Border wall

Trump Reportedly Told Subordinates To Break Laws in Order To Build His Border Wall Before 2020

A disturbing picture of a president willfully condoning not only the use of eminent domain to seize private land from Americans for a pet project, but also suggesting—perhaps ordering—his underlings to violate laws in pursuit of that objective.

|

President Donald Trump is determined to build a wall on part of America's southern border, and he's not willing to let silly things like property rights or federal laws get in the way.

That's the main takeaway from an explosive report published Tuesday night by The Washington Post, which alleges that Trump has ordered aides to "aggressively seize private land" for the border wall. The president also "has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly," the Post reports, citing current and former administration officials.

The Post's report paints a disturbing picture of a president not only condoning the use of eminent domain to seize private land from Americans, but also suggesting that government employees are free to violate laws in pursuit of that objective and will be shielded from prosecution if their actions lead to criminal charges. If this report is true, Trump has blatantly undermined the rule of law for political gain.

Despite what the president's anti-immigration supporters say, the border wall isn't an effective way to stop illegal immigration. Even Trump has admitted that scaling his proposed wall would be as easy as using a ladder and rope.

But Trump promised that he would build a border wall, and he's already shut down the federal government once in an attempt to get Congress to appropriate funds for the project. He's declared a "national emergency" when one doesn't really exist. He's re-routed funding from other Pentagon projects to pay for the border wall. He's yanked $270 million in disaster relief funding from Puerto Rico—which might take another direct hit from a hurricane later this week—to put towards the wall.

What's he gotten for all that? Not much. In June, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) said it had received enough funding for about 200 miles of new border barriers, but less than 60 miles of new fencing has been built during Trump's tenure, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. Remember, Trump promised a 1,000-mile wall during the 2016 campaign.

It's understandable, then, why Trump would be frustrated at the lack of construction. But frustration with the legal process of taking land from private citizens—to say nothing of the difficulties of engineering a wall to cross the difficult terrain along much of the U.S.-Mexico border—is no reason for a president to order his subordinates to break those laws.

Update: Watch Reason's Matt Welch give an excellent rant about how Trump's grotesque views on property rights and eminent domain are boosted by a Congress that does nothing to stop him:

NEXT: Houston Police Union Finally Stops Backing Cop Who Instigated a Deadly Drug Raid With a Phony Affidavit

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. Imagine, a elected official ignoring the rule of law to further his political goals? I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!!

    1. You don’t have to imagine it. The Washington Post can imagine it and then Reason can tell you about how they imagined it.

      1. And then we will comment about how we imagined what Reason imagined about the imagination of the Washington Post.

      2. The Washington Post. Explosive indeed.

        Maybe they will hire you Eric, you certainly meet all the qualifications.

      3. Indeed. This is the Washington Post. TDS central.

        The 2016 election broke them.

        1. The CIA’s paper of record

          1. This should be brought up more – despite all of them completely co-opted by the cia nowadays. But that’s cool, I don’t know anyone that trusts the msm anymore. Way to go cia – you blew it against a completely docile and compliant target (Americans). Maybe we can squeeze in some real oversight of our intelligence agencies while they are fucking up so spectacularly.

    2. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

      …….. Read More

      1. This is really big if true! Just like The Washington Post’s coverage of the Trump Administration!

        1. Just as likely.

          1. Ten thousan dorrar!

            1. That would have made me laugh if it wasn’t so offensive.

            2. +10

    3. The president also “has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly,” the Post reports, citing current and former administration officials.

      Funny how these sources are so willing to speak to Propaganda outlets but never willing to give their names.

      I mean if Trump is that bad, why would you still work for the government?

      I guess #Resist

      1. Asked for comment, a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Trump is joking when he makes such statements about pardons.

        You almost wonder if they want anonymity from him or from anyone who might find out they work for him.

        Sure, working for him is terrible but, c’mon, another 1-2 administrations and they’ll have earned a pension.

        1. This. Staffers routinely work for admins they disagree with.

          I wouldn’t quit just because I think my boss is a bit looney.

          1. This.

            The Deep State doesn’t let little things like elections get in the way of their rule.

          2. Someone has another agenda if they work for someone they fundamentally hate all the work being assigned and then love to undermine said work.

          3. I wouldn’t quit just because I think my boss is a bit looney.

            Pink isn’t the litmus test, it’s the result.

            If you thought your boss was existentially evil, fundamentally destroying the republic, to be opposed at all costs, and hopelessly entrenched, your pension would be a dark mark reminding you that you auctioned off your children’s future. If you just thought he was an eccentric egoist who isn’t significantly less capable, and maybe less intentionally evil than the next boob that would replace him, you take your pension and make sure the leviathan keeps rolling.

            Old Saul’s adage about poker applies to more than just poker and suckers.

  2. …also suggesting that government employees are free to violate laws in pursuit of that objective and will be shielded from prosecution if their actions lead to criminal charges.

    Maybe the Supreme Court will label it a tax.

  3. I’m going to chalk this up to the media being completely incapable of understand a joke when it comes out of Trump’s mouth.

    1. I’m going to chalk this up to the media being completely incapable of understand a joke when it comes out of Trump’s mouth.

      FIFY.

      A story detailing uses of eminent domain? Nope. A list of actual crimes committed by CBP that can be shown to be directly approved by the President? No. Cases where Trump shielded or pardoned officers convicted of wrongdoing? Nada. The WaPo imagines Trump might endorse doing modestly terrible things (still waiting on cattle cars) and Reason wants to be sure you don’t miss it.

    2. I am chalking it up to Propaganda outlets lying and saying they have real sources when they don’t.

      1. They are like REO Speedwagon. They heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who….

        1. +10

      2. And, of course, someone who believes that bar codes are a tool of the anti-Christ is perfect for calling out lapses in journalistic integrity.

