Reason Roundup

Trump's Civil War Tweet Is Bad. This Other Tweet May Be Unconstitutional.

Plus: newspapers vs. Google, The Federalist vs. the National Labor Relations Board, and more...

|

Who had "civil war fetishizing by the executive branch" on their 2019 bingo card? Because that's where we find ourselves this Monday morning after President Donald Trump spent the weekend (per usual) watching TV and tweeting furiously.

"If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal," Trump tweeted on Sunday night, quoting what Pastor Robert Jeffress said on Fox News. (Update: it turns out that Trump's tweet misquoted Jeffress, adding the "which they will never be" parenthetical and taking out "I'm afraid" before "it will cause a Civil War.")

This followed Trump tweets accusing Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) of treason and fraud and saying Democrats were trying to "destabilize" America.

While the civil war tweet is getting more attention, the Schiff tweetmay be a bigger deal. The president accusing a member of Congress of treason for something they said on the House or Senate floor is unconstitutional. "Trump's tweet is by itself arguably impeachable," suggested political science professor Jacob Levy

The relevant part of the U.S. Constitution is known as the speech and debate clause. It says:

For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

This clause "serves various purposes: principally to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch by protecting against executive or judicial intrusions into the protected legislative sphere," notes Todd Garvey of the Congressional Research Service.

This morning, Trump followed up with another tweet about Schiff, this time asking: "Arrest for Treason?"

The Schiff tweets have been overshadowed by Trump's subsequent mention of civil war. Many are insisting that Trump was threatening to start one and has violated a law against inciting "rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States."

The president didn't directly threaten to start a civil war, of course, nor make an actual attempt to incite one (yet). But Trump even broaching it as a possibility is disturbing and provides yet more evidence of his truly twisted, selfish way of looking at things.

"Even by Trump standards, this is a remarkably irresponsible tweet," said National Review's David French of this civil war quote. "The impeachment inquiry should focus not just on abuse of power but also fitness for office. This is repugnant."

"This what he wants from you, Republicans," tweeted Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center. "He literally wants you to fight & die in a bloody civil conflict to bail him out of the mile-deep mineshaft he's dug with a lifetime of bottomless corruption. That's how he sees your life: a human shield for him, worthless in itself."

In between his busy schedule of making unconstitutional statements and walking the line on inciting violence, Trump took time this weekend to highlight the thoughts of randos who dislike the same people as he dislikes and a "Trump But About Sharks" parody account.


FREE MINDS

The Federalist is being investigated over an anti-union tweet. In June, publisher (and co-founder of the site) Ben Domenech tweeted:

Now, the National Labor Relations Board is "prosecuting a case against the publication's parent company, FDRLST Media LLC, alleging the tweet violates federal labor laws that give private-sector workers the right to unionize and act collectively for protection without interference from their employer," Bloomberg reports.

The case shows that the board "will enforce the law against similar comments made on social media, so long as it's reasonable to believe that employees will see or learn about their superiors' statements," notes Hassan A. Kanu, Bloomberg legal reporter.

Yikes.

"This is a situation where someone, on their personal Twitter account, expressed a viewpoint, so any action against that kind of speech would implicate First Amendment concerns," Aditya Dynar, one of The Federalist's attorneys on this case, told Bloomberg. "We're thinking of filing a motion to dismiss where we'll flesh out all our arguments."


FREE MARKETS

No, Google isn't stealing ad revenue that rightfully belongs to news organizations. A thread:

Read more here.


QUICK HITS


This post has been updated.

Advertisement

NEXT: Libel Lawsuit Over University Rape Allegations Can Proceed

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. Who had “Civil War fetishizing by the executive branch” on their 2019 bingo card?

    The twittersphere has been doing civil war preenactments since yesterday.

    1. Hello.

      What a mess.

      Well, they HAVE been lying about Trump since 2016. So if the shoe fits….

      1. Not only that, but this

        I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason…..

        is not an “accusation”.
        “I want ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN tested to see if she has a brain” isn’t an assertion that she has no brain – just that I would like to see her tested to see if she has one.
        This is just more noise created by morons who see EVERYTHING Trump does as a crime.

    2. Is Twitter analogous of Bloody Kansas?

    3. They’re stealing my Halloween costume.

      1. How dare they!!!!

    4. One man’s civil war is another man’s fundamental transformation.

    5. Last month I have made $19365 by working online from home in my part time.I have made this income in my very first month of joining and that was awesome.I am a college student and doing this job in only my part time.I want you also to join this and start earning online right now by follow details on this link…….. http://www.works55.com

      1. Me too! The next door neighbor of my sister’s husband’s maid told me about this site where I can use my laptop just 2.15 hours per day. Last week I made 6719 dollares and todey I put a deposit on a brand new Renault 16. Learn more on Imafukinbot.com

  2. The president accusing a member of Congress of treason for something they said on the House or Senate floor is unconstitutional.

    For the past couple years I think the word treason has been watered down sufficiently for the president to be okay on this.

    1. They have rendered several words meaningless.

    2. For the past couple years I think the word treason has been watered down sufficiently for the president to be okay on this.

      I would agree as long as he said it was ‘literally treason’.

    3. For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

      So the 1A doesn’t apply? WTF! Every newspaper, pundit, and political opponent has been questioning the entitled swamp things since 1789.

      Pure BS.

      1. Back in the day libertarians thought the Aliens and Sedition act was a bad act and rightly derided it. Now reason seems to support it.

      2. Yeah, they are getting a little ahead of themselves (though not to the point of “supporting the alien and sedition act”). Saying that a congressman ought to be questioned is free speech. Actually having him questioned would be a constitutional violation.
        I find the “treason” talk to be ridiculous, but at this point it is just talk. If it did get to the point of investigating congressmen for things they say in the house, that would be a serious constitutional concern.

      3. This is ridiculous. The speech and debate clause may protect members of Congress from formal executive action, such as prosecution. But to say that it prevents the president from engaging in the wholly-rhetorical attacking of members of Congress based on what they say on the floor is preposterous.

        Note that the asshole law professor doesn’t qualify his opinion by saying that it applies only to grossly exaggerated rhetoric or misapplication of the term “treason.” Under his logic, if a member of Congress on the Senate floor stated on June 1, 1944, “hey Germany, the big attack is coming in five days and it will be at Normandy,” and FDR claimed that that member had committed treason, FDR could be impeached. That is ridiculous.

