Rico, I think you win this week.

    1. Well if anyone would know retards it would be one of them. So you got that going for you Sparky.

      And Robby is a power bottom. You know a relationship with two bottoms can never work. Stop torturing yourself and get to work finding someone attainable

      1. It’s nice to see that crybaby Republican isn’t an act for you. I’m impressed by your ability to reply to every comment of every poster on every article. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that my tax dollars are being well spent.

        1. John has interesting points of view.

          Sparky does not.

          1. Yes, John Jacob Jinglefullofshit is the world’s greatest government lawyer. You and Libertymike starting a fan club?

            1. You are so angry. Let it go

              1. Angry? No. I think the shithole that this place is becoming is legitimately funny. And maybe a little sad. But mostly funny.

                1. Sure you are not angry. You are just ranting and raving about a dead thread from yesterday and calling people names out of joy.

                  Lighten up Francis. Don’t go full Hihn. Never go full Hihn.

                  1. You are just ranting and raving about a dead thread from yesterday

                    Offering congratulations to be exact.

                    and calling people names out of joy.


                    And by the way, you’re the one who fell for my trick question by coming in here and throwing a fit trying to defend yourself for yesterday’s stupidity.

                    1. No one is throwing a fit except you. I honestly don’t understand why you decided to go nuts this morning. But we all have our moments I guess

                    2. No one is throwing a fit except you

                      That’s why you keep coming back crying about how you’re not the crazy one.

            2. I just said he has interesting points of view.

              You seem to be taking this very personally Sparky.

              1. I just said he has interesting points of view.

                You ought to stick to trying to get those sneaky lefties out of your underwear.

                1. How did you know?

        2. You are just love sick for Robby. You know you don’t mean it. It’s the unrequited love talking.

          1. Huh. You accused me of hankering after Shackleford, and you’ve accused others of similar transgressions against your inner morals. You got something repressed going on, methinks.

            1. The reason staff has a lot of fanboys. Nothing wrong with that

              1. The best part is, you say dumb things like this then congratulate yourself for being so witty. If that ain’t amusing, I don’t know what is.

                1. Even better is that Sparky says dumb things and then congratulates himself for being so dumb.

                  If that ain’t amusing, I don’t know what is.

                2. Consondering that the purpose is to get under your skin and piss you off, I would say it works pretty well.

                  1. You’d have to believe that I’m getting pissed off. And the fact that you do think so is even more funnier.

                    1. Yeah you are not pissed off. That is why you are crying about something that happened yesterday.

                    2. No, by Internet rules, you’re the one who’s crying right now.

                    3. No your crying!! Lol

                      You really are having a breakdown this morning. Seriously, what is going on? What about the Samantha Bee thing has driven you so nuts? It is an odd thing to fixate on.

                    4. No your crying!! Lol

    2. Looked like strong John arguments to me.

      Tony and Hihn come in to dilute good comments and bump up web traffic by trying to elicit replies to their nonsense.

      Some day some Reason ex-employee will leak that a good 10% of commenters are Reason staff socks trying to bump up web traffic.


        That’s you right now.

        1. I said ~10%.

          In English, that means NOT everybody.

          1. Go ahead, keep crying. It’s cathartic.

            1. … according to the left.

            2. You’re the one that cannot read English.

              Pick up an English book. It’s cathartic.

              1. I hope your wife isn’t around. If she catches you crying she’s going to realize that you’re not a real man.

                1. My wife or YOUR wife?

                  1. Why would my wife care if you’re crying? She already knows you’re not a real man.

                    1. Sparky your wife has told me many times how much she hates it when you cry. Usually when we are chatting waiting for her cab ride home

                    2. Sparky your wife has told me many times how much she hates it when you cry

                      Now I know you’re lying, my wife doesn’t have a problem with men crying. And it’s because she’s not a steel-balled cock buster. If you pour another bottle of vodka down your wife she might let you touch her.

                    3. “$park? leftist poser|6.1.18 @ 10:44AM|#

                      Why would my wife care if you’re crying? She already knows you’re not a real man.”