        1. “And, of course, someone who believes that bar codes are a tool of the anti-Christ is perfect for calling out lapses in journalistic integrity.”

          Really? You’re that much of an ignoramus?
          Take the GOLD EO!

        2. Spewing nonsense.

      3. I bet they do have sources. That’s how apparatchiks work. Everyone is lying with plausible deniability.

        They could know the janitor, and know he’s lying, but he can be their source. He spins them the lies they want, and they can say “sources say”. *They* could spin the lies, and just ask him for confirmation. “Sources say”.

    3. There was a pearl clutching in many places the other day when he joked about “in six years, when I leave the White House…or 10, or 14, right?” It was an obvious joke, and plenty of media outlets ran with him saying he wants to violate term limits.

  4. Well, if the Chief Law Enforcement Official of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, encourages His Underlings to BREAK the law, then we’ll just have to take solace in the FACT that Government Almighty Loves Us Dearly, MORE than we can ever know!

    Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

    Government loves me, This I know,
    For the Government tells me so,
    Little ones to GAWD belong,
    We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
    Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
    Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
    And gives me all that I might need!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    DEA, CIA, KGB,
    Our protectors, they will be,
    FBI, TSA, and FDA,
    With us, astride us, in every way!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    1. I was on the fence about whether my government was acting against my best interests, but once I heard Reason’s retelling of the Washington Post’s retelling of anonymous officials, aids, and subordinates’ retelling of the actions and policies we were all generally aware of, I’m completely turned around on the subject!

    2. Squirrely rolling out this tired, hackneyed song. Squirrely is kryptonite for any cause he supports.

      1. Well in that case, it sounds like time for “reverse psychology”. Shitsy, please keep on threadshitting!!! I STRONGLY support your continued threadshitting!!!

        1. It’s funny that you’re calling out someone for threadshitting.

  5. Those damn republicans are breaking the laws again.
    I sure am glad the democrats don’t do that.
    Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two parties.

  6. Man, I’m too late- already the apologists and “both sides are the same” crowd already got here.

    Wouldn’t be Reason if commenters didn’t excuse any and all Trump transgressions.

    1. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ────────────────║║
      ────────────────╚╝
      ____________________________________________________

      1. Truer words have never been spoken.

      2. love this.

      3. How old are you? 12? Who shits up a thread with that stupid graphic?

        1. You seem like a profoundly unhappy person

        2. Poor No Yards Penalty troll.

    2. “”Wouldn’t be Reason if commenters didn’t excuse any and all Trump transgressions.”‘

      Are you not a Reason commenter?

      1. No, he’s Mr. AboveTheFray.

        1. “Both sides! I voted Gary Johnson!”

    3. I mean, after the constant lying by the media, is it really that unfair to want some sort of proof or evidence before believing unsubstantiated reports from a biased source?

      1. Sure, I don’t care anymore though. He’s a petty tyrant based on his own words and actions, whether he said this one or not. The only question regarding Trump is whether the Dems nominate someone who will be more or less a tyrant (odds: more). Either way we are stuck with a tax and spend democrat in office for the next 4 years unless some 3rd party pops up to take the reigns.

        1. How has he been a tyrant?

          1. Orange Man Bad!

        2. I enjoyed the ‘sploding heads after Trump won in 2016. I can’t wait until he wins in 2020. I’m not the biggest fan, but the people he gives ‘splody head syndrome to are people I consider enemies, so… yeah, its fun.

          1. Me too. I figure Bernie couldn’t be much worse – the country has obviously given up hope of ever trying to reverse the swirling toilet we find ourselves in. The only people that care about politics are the ones trying to burn the constitution. I say fuck it, maybe I’ll leave this place and start anew in … in a country that has no extradition treaty with the US – because if you’re gonna leave, might as well leave without paying for the meal.

      2. So you’re suggesting that the ‘media’ needs to prove their statements are truthful, and Trump is presumed to be honest?

        You’re a bigger moron than anyone ever gave you credit for. Congratulations.

        1. “So you’re suggesting that the ‘media’ needs to prove their statements are truthful”

          Yes, moron.

        2. “You’re a bigger moron than anyone ever gave you credit for. Congratulations.”

          And you just took over 1st place.

        3. That’s how accusations work.

          1. Aw how cute.

            The Trumptards are sucking each other’s pencil-dicks again, while pretending that the most dishonest and corrupt President the US has ever known is somehow trustworthy.

            Somewhere, even Nixon is laughing at you dumb fucks and wishing you’d been around to help spread disinformation during his administration.

            1. Disclaimer: Jason Cavanaugh was in a chemically induced coma from late 2008 through January 2017.

              Disclaimer: Jason Cavanaugh’s high school was missing American history books covering the years 1921-1923.

              1. I find it funny that these haters always frame their insults with assumptions about dick sizes.
                Seems they feel a bit inadequate themselves

        4. Yes, they do. Whoever makes a claim needs to prove it. The wilder the claim, the more evidence. In this case, some evidence of actual crimes committed or memos, emails, or recordings of Trump’s instructions would provide ample evidence. If it exists.

          However, this is a vague claim that he gave them leeway to commit vague crimes. No evidence has been presented. It’s just vague assertions made by anonymous people.

          If Trump was claiming a conspiracy of evil media corporations, then I would also require evidence from him. I would then look at Russiagate, the Kavanaugh hearings, and explicit statements by media companies that they want to depose Trump, and accept that there does appear to be mass media bias against him.

          Even such a statement was made, there is nothing to indicate whether it was serious, a random angry jab, or even in jest. Remember the “Grab Her by the” statement? A joke told in an off-camera moment that people decided to make a big deal about?