        1. I don’t think FDR was ever stupid enough to entrust a member of congress with that sort of info, but your point still is correct. This entire charade is bullshit, and if they think they can get away with this then they have another thing coming

      4. I’m pretty sure the part about “shall not be questioned in any other Place.” just means the Congress member can’t be arrested and dragged away to be questioned in some place other than Congress. It does not mean no one is allowed to question they ethics, sanity, morality, etc., of any member of Congress. Pretty much everyone in the nation would be guilty.

        1. Replace “questioned” with “interrogated”. Maybe it will make more sense.

    4. “The president accusing a member of Congress of treason for something they said on the House or Senate floor is unconstitutional.”

      It’s like these people just aren’t aware there’s a 1st amendment.

      Prosecuting a member of Congress for something they said on the House or Senate floor would be unconstitutional. Criticizing them for it is constitutionally protected.

      Yes, even if you happen to be President at the time.

      1. The distinction is that Trump didn’t say this was Treasonous. He said “They should be investigated for Treason”.

        That is close to if not crossing the line, IMHO. Imagine the chief of police saying to you, “I don’t like you harassing my cops with your cell phone cameras.” Now imaging him saying, “You should be investigated for obstruction of justice”. Coming from that specific person, the latter statement carries a lot more weight than criticism.

        I often find myself defending Trump, but this was a really bad weekend for him. I thought he just about had the public on his side, and then he just blew it all away with some terrible unforced errors.

        1. “That is close to if not crossing the line, IMHO”

          Lol

        2. Should doesnt mean the same thing as will.

        3. I would say that, so long as they stop short of actual prosecution, or an attempt to force testimony from a Member concerning something said in chamber, you’re not violating the speech clause.

          Say a member of the intelligence committee steps out on the floor and starts reciting national secrets, troop movements during a war, for example. They can’t be prosecuted for it, but you could still investigate to see if they were part of a spy ring.

        4. He didn’t say *where* Schiff should be investigated. Logically, by law, it would be Congress doing the investigating. Trump isn’t suggesting anything unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn’t prevent Trump for offering his opinion that behavior is impeachable.

          1. Expellable, not impeachable. Senators and Representatives aren’t civil officers so cannot be impeached. A 2/3rds vote of their body of Congress can expel them, however.

        5. The supreme court has already decided that the president’s twitter is official government communication. This is absolutely illegal. A private citizen is protected by the 1a, the office of the president is not.

          1. Yeahnope. Everybody’s protected by it.

          2. “Libertarians” (if we’re being honest in the case of this poster, full on progressives) for the selective application of fundamental rights!

            Your handlers still aren’t getting their money’s worth, de

            1. The bill of rights protects people, not government offices. Cmon now.

              1. The bill of rights specifically limits government power. This is an important distinction because notably ‘people’ occupy ‘government offices’. An office doesn’t have any agency, and can do nothing without ‘people’.

                1. The person holding the office of president does not have protected speech in the same manner as someone who does not hold the office of president, when speaking in their role as president. Again, pretty basic stuff that even applies to an e-1 in the military.

                  1. The difficult part, you might note, is deciding when the President is speaking as an individual. It’s not so clear why the Presidents 1st amendment rights would be limited when, say, their 2nd and 5th amendment rights are not. If it’s a natural right intended to extend to all people, including foreign nationals and convicted felons, than it seems absurd to claim the President is uniquely without those same rights.

                    That said, constitutionally, there are additional burdens and rules when it comes to public office holders. As far as I’m aware, there aren’t special rules when it comes to the President expressing opinions though. It seems that such rules must be fairly new given FDR’s thoughts on the Japanese.

                    1. Luckily, the courts, the DoJ, and the whitehouse all have decided that the president’s twitter is the communication of the president, not Trump the individual. And it is not difficult to see inherent limits on 1a of those in public office. A military member can’t even criticize the president while acting in their official duties. Likewise, a president saying “I hereby order…” on an official presidential communication channel could be interpreted as an order.

                      Legal parsing aside, the president using his massive platform to call for a treason investigation against a member of congress is an obvious, obvious abuse of power. You are ok with this because< i take it, because it's just idle speech since no one follows his twitter orders. I find it reprehensible because it is awfully close to completely destroying our system of checks and balances. Your comfort with a president who regularly "jokes" about getting a 3rd term or being president for life calling for treason investigations against his political foes and calling for civil war (sorry, civil war-like, so different!) is frankly scary.

                    2. Wow, you really just can’t stop yourself from making the same flawed argument repeatedly regardless of how often it’s shown to be flawed.

          3. Even if it was sane to claim that Twitter is an official government platform, which it isn’t, how does that then translate into his statement somehow being unconstitutional?

            Non-sequitur much?

            I am curious though, what other 100% private businesses are official government platforms?

            1. Follow up question: Is the New York Times an official government platform since they publish press releases from the White House?

            2. If the president issues an illegal order via Twitter, then his communication violates the constitution. 1a applies to private citizens, not government officials in their official capacity. I’m surprised you’d need this explained on such a fundamental level. The white house, the DoJ, and a federal appellate court are all in agreement now that the president’s twitter is official communications.

              If you think that’s insane, then then blame Trump for using Twitter.

              1. If.

                If is a really big word.

                Not sure you should be using it.

              2. So you’re just not going to the answer the question and instead deflect. That seems about right.

                I take this to mean that you do believe that the New York Times is an official government platform and that private businesses can indeed ban people from those same platforms as they see fit.

                No offense, but you aren’t rational.

                1. You asked, “Even if it was sane to claim that Twitter is an official government platform, which it isn’t, how does that then translate into his statement somehow being unconstitutional?”

                  I answered, “If the president issues an illegal order via Twitter, then his communication violates the constitution. 1a applies to private citizens, not government officials in their official capacity. I’m surprised you’d need this explained on such a fundamental level. The white house, the DoJ, and a federal appellate court are all in agreement now that the president’s twitter is official communications.”

                  I didn’t see your other question about the NYT. But the answer to that is: that is not an apt comparison. If you don’t like the fact that the president communicates via twitter to include giving “offical declarations” (Trump’s words, not mine), then take it up with the criminal president. It’s not like this is my opinion. It is the opinion of the federal courts, the DoJ, and the whitehouse that the president’s twitter is official communication from the office of the president, not a private citizen.


                  1. I didn’t see your other question about the NYT. But the answer to that is: that is not an apt comparison.

                    And yet you utterly fail to support that claim with anything. Curious.