                      “Sparky your wife has told me many times how much she hates it when you cry

                      Now I know you’re lying, my wife doesn’t have a problem with men crying. ”


                    4. $park? leftist poser|6.1.18 @ 10:44AM|#
                      Why would my wife care if you’re crying? She already knows you’re not a real man.

                      I just wanted to get YOU to admit that I have been with your wife.

                      Anyone would cry if that saw the hildabeast you call a wife.

                    5. I just wanted to get YOU to admit that I have been with your wife.

                      If you want to call running away crying after she laughed at your tiny, shriveled pecker “being with my wife” then OK.

                    6. I never said that I was going to have sex with that dog of a wife of yours.

                      I would not fuck her with your asian man dick after you have pulled out of Tony’s brown bullseye.

                      I was with her, as you admit, to hear stories about you.

                  2. Well, yeah. You are both Tulpa, after all.

                    1. That is just what Tulsa would say Zeb.

                    2. Leave the Sooners out of this.

    3. I’m glad i missed it.

      1. Hihn is legitimately crazy. I don’t think he is a troll pretending. I asked him if he was okay with be calling Ivanka Trump a cunt then what if someone called Michelle Obama one. His response was to go on this rant about how I fucked up and called Michelle a cunt. No kidding.

        That is not trolling. That is insanity.

        1. That’s sort of why i stopped picking on him when he shows up. It’s become pretty obvious that he is experiencing full-on dementia, and it’s more sad than anything.

          1. It really is. I didn’t fully appreciate that until yesterday. He is nuts. Best just to leave him alone

            1. Best just to leave him alone

              Fuck that. I earned my status as his Public Enemy #1 fair and square.

              1. It’s all fun and games until Hihn boils your bunny.

              2. He refuses to acknowledge that I’m really Red Tony. I’m thinking of doing another name change and seeing if I can get on his shit list twice.

                1. oooh… do future Hihn next! PLEASE!

                  1. He should keep on his Tony theme. I think he should go for a Tony Dark Half. Like the Tony Twin who was consumed in the womb by current Tony.

                    1. I was thinking of doing a Tony parody account… but how does one parody perfection?
                      I can’t come up with anything better or more progressive than he already posts!
                      And I’m not even going to try stepping on the toes of time travelling Tonys

      2. I’ll catch it when it comes to Netflix. Otherwise, I’m not interested.

    4. Please someone wake up Tony and Hihn so that we can relive the magic here again!

      1. I’m here already.

  19. …it also suggests an alternative motive: Trump trying to get back at those he perceives as enemies in federal law enforcement.

    Does this mean they have to remove those convictions from their resumes?

    1. No. How are they harmed? Isn’t saying they are saying they are just nasty assholes who derive pleasure for people rotting in jail? Yes they are but the media usually isn’t so honest about it

      1. Learn to think a little more, Fist.

  20. “Trump’s pardon of D’Souza and suggestion of other pardons “delivered an indirect but unmistakable message to personal attorney Michael Cohen, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and others ensnared in Trump-related investigations that they, too, could be spared punishment in the future,” suggests the Washington Post politics team”

    Yes, everything that happens–or doesn’t happen–is about Trump being impeached when the next congress opens. Then he’ll be removed from office by two-thirds of the senate, and then we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to make Hillary Clinton the winner of 2016 presidential election.

    And anyone who doesn’t understand the logic behind that is a stupid, racist, homophobic, misogynistic redneck, and, worst of all, may even be a Christian, who thinks that congress has the power to set immigration policy. Someday, we’ll be able to strip those rat-fuckers of their voices, their influence, and their political power–’cause that’s what being tolerant is all about.

  21. Former journalist Maria Bartiromo adores Trump so much she tries to weigh exactly 239 pounds at all times.

    1. Haha, she’s a fat cunt.

  22. Have some Obama tears…..ears-early

    A new book by Benjamin Rhodes, one of Obama’s longtime advisers, paints a portrait of a troubled Obama who struggled to understand the meaning of his successor’s victory. Shortly after the 2016 election, Obama wondered whether his administration had “pushed too far,” The New York Times reports. “Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early,” Obama reportedly mused aloud.