  7. Fake news!

    Case closed. (Nothing on the property seizing yet.)

    1. In his defense if the fake news were real, it doesn’t specifically mention any cases of property seizures.

      Or that Trump used the words ’eminent’ and ‘domain’ together in a sentence.

      Or that he even knows what those words mean.

      1. Oh he knows what eminent domain is. Just ask Vera Coking.

        1. Isn’t eminent domain the neck and head area of a woman according to Joe Biden?

          1. Hahaa, well if that is the case for Biden, he owes a lot of just compensation.

        2. Ask Vera’s daughter what she thinks of Mama passing up a $980,000 profit on that dump she lived in.

          1. Last I looked Vera’s daughter had no more a legitimate claim on her mother’s private property then Donald Trump at the time. What’s your point?

          2. Since it made her momma happy, I expect she didn’t care a bit.

            And now that she gets to sell the house and keep the profits, I expect she’s tickled pink.

            1. She did sell it , for about half of Guccioni’s original offer less legal fees.

        3. Just ask Vera Coking.

          I’m not familiar with the case but a brief skimming of the details indicates he lost. Certainly not the strongest indicator that he knows what the term means or how to use it.

      2. That was my thought. Maybe Reason could have reached out to people who may have been victims of eminent domain? Or if they were approached? Go right to the people who would be affected and ask them questions.

        1. Wadda ya want, like, journalism or something?

        2. It’s a legitimate problem that journalists have gotten (willfully or not) stories wrong enough times that the public must be skeptical of everything being reported.

          1. Someone was saying here in the last couple days about journalism degrees not requiring any math classes or something . Maybe instead they should make them take some intro psych classes so they could be aware of confirmation bias and at least make a half assed attempt to avoid it.

            1. Actually that should probably already be part of journalism curriculum. (Knocks self on head while making knock on wood sound).

            2. R Mac
              This would be a waste of time. The bias is institutional and an editorial decision. They are out to report any anti-Trump news they can get hold of and either suppress of not report on anything positive.
              How many times have you seen the WP with a front page headline of the record low unemployment for all groups of Americans including black, Hispanics and women. This is huge news and it never mentioned. Any reporter who does not ‘get with the program’ will not last long at these media outlets.

  8. And we should believe anything that the Washington Post says because?
    Because they have been neutral and objective about Trump from the beginning?
    Because they never use double standards?
    Because they were right all along about Trump being a Russian agent?

  9. I’ll believe the Washington Post when they show an unedited video of Trump saying this shit. Until then they can go fuck themselves. There was an article in the Tampa Bay Times this morning regarding the conservative groups who are going through journalist’s social media history which could be a case study for how biased and corrupt the media is. Try counting the number of times the author gives half/partial truths to insinuate that Trump & friends are directly responsible for stuff.

    1. I know, right? Who could possibly believe that Trump favors the use of eminent domain?

      1. Right? It’s not like he’s some real estate mogul that could routinely benefit from something like that.

        1. I’m not blind. I know he has used it in the past for personal profit, as a private citizen. But he’s also been pretty good about following the rule of law as President, if for no other reason than it would give the media another thing to chuck at him. He’s been better at it than the last 2 presidents.

          On the other hand, the media has been repeatedly lying over and over again behind the cover of “anonymous sources” and multiple people both at the DNC and in the media have said they will go to any lengths to stop him. Hell, the former president of the NY Fed yesterday said that the Fed should let the economy tank just to stop Trump this election. So yeah, there is literally NO reason I should trust these idiots.

          So,

          1. the media has been repeatedly lying over and over again behind the cover of “anonymous sources”

            Evidence?

              1. The irony is spectacular!

            1. Which makes me lean towards dumb. Remember the time trump removed the MLK statue from the Whitehouse?

              The media does. Because they made it up.

              1. I think the whole “MLK statue” thing illustrates part of the problem here.

                A reporter tweeted out a false statement about the bust of MLK being removed from the White House. (This was a tweet, mind you, not a published news article.) He retracted and apologized for his error less than one hour later. But that wasn’t good enough for Team Trump, who then, after the apology, insisted that it was the LYIN MEDIA out to get him with a deliberately false story.

                This instance seems like an instance of a reporter making an honest mistake. It was a mistake, and he shouldn’t have made it.
                But, Trump deliberately distorted the issue into “dishonest media” in order to push his own narrative. That was wrong too.

                1. They on retract when given obvious evidence of their lies fucktard. There are plenty of unsourced anonymous lies still floating around.

                  How fucking stupid are you?

                2. We have yet to see any apologies from the leftist media for the constant barrage of lies and smears over Trump/Russia. Even the Dems are no longer referring to this nearly 3 year old lie. Why the hell would anyone trust anything the WP says considering they have not even got the good grace to apologise for hounding the president for 3 years

            2. Russiaaaaaaaa!

            3. God you pick really bad days to play dumb. From today.

              https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/not-even-24-hours-later-msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-apologizes-for-supposed-russia-scoop

              Wait… no… you’re actually fucking dumb.

            4. Pedo Jeffy would ask you to prove humans breathe air. His sophistry and bullshit are legendary, as is his support for the brutal rape of American children.

              Begone Canadian pederast!

    2. I really don’t trust WaPo or NYT.

      How they covered Covington was irresponsible and stupid.

  10. Just a reminder of Trump’s love for eminent domain:

    https://ij.org/case/casino-reinvestment-development-authority-v-coking/

  11. Trump on eminent domain: “I think it’s wonderful”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5deLxTaYVOU

    And yes, he supports it not just for things like roads, but also for things like real estate development projects.

    1. A real estate developer supporting the use of eminent domain for real estate development?

      I’m not sure I believe you.