                    I take it you haven’t bothered to actually look into the court case you’re trying to cite here since ‘official communications’ and ‘orders to the executive branch’ are notably not the same thing. You’re conflating disparate things, and it’s pretty clear why.

                    The court in question obviously had no idea what it was saying beyond ‘Orange Man Bad’ since Twitter is now able to ban you from Trump’s Twitter feed (for literally any reason, including ‘because they feel like it’) thus invalidating the logic behind their decision. If Trump can’t ban you from Trump’s Twitter feed because it infringes on your ability to discourse with the government, then no one should ever be banned from Twitter since logically it would impede your ability to discourse with the government. This is what happens when you essentially nationalize a private communications company in all but name.

                    Logically, if Twitter is an official government communications outlet because they say government things there then so too would the New York Times be a government communications outlet since they republish White House releases.

                    Just because an appeals court made a retarded decision regarding a private company doesn’t mean you have to double down on the idiocy. Mark my words, this decision will come back to haunt that court. I won’t forget that you support such stupid claims.

                    1. If the court was “retarded” (great analysis, btw) then why do the DoJ and the whitehouse hold the same opinion? Why didn’t the president appeal the last decision, then? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/doj-donald-trump-tweets-are-official-statements-of/

                      And further, why would you support a criminal president making unconstitutional declarations and demands via official communication channels? This isn’t the first time.

                      And because you all seemed determined to forget everything from history class, “Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?”


                    2. If the court was “retarded” (great analysis, btw) then why do the DoJ and the whitehouse hold the same opinion?

                      Because the Department of Justice literally works for the White House? And because they’re talking about ‘official communications’ not ‘executive orders’? And yes, it was a pretty excellent analysis if you bothered to actually read it.

                      One might simply ask you where government derived the authority to tell Twitter that they now represent the government. Under such a ruling, it opens the door to all sorts of government meddling in privately owned news or communications outlets such as the New York Times. That, of course, assumes that the Supreme Court actually weights in on the issue which, as of yet, they have not.


                      And further, why would you support a criminal president making unconstitutional declarations and demands via official communication channels? This isn’t the first time.

                      Because White House communications don’t have a single thing to do with orders to the Executive branch, and even the deeply flawed court case you’re trying to cite doesn’t support your premise?

                      Also, for what it’s worth, there isn’t such a thing as ‘unconstitutional declarations’. Unconstitutional orders, perhaps, but sane people don’t consider Twitter shit posting as orders, up to and including the people supposedly being ordered around and the courts themselves.

                    3. So when Trump says “I hereby order…” he’s just joking around, right? The weight of a president ordering something is the same as an average joe? Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you think a president saying, “I order (something illegal)” is beneficial to liberty and a functioning republic? I’d love to hear the defense of that.


                    4. So when Trump says “I hereby order…” he’s just joking around, right?

                      I didn’t make that claim, you might want to try reading what I actually write. You made specific claims, and I’ve well supported my views and why I think the case you’re trying to specifically cite is wrong. I’ve also shown quite well that you not only mischaracterized the ruling, but also factually misstated the court that made the ruling in the first place.

                      If Trump ordered an investigation into a local drug ring via Twitter, would you expect the DEA to open an investigation based on nothing more than the Twitter order? Do you have any examples of that happening? If so, by all means support your claims. As of yet, you haven’t done so.

              3. “”If the president issues an illegal order via Twitter,””

                You can’t issue an order via Twitter.

                1. Well the courts, the DoJ and the whitehouse all disagree with you.

                  1. Please show me the decision where courts said that Twitter is a place where ORDERS can be issued.

                    1. Whether he is allowed to issue orders that way or not, he has done it in the past. Ignorance of the law is no defense, I thought?
                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/23/trump-hereby-orders-us-business-out-china-can-he-do-that/

                    2. I specifically asked for a court decision that backs your claim about orders being issue by Twitter.

                      You can’t provide one to back up your claim. So you send me a WP article. I know you know the difference. Just admit you were wrong.

                    3. You asked for something that is beside the point. Trump does not do things legally, that is clear.
                      Trump used and has previously used an official communication channel for issuing illegal orders.


                    4. Whether he is allowed to issue orders that way or not, he has done it in the past. Ignorance of the law is no defense, I thought?

                      And yet in the article you link to, they are talking not about the Tweet but what that Tweet could perhaps signify should he actually take official action.

                      I might ask you if you actually read source articles that you post. I’m guessing you just skim headlines on Google search results looking for one that sounds right for your current claim.

                    5. TrickyVic (old school)

                      September.30.2019 at 4:28 pm
                      “”If the president issues an illegal order via Twitter,””

                      You can’t issue an order via Twitter.

                      Reply 
                      De Oppresso Liber
                      September.30.2019 at 4:53 pm

                      Well the courts, the DoJ and the whitehouse all disagree with you.

                      You say the courts disagree. I’m asking you to prove it. You can’t.
                      So admit you were wrong about the courts disagreeing.

                    6. So now you are trying to back out of your claim that the courts disagree with me when I say Trump can’t issue orders via Twitter.


                    7. You asked for something that is beside the point. Trump does not do things legally, that is clear.

                      ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’

                    8. Since you guys love to parse everything to the nth degree to avoidf at all costs having to factually defend a president abusing his power in the most obvious way possible, I’ll summarize for you.

                      Presidential tweets are official presidential communication. They are not the communication of Trump the individual, but Trump the president.

                      Trump has several times in the past used twitter to “Hereby order” or “hereby declare”.

                      Trump made a…suggestion that a member of congress, which has a constitutional right and duty to investigate and impeach, be tried for treason. He has also used twitter to conduct witness tampering and violate whistle blower protections.

                      …And you guys are a-ok with this because…I dunno, the deep state?


                    9. Presidential tweets are official presidential communication. They are not the communication of Trump the individual, but Trump the president.

                      Trump has several times in the past used twitter to “Hereby order” or “hereby declare”.

                      So, yes, non-sequitur. Thanks for clearing that up. Notably those orders and declarations carried no weight, and were not carried out or implemented by the Tweet itself and you have consistently failed at providing any evidence of your claim.


                      Trump made a…suggestion that a member of congress, which has a constitutional right and duty to investigate and impeach, be tried for treason.

                      So, this is an example of an ‘own goal’. You just admitted you were wrong, unless we’re now saying that suggestions on Twitter carry the weight of an official order to the executive branch.

                      Is there currently an investigation into that Congressmen for treason? If not, why not given that this was in your view an order from the President. Did a court issue an injunction against the order? Odd that I can’t locate one.