    Aww, yeah. You were just ahead of your time *head pats*

    1. Obama wondered whether his administration had “pushed too far,”

      Yes indeed, very much so. But not in the way he thinks, or has the self-reflective capacity to understand.

      1. He was Preston a country that he neither liked nor understood

    2. Things went awry for him with that early “I won” sentiment.

    3. It’s a shame he dosen’t wonder if he’s just a lefty fuck up.

    4. What I would give for this jerk to just come on out and once and for all tell the unvarnished truth about what he really and truly thinks of America, and of white people in general, with no mask on and no filters up at all.

    5. We weren’t worthy of him. *a tear slowly trickles down my cheek*

  23. I don’t get Europeans.

    They open their borders to insane amounts of migrants they can’t possibly process and assimilate in any effective manner but then turn around and ban them from wearing their garb? It makes no sense.

    If you let them in, you can’t then deny them the right to their dress.

    If you don’t like it, then don’t let them in.

    It’s not right in my view.

    1. Reminds of the Germans. We won’t build our military because of Trump!

      Euro-logic. How does it work?

    2. There is a massive struggle in Europe between socialists and everyone else.

      The socialists need slaves so they import people to be both the boogeymen and the slaves.

      Nazi Germany did the same thing during WWII. They needed slave labor from France and other surrounding countries and blamed those workers for Nazi failures.

    3. If you let them in, you can’t then deny them the right to their dress.

      It’s like giving people welfare money then telling them how to spend it.

      If you’re gonna give people stuff then stop whining about what they do with it.

      1. Its Europe. They don’t have the freedoms like the USA has.

        1. I’m glad you have nothing useful to offer.

          1. I’m glad you have no counter to offer.

    4. Part of the problem is that they’ve got elitists and also an elitist backlash.

      The EU elitists in Brussels (not to mention Berlin) won’t let them set their own immigration policy, so the local politicians throw a bone to the populists.

      The populists are just trying to make themselves felt on immigration–the only way they can.

      If you can’t set your own immigration policy without leaving the EU, then all you express an anti-Muslim immigration policy the only way you can.

      You block the construction of new mosques, you ban the burka, etc., etc.

      Note, I’m not saying that’s the way it should be. I’m saying that’s the way it is.

      Violate people’s natural rights to things like property and speech, and there are unavoidable negative consequences.

      Violate the proper purview of democracy, and there are negative consequences associated with that, too. Again, there is no libertarian substitute for persuasion. Everything else is necessarily authoritarian with all sorts of associated downsides.

      1. P.S. Part of the failure of European integration (over the course of decades) is their model of forced integration rather than multiculturalism.

        I know “multiculturalism” has a bad name right now, but if you think Europe is a model of multiculturalism, you’re wrong. They’re a model of forced integration.

        Here in the U.S., you can speak any language you want, wear what you want, etc. You aren’t forced to abandon your own culture in order to be an American. This makes people far less resentful of American culture. Sure, the parents at your local mosque are afraid that their children are becoming too “Americanized”, but what they mean by that is the same thing that Baptist parents worry about–their kids using foul language, listening to rap music, dressing like gangster, premarital sex, . . .

        I’ve known Muslim women who never knew they wanted to wear a veil until they went to France and heard that they weren’t allowed to wear them. Some of these women had come from countries where wearing veils was mandatory. They felt so free!

        1. You aren’t forced to abandon your own culture in order to be an American.

          And the Trumpists view this as a major problem. In this sense they want America to be more like Europe.

      2. In the original Star Trek, the federation women wore mini-skirts as uniforms. That seems oppressive now–making women wear something revealing against their will–but the idea back in the ’60s was that women in the future would be so free, they could wear miniskirts to work! That was in a predominant culture where women generally weren’t allowed to wear miniskirts. Now we think of sexual exploitation as oppressive, and the women of the future dress just like the men.

        Sometimes it seems like women don’t want anybody telling them what they can or can’t wear–and is that strange?