    2. I don’t like the thing. However, a wall or road is precisely the sort of task that eminent domain was created for. A large public project that needs to go through a certain area.

      This is completely unrelated to the accusation that Trump said “break any law you want to get this done” as there are legal mechanisms for eminent domain. It pre-dates the country.

  12. Just a few short months ago, Trump himself advocated for the use of the “military version of eminent domain” to build his wall.

    https://reason.com/2019/01/04/what-the-hell-is-the-military-version-of/

    I can’t imagine why the Washington Post would run a story alleging that Trump ordered his aides to use eminent domain to build his wall. It would be so out of character for him, wouldn’t it? Fuckin’ WaPo. Bunch of TDS liars.

    1. I fear you miss the point. The issue isn’t whether Trump likes eminent domain. He clearly does. It’s whether Trump actually and seriously instructed government officials to seize property illegally and promised to pardon them if they got caught. And the problem is that Trump’s critics have been so over-the-top in what they say about him (e.g., “Trump’s been a Russian asset since 1962!”), that what they say about Trump cannot be taken at face value (just like what Trump himself says cannot be taken at face value).

      We have the misfortune to be living in a time in which hysterics and hyperbole come from all sides.

      1. “I fear you miss the point.”

        In Jeff’s case, that would be willfully.

    2. I can’t imagine why the Washington Post would run a story alleging that Trump ordered his aides to use eminent domain to build his wall. It would be so out of character for him, wouldn’t it? Fuckin’ WaPo. Bunch of TDS liars.

      I pointed this out above. Trump’s favor for eminent domain was known and suspected back to before the election. Quoting anonymous sources whimsically without evidence or an overarching story is the quintessence of fake news.

      Like if someone were to continually brought the fact that you enjoy child porn. Unless you just got convicted of it or booted off a forum for it again, it is generally known that you like kiddie porn and reporting that some anonymous source says you (still) like kiddie porn is fake news and/or an ad hominem.

  13. If I had to bet, I’d bet the WaPo is right about all the orders Trump has given. I’d also bet that for all these orders he’s given, not a one has ever actually been acted on. I find it completely credible that frustrated presidents would order subordinates to ignore the law in order to get something the president wants done, not so credible is the idea that subordinates would actually go ahead and ignore the law. Especially if about 90% of the middle-management types voted for Hillary and hate Trump’s guts.

    1. “not so credible is the idea that subordinates would actually go ahead and ignore the law.”

      Chuck Colson. He carried out Nixon orders that more experienced, senior aides had learned to ignore.

      “not a one has ever actually been acted on.”
      Talking to a Washington Post reporter about it is acting upon it.

      1. Talking to a Washington Post reporter about it is acting upon it.

        While true, it was pretty clear (to me at least) that he meant in a legal sense rather than an information theory sense.

        Talking to the Washington Post about how it’s a joke is also acting upon it.

  14. The wall serves a legitimate public purpose.

    1. And the “legitimate public purpose” is???

      I know how to treat others the way that I would like to be treated. It’s that simple. “Others” includes those that evil people like to call illegal sub-humans, and so forth. If “others to be treated as we like to be treated”, in your “ethics”, does NOT include those born on the wrong side of the railroad tracks (river, mountains, invisible lines in the sand, yada-yada), then WHERE did you get your so-called “ethics”? God? Evolution? The cosmos? Karma? Democracy? Keep in mind that our “democracy” has blessed slavery, Jim Crow, no votes for women, concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, and on and on…
      FROM WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR ETHICS HERE?
      I have repeatedly asked this question (especially with regards to illegal humans), and I NEVER get answers from the bigots!!!

      WHY do we need walls?

      WHY will less expensive measures not work, given the need for SOME border control?

      http://www.businessinsider.com/fiber-optic-sensing-technology-vs-border-wall-2019-2
      A simple technology could secure the US-Mexico border for a fraction of the cost of a wall — but no one’s talking about it
      But Trump is obsessed about what LOOKS intimidating… Walls (old tech thousands of years old) and barbed wire (dating from the late 1800s). He wants his (and I quote) “Big, beautiful wall”. And the psychology (hate the other tribe or troop) dates back to apes and monkeys. To hell with effective; it is all a political show. And since we are racists, we do NOT bother with the political theater with respect the Cannucks.
      Once again, if we’d want effective, we’d go fiber-optic sensors. Leaves the wildlife alone as well…. But NOOOO, Trump and the troglodytes want highly visible political theater!

      1. What I did there, you didn’t see it.

        1. As usual, no answer to…

          WHERE did you get your so-called “ethics”? God? Evolution? The cosmos? Karma? Democracy? Keep in mind that our “democracy” has blessed slavery, Jim Crow, no votes for women, concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, and on and on…
          FROM WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR ETHICS HERE?

          1. Keep in mind that our “democracy” has blessed slavery, Jim Crow, no votes for women, concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, and on and on…
            and the portions are so small!

            Wow! Awful country you described there. You should do everything in your power to make sure no poor soul get stuck there.

          2. Wiffed it with the same swing.

          3. I get my ethics from Family Guy and Futurama. Lemme give you an example: when I see homeless people, my heart breaks, I will occasionally give money or bottled water. I do not invite every homeless person I meet to live in my house. The planet has billions of people who would love to come here; should we just take them all in?

            1. Good for you, DenverJ!

              No, we can’t take all of the homeless into our houses. We have limits to our powers and capabilities for generosity.

              However, I’d really like to see the “illegal sub-humans” serve as far-far less the scapegoats that they’re being made into in today’s political climate. Trump has ridden them (and other nations via trade issues) to power! Scapegoating plain and simple! Even those who help the “illegal sub-humans” are being punished for simple human kindness!