                    10. Oh, and just for the record the Trump administration is indeed pushing back against that silly Twitter ruling as recently as August of this year. And rightfully so, since it’s an insane ruling regardless of it’s involvement with Trump. I’d say the same thing about any politicians private Twitter account.

                      So, it would seem at least some of the White House and DoJ don’t ‘agree’ with the ruling as much as you seem to think. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

        6. Re-read Musgrave’s quote, my friend. Musgrave doesn’t say that initiating a treason investigation against a member of Congress is unconstitutional. He said that merely “accusing a member of Congress of treason is literally unconstitutional and presumptively impeachable.”

          The Speech and Debate Clause grants immunity from civil or criminal investigation or liability for statements made from the floor in Congress. It does not protect members of Congress from criticism, even excessive, over-the-top criticism.

          And since when is an unconstitutional act “presumptively impeachable?” If that is true, then Obama should have been impeached when he made unconstitutional recess appointments that the Supreme Court struck down, 9-0, in NLRB v.Noel Canning.

          Finally, here is the entire text of Art. 1, Section 6, Clause 1, containing the Speech and Debate Clause. Although it is not the clearest, an argument can be made that there is an exception for treason: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

    5. Pretty sure the Constitution does not impose any consequences for inaccurate claims.

  3. New national crime statistics are out.

    But enough about Trump…

  4. Important analysis from the Washington Post.

    Perspective: President Pelosi? It could happen.

    #Impeach
    #TrumpUkraine
    #LibertariansForPelosi

  5. Close to two-thirds of women, 65 percent, said men get raises faster than women, while 43 percent of men said the same.

    White knights make the most money.

    1. The smart money knows what to say when the boss is listening.

    2. Queen takes knight. Checkmate!

  6. Congress can say anything without pushback but the president cannot.

    1. Yeah – that’s the problem with the guy who’s in the job directly in charge of all enforcement. Arbitrary shit spewing out of his mouth says that either enforcement itself is illegal and arbitrary or that his subordinates are put it into the position of being insubordinate to him in order to comply with their oath of office.

      Course the real problem is the voters who vote for a Prez cuz they think they’d enjoy getting drunk and shooting the shit with him.

      1. How cute. You think the president signs off on every enforcement action. Arent you precious.

        1. When your boss says I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason

          that is pretty much the definition of ORDERING enforcement action.

          1. Like I said. You’re precious. You actually believe that’s what trump said.

            1. doesn’t matter what I ‘believe’. I cut&pasted his tweet. You accusing my mouse of substituting words and putting words in the Prez mouth?

                1. It’s only obviously not an order if those who work for them disobey it

                  1. Lol. God you’re a joke.

                    1. Tell us how it is obviously not an order then? Or do you have to resort to childish insults every time your logic skips a gap?

                  2. Or if what he said obviously isn’t an order. And it obviously isn’t. Come on man, TDS is rotting your brain.

                2. Trump’s twitter is official communication from the office of the president.

                  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/doj-donald-trump-tweets-are-official-statements-of/

                  1. Which is great, because it means that retweet of the gif of him smacking Vince McMahon with the CNN logo over Vince’s head had to go into the National Archives.

                    1. +1000

              1. Learn what an order is dear child. When Schiff is taken in for questioning let us know.

              2. I don’t think it’s an order. And I don’t think it’s unconstitutional for him simply to say such a thing. But it’s still not great that he said it. I would be a lot happier if I thought the president understood the constitutional limits of the office. When he says shit like that, I have some serious doubts. Saying that he wants Schiff questioned is saying that he wants to violate the constitutional separation of powers.

                1. You can say the same of literally every president. Obama once glowingly pontificate on how much easier it is to do things in china. He said he didnt have powers in his first term then determined he had a pen and phone in his second.

                  Trump has been the most targeted president in history. He has had major push back on all his moves since election night. Thinking he is worse than other presidents is silly.

                  1. I’m not particularly interested in ranking the worst presidents. Trump is president now, so what he is doing is what is relevant.
                    Obama should have gotten a lot more criticism than he did for a lot of what he said. But that is totally irrelevant to how we should think of Trump. In fact, I would say that Obama getting away with shit is just all the more reason to make sure the same doesn’t happen with Trump.
                    I don’t think this comes close to impeachable, but he should still be criticized.

                    1. “Obama should have gotten a lot more criticism than he did for a lot of what he said. But that is totally irrelevant to how we should think of Trump.”

                      Ideally, yes. Practically speaking, no. There are consequences for a chosen course of action. People turning a blind eye to Obama is once of the reasons you got Trump in the first place.

                      There is no magic wand that can wave away prior bad acts. They linger.

            2. The supreme court already decided that the president’s twitter if official communication. I do not find your ignorance and apology for a would-be tyrant cute, however. I find it pathetic.

              1. Oh, the faggot (stronger together!) is chagrined!
                Let us all clutch our pearls in horror.

                1. You can just say you have no argument. It’s much easier than whatever it is you’re doing.

                  1. Which sock troll are you again?

              2. “”The supreme court already decided that the president’s twitter if official communication.””

                Yeah, get back to me when SCOTUS upholds someone in the executive branch is punished for violating something Trump said on Twitter.

              3. Factually incorrect, the Supreme Court did not say what you say they said. In fact, I haven’t seen where they’ve weighed in on the issue anywhere. It was an appeals court in Manhattan.

          2. Here’s Al Capone from The Untouchables – I want him dead

            Same management style. Even fits the character max for Twitter – I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna piss on his ashes!

            1. Is that you Adam Schiff?

          3. So? He wants is not an order. And what is the highest level? Congress? SCOTUS? 60 Minutes? SNL? Top of the Washington Monument?

            1. And what is the highest level?

              You people really are this stupid aren’t you. Good thing he’s not Prez of the US.

              Oh wait. He IS.

              1. Screaming “YES IT IS AN ORDER!!!” won’t make what is obviously not an order into one.

                1. You mean cuz ‘the swamp’ will ignore his orders?

                  How’s he gonna reform the swamp if he’s training them to ignore him?
                  Or do you morons actually WANT the swamp to get stronger and more independent of what a Prez says?

                  1. Actually, it’s because tantrums don’t turn things that aren’t orders into orders.

                    Damn, TDS is choking your mind guy.

                    1. TDS isn’t real, but the supreme court deciding that the president’s twitter is official government communication is. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html

                      I really love how no matter what this guy does, you have an excuse for him. Very libertarian of you to support a strong executive, no matter what.