        Forced assimilation is like that. The more you try to force people to accept your culture and abandon their own, the more they resist assimilation. That’s the story of France. That’s the story of Germany. That’s the story of integration in Europe. The reason the Muslim grandchildren of immigrants in Los Angeles are largely indistinguishable from the Italian grandchildren of immigrants in New York City is because of multiculturalism.

        1. They got pants in Star Trek: TNG. Except for Troi. Mmmmm… Troi….

        2. “but the idea back in the ’60s was that women in the future would be so free, they could wear miniskirts to work! ”

          Um, maybe.

          But I’m thinking the idea was more along the lines of “let’s shew them a future that involves lots of skin – as much as Standards and Practice will allow. Who cares if they watch with the sound down? Ratings are ratings!”

            1. Yeah, the sexual revolution was about women being free to express their sexuality, and the argument for women being free to do so should make a lot of sense to red-blooded, heterosexual, American men.

              No need for those two things to be mutually exclusive.

              1. Which isn’t to say there were never tone deaf by today’s standards.

                How come they had to play bagpipes in the background every time Scotty got drunk? Why did Scotty getting drunk always mean there was about to be a brawl?

                That’s not a very sensitive depiction of Irish/Scottish-Americans!

                I’ve know plenty of Irish-Americans who aren’t all about the bottle and aren’t always getting in fights . . .

                Okay, well, I’ve never met the guys that abstained personally, but I’m sure they’re out there somewhere.

            2. Agreed. I did say maybe.

              1. I suppose the one thing that is clear is that they never envisioned a future where the ‘free thinkers and free spirits’ would become so puritanical.

    1. Whoring for whore day.


    Black Stanford student notices BLM spends its time talking about gays and is run by white liberals and decades to leave the plantation

    1. The new don’t taze me bro.

      1. I am leaving the plantation

        1. Stop appropriating plantation culture.

    2. That desire can be traced back to what Banks calls the most traumatic experience so far in his young life. Growing up, he said he was pretty liberal. Then he was falsely accused of sexual assault, he said, and the “white liberals” who were supposed to support him and hear his side of the story instead turned their backs on him.

      “The white liberals were very eager to demonize me and see me as a monster before they had all the facts,” Banks said. “The left only acknowledges certain kinds of victimhood ? but then my trauma doesn’t get acknowledged and validated.”

      So BLM’s strategy now is just to alienate anyone who isn’t a rabid SJW? That sounds like a recipe for success

    3. But Robby assures us to be sure.

    4. Hope he understands that the penalties for leaving the plantation are still in force.

      1. T’Neshi Coats is out hunting him down as we speak

        1. No, joke, this guy’s entire existence is under a microscope as we speak. They are probably cross matching his grade school teacher’s names with DNC donor lists. Trying to find the one they can groom and coach to go on the networks in order to tell us how much of a misogynist he was.

          1. These people have never heard of the Streisand Effect, have they.

    5. Look at him using his brain and shit.

      1. Look, he’s obviously in need of some guidance on what’s in his own self-interest. You know how those people are, not that they’re in any way to blame for their ignorance, it’s the brainwashing of the right-wing extremists that convinces them they’re capable of running their own lives when clearly they’re not.

        1. ^winner!

  25. CA taxpayers are going to ‘invest’ so the free-riders driving E cars won’t have to pay for ‘fuel’:

    “California OKs record-high investment in utilities’ electric-vehicle programs”
    “California is making a $738-million investment to replace gas-guzzling cars, buses and trucks with electric vehicles.
    Members of the California Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 on Thursday to approve the largest U.S. utility investment to date in an effort to accelerate the Golden State’s push to fight climate change. It will fund programs at PG&E Corp., Edison International and Sempra Energy.”

    Notice this is to replace “GAS GUZZLING!!!!” vehicles.

  26. Shortly after the 2016 election, Obama wondered whether his administration had “pushed too far,” The New York Times reports.

    Sheesh, Barack — I thought it was because you didn’t explain your policies sufficiently well. Which is it?

    1. Neither, that was him attempting to display ‘humility’ and ‘depth of character.’

  27. “Pardons are good and presidents should pardon way more people… but only people that we like and who are on our side of the culture war!”