              We should call evil, “evil”, by its name, when we see it. The posters who post right here, who are most willing to endorse Trump’s scapegoating ways, and punishing those who are kind to the “illegal sub-humans”, are generally the same ones who insult other posters as strongly as they can… Posters like Nardz and Shitlords, who like to tell other posters to commit suicide. Now that’s EVIL, E-V-I-L!

              1. I’d like to see you post something connected to reality, but that’s a bridge to far.
                However, if anything I say tends towards hastening your demise, I’ll surely keep it up.
                The world welcomes your death, and it is selfish and evil for you to procrastinate

                1. Yes, Nardless Nadless, we know that you are unapologetically EVIL!

                  Read this book; It might do you good!

                  https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonfoundation-20/
                  Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession M. Scott Peck (Author)

              2. However, I’d really like to see the “illegal sub-humans” serve as far-far less the scapegoats that they’re being made into in today’s political climate

                It’s really fucked up how you and your open borders cronies see people from nations other than the US as “illegal sub-humans”. How you constantly refer to them as if they lack the cognitive abilities of Americans, as if they lack moral understanding and the full attributes of human beings.

                You speak of them as if they are grazing beasts, wandering hither and yon, that you and your ilk occasionally press into cleaning your toilets or scrubbing your floors with the promise of an unregulated working environment, low wages, and no ability to access legal protections.

                Why, it’s almost as if you’re wishing that you losers WON the Civil War and were still legally allowed to exploit people.

                1. Sarcasm, Azathoth, sarcasm…

                  The knuckle-dragging xenophobes that come here on a regular basis to brag about how they are Superior Life-forms, and those who have NOT had their “magic papers” given to them by Government Almighty? “Those people over there” are our inferiors… Because Our Tribe GOOD! Their tribe sub-human!

                  If the knuckle-draggers are going to be thinking and saying these kinds of things, it’s high time we use their language, to call attention to what they are doing…

                2. “However, I’d really like to see the “illegal sub-humans” serve as far-far less the scapegoats that they’re being made into in today’s political climate. Trump has ridden them (and other nations via trade issues) to power! Scapegoating plain and simple! Even those who help the “illegal sub-humans” are being punished for simple human kindness!”

                  Fucking moron! Can you not READ, or are you just PRETENDING to be mentally handicapped?!?!

                3. It’s not sarcasm.

                  There are no “knuckle-dragging xenophobes” on here bragging about the superiority of the White Race.

                  However, there ARE a host of people, some formerly quite sane, reacting as if any questioning of what appears to be an open borders agenda is tantamount to being a KKK member.

                  You among them.

                  It is possible to discuss the border situation without touching race at all–except when any attempt is met with the braying of self important asses hee-hawing about ‘brown people’, ‘brown bodies’, ‘illegal sub-humans’ and all the racial garbage you all bring up to attempt to shut down each attempt.

                  Why not give rational discourse a try?

                  1. “Why not give rational discourse a try?”

                    I’d like to… Very few here are interested in such things.

                    Now please tackle this:

                    The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Too many min wages and other mandates. Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies… And now also property confiscations for wall-building… So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

                    When will we stop the perpetual cycle of Government Almighty always getting bigger, to fix the LAST batch of problems created by excessive Government Almighty?

                    1. See this–

                      The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Too many min wages and other mandates. Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies… And now also property confiscations for wall-building… So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

                      When will we stop the perpetual cycle of Government Almighty always getting bigger, to fix the LAST batch of problems created by excessive Government Almighty?

                      This isn’t ‘rational discourse’

                      But, I AM Azathoth and mad, blind, idiocy can compensate for a lot.

                      The Collective Hive wants open borders. It doesn’t want a wall.

                      Government Almighty isn’t quite under the Collective Hive’s control right now–it’s why they, and their media puppets, are screeching endlessly–because the Hive isn’t under Hive control.

                      You WANT what the Hive wants. And that should have been obvious to anyone who ACTUALLY is against the Collective Hive–collectives seek to ever expand their control.

                      A wall makes collectivizing difficult.

                    2. “A wall makes collectivizing difficult.”

                      OK, then, let’s build walls around each and every individual in the USA!!! THAT will FINALLY prevent collectivization for once and for all!!!

                      Walls are the tools of authoritarians, not of freedom-seekers! What planet do YOU live on?

                4. “…with the promise of an unregulated working environment, low wages, and no ability to access legal protections.”

                  That, exactly, is what we have NOW, and it is NOT fair! Illegal sub-humans are afraid to go to the law for ANY reason, including collecting their promised wages, from shady operators! See “the Law” for help… Get deported!

                  Also they (lots of them) are our “partial tax slaves” w/o being able to benefit! Social Security… They pay taxes there, but will never collect the bennies! And the feds like it just fine that way… Prop up the doddering Social Security system at the expense of the “illegals”! Of course the feds secretly LIKE it that way!

                  See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ For details about us natives mooching off of the taxes of the illegal sub-humans…

                  1. Let’s look at this–

                    Also they (lots of them) are our “partial tax slaves” w/o being able to benefit! Social Security… They pay taxes there, but will never collect the bennies!

                    To an anti-collectivist, it is glaringly obvious that the illegal immigrants are doing this because they’ve stolen someone’s identity

                    To the collectivist, they’re being ‘cheated’ out of ‘bennies’.

                    You really need to assess your stance. Or wave that red flag loud and proud, comrade–because you’re not on the side you appear to think you’re on.

                    1. If I make up a made-up Social Security number, I have stolen no one’s identity.

                      If I use a dead person’s social security number… Just to WORK and PAY INTO the system… WHO am I hurting?

                      If I steal YOUR number and PAY INTO YOUR ACCOUNT (and not rob your bank account… That takes a LOT more info, you know)… Then WHY are you bitching about it?