                    2. “I want” or “he should” does not equal “I order” or “do”
                      But the advocates of totalitarian socialism will continue to gaslight and speak of their fantasies as fact.
                      Hey de, why don’t you tell us about your “medals of valor” for your time in the marines with the 101st airborne

                    3. Trump: “Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
                      Nrdz: “Very legal! Don’t see the problem here!”

                    4. “”but the supreme court deciding that the president’s twitter is official government communication is. “”

                      But no where has SCOTUS said Twitter is an acceptable venue for issuing orders. The is a process for the executive to issue orders, and it isn’t Twitter. You should be able to understand that difference.

                    5. Vic, Trump himself seems confused on that matter. He likes to “Hereby order…” or “Hereby declare…” this and that all the time.
                      https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458652-trump-takes-aim-at-media-after-hereby-ordering-us-businesses-out-of

                    6. “”Vic, Trump himself seems confused on that matter.””

                      Trump is not the one trying to tell me justices ruled that Twitter is an valid place for issuing orders.

                    7. “Trump is not the one trying to tell me justices ruled that Twitter is an valid place for issuing orders.”

                      Trump is the one who keeps trying to issue orders via twitter. I don;t know why you are so upset at me.

                    8. “”Trump is the one who keeps trying to issue orders via twitter. I don;t know why you are so upset at me.””

                      No one is upset with you. Calm down.

                      But you still haven’t proven your claim that the courts said Twitter is an ok place for issuing orders.

                    9. “But you still haven’t proven your claim that the courts said Twitter is an ok place for issuing orders.”

                      I did not make that claim, that’s why. I have cited my claim that Trump does issue orders there, and that courts have ruled that his twitter communications are those of the office of the president and not his as a private citizen.

                      I know you would love for this to get side tracked into pedanty and minutiae, but why don’t we stay on topic? The president has suggested that a member of congress be tried for treason for investigating the president; an obvious assault on our system of checks and balances. Why are you defending this?

                    10. You claimed that the courts disagreed with me when I said Trump could not issue an order by Twitter.

                    11. “”The president has suggested that a member of congress be tried for treason for investigating the president; an obvious assault on our system of checks and balances. Why are you defending this?””

                      Please show me anywhere in the thread that I have defended Trump saying so. Perhaps you can find it in a WP article.

                    12. TrickyVic (old school)

                      September.30.2019 at 4:28 pm
                      “”If the president issues an illegal order via Twitter,””

                      You can’t issue an order via Twitter.

                      Reply 
                      De Oppresso Liber
                      September.30.2019 at 4:53 pm

                      Well the courts, the DoJ and the whitehouse all disagree with you.

                      You clearly are stating the courts disagree with my statement that you can’t issue an order via Twitter. But you have offered no proof. If you knew it was he couldn’t, just say so.

                      Also, you have not once agreed with any post saying Trump cannot issue orders via Twitter.

                    13. Apparently, according to Vic, the president using an official communication channel and literally saying “I hereby order” is not an order and totes ok for him to issue illegal orders through this channel, since no one takes him seriously.

                      Do I have it about right?

                    14. “”Apparently, according to Vic, the president using an official communication channel “”

                      You are making shit up now to try to avoid that you made a claim that the courts disagreed with my statement of “You can’t issue an order via Twitter.” You literally said the courts disagree with my statement and now you can’t admit it even though the text is there for everyone to see. Instead of admitting your mistake, you offer red herrings.

          4. Forget it JFree.

            When Trump says something awful, his defenders will always say “BUT IT’S JUST WORDS! THEY MEAN NOTHING!”

            Then when Trump *does* something awful, his defenders will always say “BUT DEMOCRATS ARE WORSE! TIT FOR TAT!”

            Just wait until Trump actually does shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. You’ll have the usual Trump bootlickers on here saying “But Obama!”

            1. Here comes Jeffy to support himself (not that had, because his junk is so tiny). Which is the sockpuppet and which is the real Jeffy?

              The world will never care…

              1. One wonders if they think we are all their long suffering spouses, required to nod along while they scream at the world over nothing.

            2. That’s right Jeff. No one could possibly disagree with you guys and NOT be a trumphumper.

              So smart. Much logic.

            3. What actions are you referencing baby jeffrey?

          5. “Will no one rid me of this turbulent Senator?”

          6. Wanting and doing are two different things.

            Either you understand that, in which case you’re being mendacious, or you don’t understand that, in which case you’re a blithering idiot.

      2. Course the real problem is the voters who vote for a Prez cuz they think they’d enjoy getting drunk and shooting the shit with him.

        You really are an insufferable elitist cunt.

        1. That may be. But at least I’m not you.

          1. You’ll get Trump with this one for sure.

          2. But at least I’m not you.

            It doesn’t take much to get Jeffy to reveal that his sympathy for his fellow citizens is a sham. When the Proggies start lining up the dissenters against the wall, he will be right there in all his Jacobin glory calling out the names.

            Go fuck yourself, Robespierre. And be glad you are not me. My wife would never fuck that tiny little dick you are constantly overcompensating for.

            1. Heaven forfend that JFree doesn’t buy into the myth of the noble farmer.

              1. JFree doesn’t buy into the myth of the noble farmer.

                The kulaks deserved what they got, eh?

                1. The “rural folks” don’t deserve to have their opinion elevated above everyone else’s just because they are supposedly “real Muricans”. Get it now?

                  1. The “rural folks” don’t deserve to have their opinion elevated above everyone else’s just because they are supposedly “real Muricans”.

                    Bitch, you’re the one who laid bare his class prejudices for all to see.

                  2. they don’t deserve to have their opinions ignored either, just because they don’t agree with everything you say like good little sheep. Go huff some of those chems you’re so fond of.

            2. My wife would never fuck that tiny little dick you are constantly overcompensating for.

              Did I make that offer?

              Does she know you’re offering her to strangers on the Interwebs?

              1. Scream all you want it still won’t be an order when you’re done.

          3. We’re all glad that we’re not you.

        2. “Elitist” is such a dumb insult when it comes to presidential preferences. We should all be elitists when it comes to picking the most powerful man in the world. Yes, pick someone who is better than you, not someone who is legally barred from operating a charity, or has been sued hundreds of times for being a non paying piece of shit.

          1. Hillary was never sued 100s of times and neither was Obama. I think you are being way too hard on the Democrats here. They are most certainly pieces of shit, but they were never sued for it.