    There’s yet more of that fairness, honesty, and unwavering dedication to principles that the “libertarians” of Gillespie and Welchie Boy’s Reason are so well known for.

  28. Upon news of the pardon, D’Souza tweeted that “KARMA IS A BITCH” and lashed out at former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara

    An Indian attacking an Indian using Indian magic? I don’t think any of this is good for America.

    1. They’re called Asian-Americans now, you racist.

  29. Pardoning is basically the one presidential power that works the way Trump thought ALL of being president worked. He’s gonna use the shit out of it.

    “I have a pen and a phone!”

    1. I know when I ‘m trying to sort out Orange Julius’ latest actions the first place I look for insight is the New York Times.

      Because they’ve demonstrated such a refreshing way of thinking outside the box of partisan politics.

      1. I predict Trump will pardon OJ in a not-at-all-crazy bid for black votes.

        1. He can’t. OJ is under a Nevada state conviction.

          1. “Nevada, you say? I know a few people there, let me make some calls…”

  30. The Trumpification of Maria Bartiromo.

    I’m not sure how this is remarkable in the least. zOMG, she’s partisan! Like fifty-thousand reporters on every other channel!!

    1. I have not seen her in a while but back in the day Maria was pretty damned cute

      1. Agreed. Also, she’s from my neck of the woods. SW Brooklyn. I.e. where all the Republicans are.

      2. Cute enough to get a Ramones song.

      3. I’ve only seen her a few times and that only recently, did she always have that Barbara Walters paralyzed lip thing going on or was that a botox injection gone wrong?

  31. Reason’s favorite patron Jeff “Bozo” Bezos and the Deep State are become more intertwined by the day.

    And the same thing may be true of Faceberg, as rumor has it he’s going to build a massive data center that just oh so conveniently happens to be situated practically next door to the NSA’s Dark Star data center in Utah. Imagine how easy it’ll be for him to have access to all our data when he succeeds Trump as president.

    1. Why would Zuck want to take a demotion to mere POTUS when he’s already Emperor of All Cyberspace?

      1. To make way for Hillary so they can rule the universe together.

    2. I’m sure you will regale us all with the latest updates from Lou Dobbs and Alex Jones to keep us all informed!

    3. Does he really want to wear a suit every day?

  32. On Trump pardons: I’d like to see a lot more non-celebrity pardons, but the D’Souza pardon is totally a good thing.

    It’s too bad Reason and the sources they cite don’t even get into the merits of his case.

    Pardons are “unilateral” by their nature, no matter how much he consults with others before making the decision. Presidents can choose to get advice from the Justice Department and they generally do, but they don’t have to, and are we really going to say it’s wrong for Trump to bypass the Jeff Sessions Justice Department? Do you want to commit yourself to this argument if (God willing) he starts considering pardons in drug cases?

    If Bhahara’s prosecution of D’Souza was so squeaky clean, why did the Obama administration refuse to show Congress the prosecution file in D’Souza’s case? What did they have to hide?

    D’Souza’s prosecution looked a lot like Bhahara going after the enemies of the Democratic Party.

    I’m glad this pardon gave Bhahara a black eye.

    (DISCLAIMER: I refer to a “black eye” in the metaphorical sense, not the literal sense.)

  33. I’ve been summoned, but I feel that there’s little to say on this subject until John and co. start defending Trump’s pardoning of everyone associated with him who’s committed crimes and his firing of everyone investigating him. They’re welcome to start defending it preemptively, I suppose. But that’s really the meat I’m looking to chew on. Just how much dicktatorship is John willing to support as long as that precious sacred (R) is there?

    1. That is saying little.

  34. Huff Post article about so called “quasi-neoreactionary libertarian”

    This fucking guy is a plant to say he’s a Libertarian but isn’t. Its probably Tony. This guy wants to make women property.

  35. On C-Span today (5 Jun) I watched Dinesh D’Souza mention briefly Racism in Democratic Party throughout history, but he continues to fail to point out that Governor Wallace pulled many of the racists from the Democratic party during his failed 3rd party presidential run and they subsequently landed in the Republican party. Am I wrong?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.