                      This is a totally made-up non-issue!!! Stealing enough info from you to hurt your bank account or your reputation (or to threaten to kill the POTUS in your name) isn’t even in the same ballpark at all! Show me ONE news account of a person harmed by an “illegal sub-human” “stealing their SSN” to pay into the SS system with, please!

      2. wow! colossal response to one-liner

      3. Is your intention to be taken seriously at any point? Because you’re not.

        1. So you don’t take seriously, anyone whose opinion differs from yours? That’s your problem, not mine!

          SOME people are open-minded and smart enough to hear what I have to say! SOME of those who disagree with me, have enough smarts to put up counter-arguments, other than, “SQRLSY is stupid”!

          1. I take lots of people I disagree with seriously. I’m a libertarian, so that’s a lot of people.

            But I don’t take seriously someone who names themself a squirrel, then goes out of there way to type like a weresquirrel would.

            1. Well, THAT is some VERY Deep Thinking!

              “R”onald mcdonald bigMAC? HOW do you expect people to take you seriously? Any beef there? Anything more nutritional on the menu?

              1. yOu eAT bIGmacS rEtaRd!

      4. “And the “legitimate public purpose” is???”

        Preventing invasion, as requited by the Constitution.

        1. One of the most oft repeated duties found in there

        2. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

          1. There is a way to shorten that expression.

    2. “The wall serves a legitimate public purpose.”

      It’s the line that gets the biggest applause at a Trump rally, according to some reporter, maybe even a Washington Post reporter.

      1. Common Defense.

        Constitution 101

  15. Maybe it’s not true what he said (I’m guessing it isn’t), but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t use eminent domain legally.

    1. Rufus, I’d understand your comment better if you added another negative or two

    2. IOW, it’s factually inaccurate, but true enough, if you know what I mean.

  16. “…The Post’s report paints a disturbing picture of a president…”

    And a totally predictable picture of The Post’s TDS.

  17. Who, what, when, (and why, when available). With actual, named, sources. This is what I learned journalism was supposed to be when I was in middle school. Evidently continued education in the field informs that that part was a lie for the rubes.

    1. With actual, named, sources.

      If that is your standard, then don’t be surprised when the only information you get from the government is the official propaganda.

      Anonymous sources can be used to spread baseless rumors, sure, but they can also be used to expose wrongdoing. Not everyone is willing to be an Edward Snowden-type martyr.

      So, be careful what you wish for.

      1. I wish for you to fuck off.

        1. Well, you’re not going to get that either.

          I suppose you would rather be fed only a diet of official government propaganda, instead of listen to an occasional mean story about Trump.

          1. You suppose nonsense.

            1. Once again, not everyone is willing to become a personal martyr in order to uncover corrupt government behavior.

              If you demand that media outlets only publish on-the-record interviews from named sources, you won’t get those stories from anonymous sources which expose wrongdoing but nonetheless aren’t willing to risk their safety because of it.

              If your standards had been in place in the past, we would never have known about Hillary’s email server. And that arguably was a deciding factor in the 2016 election.

              So once again, be careful what you wish for.

              1. “If you demand that media outlets only publish on-the-record interviews“

                Not only. But when story after story, from the same “news” outlets, uses only anonymous sources, and story after story ends up being bullshit, I don’t care what they say without actual sources standing behind their words.

                And actually, in some cases, even with people putting there names on it. Cuz once I know someone’s a liar, I tend to not take their word for anything.

                It’s really not that complicated, yet here we are.

                1. BTW, Jeff, do you have a list of those who have ‘become martyrs’ by saying bad things about Trump?
                  Why, no, I guess you don’t. So your argument is so much bullshit.

                  1. “It’s not propaganda if it’s progress!”
                    -chemjeff

              2. chemjeff radical individualist
                August.28.2019 at 7:36 pm
                “Once again, not everyone is willing to become a personal martyr in order to uncover corrupt government behavior.”

                Once again, either you have a source, or you don’t.

                1. “Not everyone is willing to be an Edward Snowden-type martyr.”

                  From Jeff’s writings… Is Snowden not enough for you? Or do you just want to believe whatever you want to believe? Or are you just here to call people assholes? Turning yet more into another Nardz, another Shitsy, another Tulpa, perhaps?

          2. Pedo Jeffy. I know you wish for me to go away, but that also won’t ever happen. You are Pedo Jeffy forever. I will make sure you never live that down. Ever. You and your pal, Kiddie Raper need to suffer for your pedophillic enthusiasms.

            1. Do you ever bother to refute that which you disagree with? Do you ever even try? Or do you just call people names?

  18. I love the WaPo and the NYT. So much less reading to do when you can count on anything after the words ‘reportedly’, ‘officials’, ‘cited’, or ‘sources’ to be complete and utter horseshit.

    At least I will be able to make my grandkids laugh by telling them we used to be able to cite print newspapers as reliable sources.

    1. At least I will be able to make my grandkids laugh by telling them we used to be able to cite print newspapers as reliable sources.

      “Newspapers”? You mean the daily blog posts we used to print to keep the rain forests from getting overgrown?

  19. Asked for comment, a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Trump is joking when he makes such statements about pardons.

    And that eliminates all credibility for the story and any outrage it may generate. Note that this is not reported in the Reason article.

    You’re a fucking liar, Boehm.

    1. That’s good. We have a statement from the White House that the words were actually spoken. Given this, I wouldn’t trust either way without a full-out recording. Trump is known for asking for outrageous things in anger or just not thinking. However, he is also known to have a crude sense of humor. This sort of thing does fall right into line with things that he would say.

  20. “If this report is true, Trump has blatantly undermined the rule of law for political gain.”