            1. John, were you trying to make a point? All I got from your comment is that two terrible previous Dem candidates are still better than Trump.

              Also, it’s adorable that you still are thinking about Obama and Hillary. Rent free and all that.

          2. “Elitist” is such a dumb insult when it comes to presidential preferences.

            You would have to fundamentally change the definition of ‘elitist’ for any of that garbage you spouted to make sense.

            Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with an intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.

            Not that it matters, but when you respond with multiple sockpuppets in support of your own ranting, it makes you look super-crazy. It might be interesting if they had different ‘voices’, but they all sound alike, cite the same sources the same way, and jump to each others defense by name, which hardly anybody else ever does.

            Unless you really are a different insufferable elitist cunt who just sounds like Jeffy. God forbid.

            1. You got me. I believe that high intellect, education, special skills, and experience make a better president. I guess I am an elitist, so what does that make Trump supporters?

              1. I believe that high intellect, education, special skills, and experience make a better president.

                Interesting, I thought lefties all believed that the previous Presidents except for Obama were white supremacist people of penis.

      3. Tweets should never be considered official orders. You know, cause they’re tweets.

        1. One of the first lessons a president has to learn is that every word he says weighs a ton. – Calvin Coolidge

          1. Just admit you made a stupid assertion and move on.

            1. Nothing of the sort. People rightly understood the consequences when Obama opened his mouth about ‘red lines’. Apparently they can’t hear when Trump does the same. I’ll be generous and attribute that to it being difficult to hear when your nose is so far up his ass.

              1. You’ll get him with this tweet for sure.

              2. During the investigation of Hillary’s emails, Obama publicly stated that she had done nothing wrong.
                Clearly sending a message to the entire DOJ to drop the case,
                which is obstruction of justice,
                right?
                That one’s free. Run with it.

                1. Actually take and run with that.

                  Obama basically said “Hillary has done nothing wrong”. And the right (correctly, btw) lost its collective shit because it was the boss of the DOJ potentially signaling how he wanted the DOJ to rule.

                  Now imagine if Obama had said publicly, “I want Hillary exonerated of any wrong doing at the highest levels.” Conservatives would have had even MORE ammunition and they would have been even more correct.

                  1. “Republicans lost their shit” isn’t an argument for the Unconstitutionality of anything though man.

                    1. He gave a pretty good example that shows the hypocrisy of the authoritarians in this thread, though.

                2. Is someone defending Obama here? I don’t see it.

                  1. Pointing out parallels is defending someone?

                3. The IRS persecution of the TEA parties? “Not even a smidgin of corruption.”

                  That’s two.

                  1. To be sure ENB expressed her mortification quite publicly over that one…

              3. There’s a world of difference, in my mind at least, between the ramblings of an insane man on twitter and a press conference laying out what the official response to human rights violations will be.

            2. Trolls gotta troll and Proggies gotta prog.

              1. Trolls gotta troll

                They sure do.

                1. Ouch…

                  Jeffy deserves the scorn heaped upon him for crapping up conversations with his sophistry. He recently argued vehemently in support of hate crimes legislation.

        2. Too bad it has already been decided by an appeals court that his twitter is official communication. The DoJ likewise has adjsuted their position on his twitter and regards it as offical presidential communication. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html

          1. Official communication is not the same as an order. By your logic, the word of any government official or account has the force of law.

            Jesus Christ, try and be less stupid. There is no excuse for being this dumb and saying something as stupid as “it is an official account there fore it is an order”. WTF is the matter with you?

            1. Progressives can only conceive of the world through their own limited perspective.
              Thus, an all-powerful, totalitarian state is assumed

            2. “Won’t someone rid me of this troublesome priest?”

            3. Then why does Trump keep trying to issue orders via twitter? Is he stupid, ignorant, senile, or power-mad? It must be at least one of those.
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/23/trump-hereby-orders-us-business-out-china-can-he-do-that/

          2. When did the left start fetishizing the divine right of kings? Was it right around the time Obama declared that he had a “pen and a phone” when Congress was cock-blocking his agenda?

            1. The left is fetishizing kinds? The irony here is too much.

              1. Not nearly as ironic as you standing up for immigrant child molestors, jeff.

      4. ” directly in charge of all enforcement. ”

        So you agree that all the bullshit spewed here about Trump ‘interfering’ with an ‘independent’ justice system is just that, bullshit?

        Good to know.

        Wonder why you have never addressed that concern to all the bullshit authors here?

  7. Is reason now pretending members of congress havent been stating trump is a criminal and committed treason, including from congressional seats? The president still has 1a rights. The clause mentioned is predicated on actions, ie the arrest for congressional members and their statements to be used at trial against them.

    What is with reason and their acceptance of a twisting if law to arrest and target a politician they apparently dont like?

      1. It’s just sad at this point. Maduro is sitting back and asking himself why Reason doesnt have articles in favor of his use of political arrests.

        Reason used to argue against the politicization of the criminal code for politics, now they cheer it on.

      2. Nutcases love an incredibly broad and unrealistic conspiracy theory.

          1. I’m overdoing on irony already. Please stop!

        1. Indeed, and if the shoe fits you keep right on wearing it.

          1. I believe there is ample evidence that the president has broken laws before and after taking the presidency, enough to warrant an investigation. How is that an unreasonable conspiracy theory?

            Nah, you’re right. It was the (((deep state))) all along!

            1. I’m not really interested in your religion.

  8. Anyone here ready for President Pence?

    1. I almost hope it happens. That would just be perfect. Then when everything gets ten times worse, the DNC might go “oh. Christ we are stupid” and finally realize they are stupid. Very very stupid.

      1. Yeh. Have you not noticed they’re shrill children? Won’t happen.

      2. “oh. Christ we are stupid”

        You’re close, but most of the leftists worship the state. And they never lose faith, they double down.

      3. Then Pence hires Trump as his chief of staff, of course.

        1. Or makes him VP

    2. Depends, how’s his twitter game?

    3. There were accusation by a girl of color. who goes to the school where Pence’s wife teaches part time, that she was forcibly held down and had some dreadlocks cut.
      This is no doubt in the pipeline for Pence’s impeachment.

  9. A president of the United States accusing a member of Congress of treason is literally unconstitutional and presumptively impeachable.

    No. Just, no.

    I’d go so far as to say that it’s impossible for an off-the-cuff remark or tweet by a President to be unconstitutional.

    1. This is what full TDS looks like.

    2. Anything is impeachable. Literally anything. All it takes is a recorded vote in the house of mirrors. No reason required.
      Conviction by the Senate is another matter.

      1. Impeachable, sure. But unconstitutional?

        1. Constitutional or not is no longer relevant.

      2. I wonder if the republicans in the Senate could claim it’s unconstitutional and have the presiding Judge at the Senate trial make a determination.

        Judges can throw out indictments.

        1. The constitution requires that the Chief justice preside over Presidential impeachment trials.

          1. Yes, that I know.

            The question is can Roberts throw out an indictment by the house if Roberts believes the indictment is invalid in some form.

      3. Actually impeachments under the US Constitution requires some kind of rule/law violation to have occurred.

        “High crimes and misdemeanors” is not a free ticket for anything. Misdemeanors already means crimes punishable by a sentence of less than 1 year in jail.

        The Constitution never uses the term felony, so likely “high crimes” means felony. This would mean that impeachments can only occur when Executive and Judicial Branch personnel commit crimes. Congressmen can be expelled for “disorderly conduct”, which are not necessarily crimes.

  10. I am pumped for another week of Reason defending corruption by intelligence agencies.

    Suderman, the resident bootlicker, has a lot of work to do. Here buddy, I’ll start the first one…

    “Actually, bureaucrats secretly changing whistle blower policies to target elected officials is a good thing”

    1. I saw a video going over the actual legal document.

      It’s filled with hearsay and assumptions.

      Yeh. Totes legit.

      What a mess. I don’t blame people for either tuning out or not knowing which way is to Pismo Beach.

      Up here, Justine was PROVEN to have abused his power undermining the rule of law in the SNC-Lavalin scandal and people scarce noticed.

      The ONE FUCKEN thing that defines democracy that they claim to uphold and the people are apathetic about it and the politicians ignore.

      What do the clowns on the liberal do? Now they claim Scheer – baselessly of course – is a bigot. This matters to them but they ‘stand by’ Trudeau in the blackface scandal.

      I utterly loathe the progressive left.

      1. The Intel community changed the rules for whistle blower complaints so that you are no longer required to have first hand knowledge of what you are complaining of. And then within days, this complaint consisting entirely of hearsay is filed against Trump.

        Yeah, totally legit. But the nation’s intelligence services trying to overturn an election is totally okay because Orange Man Bad or something and principles.

        1. The Republicans will have “overturned” it neatly 3 years into the term f he’s removed and then we get Trump’s Republican replacement and then there’s the fact that we don’t even have a real democracy anyway so removing a president via 2/3 of a Senate vote doesnt seem anymore undemocratic then the way we elect presidents in the first place.

          1. That is the dumbest thing I have read in a while. It makes no sense at all. It is so dumb, you can’t even really respond to it.

            1. You haven’t met Pod prior to today?

            2. This is why we need common sense Tide Pod control.

            3. What don’t you understand?

              * Trump is only removed with support from Republicans

              * Trump did not win the popular vote and enjoys even less popular support now.

              *Trump had served most of his term already.

              *Trump’s Vice President would finish the term.

              1. Hillary also didn’t win the popular vote. There was no majority. I again ask you, when did you first learn about the electoral college? We dont run elections on popular votes. Voting patterns would change under those conditions.

                So what is your actual non ignorant argument?

              2. Jesus Christ. Still on the irrelevant pop vote thing which we all know was thanks to a) LA/NY and b) probably some illegal voting.

                Children. You’re like sore losing children who obsess on stupid, irrelevant things to explain your loss.

                1. Hillary sittng in checkmate and insisting she won because she has more pieces remaining.

              3. “* Trump did not win the popular vote and enjoys even less popular support now.”

                But the hag won ‘nastiest in class’ by a landslide, so she should be POTUS?
                Did you know there’s a thing called the Constitution which sorta defines how you become POTUS?

              4. enjoys even less popular support now

                eh, I wouldn’t bet on that

                1. Seriously. Polls I’ve seen seem to be leaning towards moderates thinking this whole impeachment thing is a mistake. And why wouldn’t they? After the Russia collusion bullshit, and the Kavanaugh lies, they’re starting to see the pattern, even if they don’t like Trump.

          2. Wonderful. Now go back to 1998 and inform Democrats of that.

        2. Keep in mind that last year, roughly 60% of the Democrats running for office had ties to the intelligence community, either as members of the CIA, NSA, or as military officers.

          If you had told the New Left back in the mid-70s that their party would end up being fully bought and paid for by intelligence spooks in 40 years, they’d have thought you were just having a bad trip and needed to find a different dealer.

          1. It is pretty amazing isn’t it? But remember, the worst abusers of the Intel community and FBI was not Nixon but Kennedy and Johnson. The Democrats have been in bed with these organizations for a very long time. The New Left just took over the party and continued an existing relationship.

            1. True–it was FDR who set up the OSS, after all. The FBI was set up by Wilson.

              The 60s was probably the left’s first attempts to really push back against these organizations, but that’s hard to do when your party leaders owe their political careers to those same institutions.

              1. +100

                That is kind of why the Deep State is scared shitless of Trump.

                They cannot control him because he has not violated the law and they have no dirt on him. Add in that he sees the Deep State as a threat that needs to be rolled back.

        3. So John, you are more interested in enforcing whistle blower rules than constitutional checks and balances? Odd priorities, but ok.

          1. Are you retarded? If not, come back and make a point that makes some sense and has something to do with the conversation.

            1. So John, you only have ad hominem, but can’t defend your blind devotion to a criminal president? Ok.

              1. Your point makes no sense. It doesn’t respond to the issue at hand. Saying whistle blowers should have to have first hand knowledge of their complaint has nothing to do with protecting whistle blowers or the constitution.

                Your point makes no sense and has no place in this discussion. You clearly have no understanding of the issues at hand and need to shut up and stop wasting people’s time making stupid and irrelevant points. I have no patience for stupidity. Take your pig ignorance somewhere where they do.

                1. John, you are the one who brought up the specific minutiae of whistle blower complaints. “The Intel community changed the rules for whistle blower complaints so that you are no longer required to have first hand knowledge of what you are complaining of. And then within days, this complaint consisting entirely of hearsay is filed against Trump.

                  Very funny you claim my response to that has no bearing on the conversation.

                  And btw, that federalist article is very easily debunked, as whistleblower protections and process are outlined in law already. And guess what? You guessed it: no requirement for first hand reports.
                  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033

                  1. Funny how you can find that, but can’t find the ruling where the courts said Trump can issue orders by Twitter.

                    Just admit you were wrong.