    Well, Eric, tell us what, exactly, your own named verifiable reliable sources said when you put your highly valued journalistic credentials to work and followed up on the WaPo retelling of someone somewhere who maybe heard something.
    Come on, man. Is it true or not? It is your damn job to tell us. If you don’t know, go find out. If you can’t find out that it is verifiably true, report on the WaPo failures, not on the fantasy of a TDS lunatic.

    1. “If this report is true … ” is the magic pixie dust journalists use to lie.

    2. The incompetence Reason writers show in the most basic aspects of their jobs is astounding.
      The fact that they are comfortably employed is a sad sign of our society

      1. In fairness, it’s hard to do things like cultivate sources or fact-check stories when you’re a glorified blog who nobody will talk to because libertarians are an afterthought’s afterthought in politics and nobody gives a shit what the Kochs’ propaganda wing thinks.

        I mean, most of us in the comment section are or were libertarians at some time and we don’t even bother to read most of Reason’s articles any more because the writing is so sad and predictable, so I’m pretty sure any Reason fact-checkers (if they exist) get the hang-up once they spit out “Hi, I’m from Reason Maga…”

        And nobody ever invites them to the good cocktail parties.

      2. And in all seriousness, when have you *ever* seen in a Reason story that they called someone to verify facts in a story from the subject? Pretty much never…because most Reason writers get paid to piggyback off the work of journalists, not to do their own work. Their research usually consists of opening the Washington Post or the New York Times to figure out what the the liberal press should tell them to think today.

        They’re the epitome of rent-seeking in journalism.

  21. So now Eric is sitting in for Shriekha, copypasting allegedly reported rumors from the Nixon-law-subsidized looter press to the effect that The Don seems to have (or not) apparently intimated, condoned or countenanced possible wrongdoing by way of hearsay, apocrypha and curbside observation from unnamed sources. This is journalism?

    1. No, grasshopper, it is not.

  22. So for those of you demanding that newspapers only use named, independently verifiable sources.

    The Iran-Contra affair was exposed via an anonymous leak.

    Hillary’s private email server being used as her exclusive email service was exposed by “anonymous State Department officials”.

    Major scandals have been made public only because media outlets were willing to publish anonymous sources.

    So, be careful what you wish for.

    1. “So, be careful what you wish for.”

      Poor little Jeffy doesn’t know what wishes are, and likes to use stupid cliches.

    2. The gambit is to find some way, any way, to discredit any critic of Trump. If the sources were named, then everyone would just be going on about how so-and-so was a lying liar, or just has an axe to grind, or should quit if he doesn’t like Trump so much, etc., etc., and we’d have a whole different discussion about why we don’t need to care about Trump being Trump.

      None of these people, not a single one, would ever second-guess a Trump tweet. Yet here they are clutching their pearls over unnamed source in political reporting, like this is literally the first time in history that’s ever happened.

      You cite prior scandals. But we’ve had countless stories, relying on anonymous sources, just during the Trump administration, where we got a heads-up on what Trump was planning well before it emerged as 100%, undisputably correct – usually with an intermittent period of time when Trump et al. denied everything and his complicit army scolded the rest of us for believing anonymous sources. It’s happened again and again and again.

      1. But we’ve had countless stories, relying on anonymous sources, just during the Trump administration, that have turned out to be utter fabrications, base lies, leftist wishes, and masturbatory Democratic fantasizing. Every single ‘Trump GOTCHA’ has turned into an utter embarrassment for the left

        There. Fixed that for you, Simon.

    3. It’s an expected overswing. Yes, anonymous sources are necessary.

      However, that is not everything. The Iran-Contra and Watergate revelations did start with an anonymous source. However, they had independent verification. The actions of CREEP were found and documented. The very weapons in the Iran-Contra affair were identified.

      Reliance solely on anonymous sources that cannot be verified is just lazy. This is especially for this, which is essentially water-cooler gossip. On this. FIND THE ORDER. Better yet, find some evidence that any crimes were committed on this or that Trump pardoned one of his own staff. It’s not like presidential pardons are quiet things.

      We have nothing. We have GOSSIP from anonymous sources.

    4. So for those of you demanding that newspapers only use named, independently verifiable sources.

      Remember above when you asked for evidence? I know you’re a little slow but that’s actually what we were asking for first. We will accept anything between pardons and named sources but without anything up to named sources, named sources would be a convenient and/or least burdensome piece of evidence that proves it’s not a complete fabrication.

  23. Reportedly. Well, who cares? We have such a bigger problems than this, this one doesn’t even mention, reportedly. Reportedly, Trump is a secret Russian agent, corruptly beholden to Vladimir Putin. Reportedly, Trump colluded with Russia to hack the voting machines and Destroy democracy, or something. Reportedly, Trump bank loans are co-signed by the Russian oligarchs. As if all that weren’t bad, Trump is actually a Nazi which is much worse, reportedly.

    And before you cast doubt on any of these reports, just remember this bit about the wall is just according to anonymous media sources. Most of what I’ve mentioned here is actually according to our intelligence agencies, or at least some within them.

    1. Why should I believe a comment written by someone who hides behind a pseudonym?

  24. How many news stories did WaPo run hyping Trump as a Rooskie colluder. Yes, but this time they are right. Trust them

    1. They were right about Trump colluding with the Russians, too. It just wasn’t criminal.

        1. Read the report, genius.

      1. SimonP
        August.28.2019 at 8:28 pm
        “They were right about Trump colluding with the Russians, too. It just wasn’t criminal.”

        You’re full of shit.

        1. And you’re a troll, so.

      2. Only if by “collude” you mean “make deals with Russian citizens on unrelated topics”. However, that’s not what was meant. Your post is an explicit lie, and I’ve read enough of your comments to know that you know it.

  25. Anonymous sources can be reliable and they can be unreliable.

    It’s hard to tell, them being anonymous and all.

    Mark Felt was more or less reliable, even though they gave him a fake name, and he also had an ax to grind vis-a-vis Nixon. Which is why, IIRC, they double-checked Felt’s assertions and used him as a resource to know where to look.

    1. “Which is why, IIRC, they double-checked Felt’s assertions and used him as a resource to know where to look.”

      The way anyone with sense treats Wiki.

  26. Eminent domain for a border wall.
    Exactly the kind of thing eminent domain is for.

    1. This.

      You can disagree with the IDEA of eminent domain, but if you accept the premise of eminent domain, the border wall is PRECISELY a thing that it is inarguably for.

    2. +100

    3. Exactly the kind of thing eminent domain is “for,” yes.

      Also exactly the kind of thing libertarians tend to worry about. Lots of issues when you seize private property for “public use,” not the least of which is the philosophical underpinnings of how it can be justified at all. There are also frequently questions about due process and proper valuation – the Constitution requires due process and just compensation – which modern courts tend to shade in the government’s favor.

      So, any libertarian ought to be a little perturbed by the idea that Trump wants to steamroll local landowners in order to build something he can stand in front of for a couple of photo shoots, captioned, “Promises kept.” I take it you’re not one of them.

  27. Reason has apparently completely joined the batshit insane outrage mob. (Is this perhaps related to the death of their benefactor?)

    From libertarian magazine to accidental Onion. Quite a change.

    1. It’s no change from what I’ve seen since January 2018
      Progress uber alles

    2. The Onion actually requires their writers to do their own work and create their own stories. You have to be able to consistently write comedy to work at the Onion.

      This article is just Boehm repeating what the Washington Post wants him to think, while missing key facts in the story.

  28. Wow the Pro-Trump derangement has certainly surpassed the Anti-Trump derangement. Both are bad but damn you people here in the comment section sound more frothing-mouth-insane than even the SJWs at this point, and their tenuous grip on reality is well known.

    1. Blah blah blah

    2. Source? I’m not seeing it.

    3. The commentariat at Reason has walked past an opportunity to create a community to discuss and promote libertarian thought.

      1. Any reasonable criticism of the commentariat…

    4. This is what TDS looks like. Thanks for being an example fafalone

    5. Aaand… they just line up to prove your point.

  29. awesome, Enjoy the start of your trip that is truly comfortable, relaxed and enjoyable for your visit to Bali with this trusted tour and travel package service. This service is needed by many foreign and domestic tourists to avoid the hassle of finding airport taxis. A personal driver from our office will pick you up at Ngurah Rai Airport and take you directly to the best hotel in Bali. As for the cost of renting a car and tour packages in Bali starting from a nominal 50,000 up to the price of 1,000,000 for each package, it is quite affordable and enjoyable. Vehicles also vary and have a capacity of up to 6 passengers and are cheaper than taxis. The service operates on a 24-hour schedule so you can travel safely to your destination at any time of day, morning or night. Check the availability of the schedule on the site that we have provided, some interesting spots on the island of Bali such as the heaven gate at Lempuyang Temple, Tukad Cepung waterfall, Ubud Bali and there are many interesting tour packages that can pamper yourself. The instagramable photo spots that have been prepared for you will also complete your trip for a tour in Bali that is a pity to miss.

    tour bali murah

  30. “Despite what the president’s anti-immigration supporters say, the border wall isn’t an effective way to stop illegal immigration.”

    1. Boehm left out the word “illegal” between “anti” and “immigration”…but he knew that because he goes on to use it in the next phrase…

    2. What experimental, scientific data do you have to SHOW that the wall won’t work to stymie illegal immigration? No one ever made the claim it would stop it entirely, but Boehm’s gonna play the Politifact/Snopes “we’ll judge by the exact verbiage when it suits us, and the perceived intent when it doesn’t” game. Oh, Boehm links to a story about the wall not stopping the drug trade, that’s…a complete non-sequitor…and intentionally dishonest.

    Boehm=garbage.

    1. +100

  31. Its humorous the federal government “claims” to own 33% of the U.S. landmass. Cities and Counties claim road easement as a necessary right. But somehow we run into private property issues on 5-feet of national border land?!?!

    I guess ants, spiders, rats and geese are more important than our entire nation! Down with the U.S. — save the rocks!!! lol.. /s

    1. reason…. OPEN BORDERS OR BUST!

    2. Well, it doesn’t matter if you own 99% of the land. Walls have that problem that they have to be at a certain place. If you don’t own that one place that the wall has to be, then you need to get it.

      Walls are the one project where eminent domain makes most sense. Even roads can typically be built with some leeway. However, with a wall, it HAS to be on the border. Otherwise you effectively cut off part of the country.

  32. TV ADS=========_
    Start now making easy coins on line at home. start making greater $500 each day by way of working on-line at home. i’ve obtained $18528 ultimate month from this clean home based totally task. This process is realy wonderful and offers me extraordinary component time profits each day. anybody can now makes extra earnings online easily by way of simply follow instructions in this below given site……

    HERE??►

    HOME EARNING ONLINE JOBS FOR ALL PEOPLES_____

  33. You know, the only problem with this whole brouhaha is we don’t know if it is true or false and the history of lies on both sides (white house and press) is so depressingly impressive that to actually have an article on this is just gossip. No one in the public knows the truth. So, I end up just shrugging.

    1. For reference, see Reason’s reporting on the Children of Military citizenship brouhaha — https://reason.com/2019/08/29/military-kids-born-abroad-are-not-being-denied-citizenship/

      I have only heard 4 versions of this issue. I expect that Reason has it right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.