                    1. I never said that courts said that Trump can issue orders by twitter. I said that courts, DoJ, and the whitehouse all confirm that twitter is presidential communication, not private. I also showed examples where trump has said, verbatim, “I hereby order…” using twitter. You keep asking for a claim I have not made.

                    2. I posted that Trump cannot issue an ORDER via Twitter.

                      You said the courts, Doj, and the Whitehouse disagrees.

                      I specifically said order. It’s right there for all to see.

      2. ” I don’t blame people for either tuning out or not knowing which way is to Pismo Beach.”

        And that’s the whole point of the lefts mass propaganda.

      3. Changing the rules was to get a foot in the door and hopefully uncover something that could actually be used, similar to the Mueller investigation. You just keep hammering and hope you find a weak spot.

    2. bureaucrats secretly changing whistle blower policies

      I keep hearing this repeated. What is the source of this claim?

      1. Oh okay now I see John’s link.

        1. er Jesse

          1. Wait you didn’t know that initl TODAY?

            Go get informed and come back. It was all over every outlet all weekend.

            1. At least this time he didnt make the mistake of just saying the federalist shouldn’t write about issues like he did with the federalist articles penned by an OBGYN on federalist. Baby steps from baby jeff.

              1. Oh right when he said he didn’t trust doctors to give medical advice.

                And before you howl at me like you inevitably will Jeff, I saw it and you’re a liar. Save your breath.

                1. Oh right when he said he didn’t trust doctors to give medical advice.

                  Gaslighting as usual, Tulpa.

              2. saying the federalist shouldn’t write about issues

                Another gaslighting lie.

                You can’t actually argue against what I wrote, so you have to make up things. Got it.

            2. You mean, it was on Fox News all weekend.

              1. So, you are telling us that whatever ‘news’ sources you choose to watch didn’t actually inform you.

                One of the few things you have ever said that is eminently plausible.

      2. It’s fake news from the right, again. Whistleblower process is already outlined in law. There is no requirement for first hand reports. The removal of language from internal memos requiring first hand reports were probably corrected to remove language that did not reflect the law.
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033

        1. It must be very frustrating for you trolls.

    3. Oh, sure. Because Reason is all about defending government corruption.

      1. They get the secret Deep State edition of Reason.

      2. It has been quite often lately that reason defends the non elected members of the fed lately.

        1. No, I have been around since the very first days of Hit and Run.

          I’m kinda disgusted, though, how the commentariat has been taking over by a bunch of pro-Trump conservatives.

        2. Reason has a wide range of socks to use to back up its non-Libertarian writers.

    1. Surprisingly, this story was not reported by Reason.

    2. Don’t worry Jesse they’re already writing spin in collaboration with Rachel Maddow to justify this behavior. As soon as they get marching orders you’ll be told exactly how to think.

      1. I was shocked Maher came put and stated that if Hunter Biden was named Hunter Trump, Maddow wouldnt shut up about it.

        1. His sound bite on white guilt was great as well. Guys all over the place

      2. Definitely but I did notice that this weekend seemed to be used as a sounding board for public support of this crazy Democrat scheme and they are not getting the support they hoped for.

        You can see the change in mood this morning. Most Propagandists (including reason) seem to have the wind knocked out of them since their claim to be doing anything for America.

        1. Yeah, over at 538, the headlines have shifted from, “If This Is Trump’s Best Case, The Ukraine Scandal Is Looking Really Bad For Him”, to “How A Big Enough News Story — Like Impeachment — Could Warp The Polls”

          IOW, they’re now rationalizing why the polls that are moving against them aren’t accurate. On a polling site.

    3. Meanwhile, Edward Snowden had first hand knowledge of unconstitutional domestic surveillance without warrants and the Intel Community went after him like attack dogs.

      Hmm… no double standard conspiracy to see here.

    4. Enemies of the people.

    5. Think the Heffalumps might use this loophole the next time there’s a Donkey in the WH? Nah, they’re above that. Hahaha!!

      I have to give the Donkeys credit for their creativity in political gamesmanship. But they have been burned when the Heffs get in – see Garland.

    6. I love how you are so concerned with the technicalities of whistleblower complaints rather than if the president abused the powers of his office.

      The entirety of the complaint was confirmed in the summary memo, anyway, so what is your complaint, exactly? First or secondhand, the complaint was accurate.

      You want Trump to win at all costs, checks and balances be damned.

        1. Abuse of the powers of his office for furthering his re election bid. Quit jaqing off now, please.

          1. So you really are another OBL wanna be.

            Needs improvement.

            1. obl? Osama bin Laden?

      1. Wanting Trump to win and wanting the Democrats to lose are two different things.

        1. I want america to win by ridding itself of a criminal president. you might want to lay off the sports analogies, they seem to be affecting your thinking regarding politics, which is not a team sport.

          1. I want america to win by ridding itself of a criminal president.

            We’re more likely to win by ridding ourselves of left-wingers.

    7. Fake news. There is no requirement for first hand reports in whistle blower law. There is a requirement for IG to disseminate the report to congress, though. Which Trump’s AG tried to stop. Which is illegal.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033

  11. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $60.1 billion

    Even if Drumpf didn’t deserve impeachment over #TrumpRussia and #TrumpUkraine, you could make a case he deserves it for his tariffs and immigration restrictions. When a self-made economic genius like Charles Koch can’t even make a buck, you know the economy is in ruins.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

  12. Republicans are starting to get behind impeachment…

    Even more so when they realize what an election year acquittal does for a president under siege.

    1. The one House republican who the media claimed supported impeachment, from Nevada, came out and said the media made the whole shit up.

      1. This whole impeachment “investigation” will backfire like the Mueller “investigation” and all the crazy shit the Lefties have been cooking to stop Trump.

        1. Media is spinning polling saying impeachment fury is now at 48% .. knowing the bump is purely from propaganda.

          1. Or they just kept resampling their polling data until they got the outcome they felt they could sell.

            Check out the book “How To Lie With Statistics” sometime…most of what the anti-Trump pollsters do is straight out of that book. Sad thing is, the book was meant as a warning, not a how-to guide.

            1. Much like 1984 and Animal Farm.

        2. What are all you righties doing on a libertarian site?

          1. Spending their entire day. Every day.

          2. What are you doing being here instead of on DemocraticUnderground?

          3. You are at least correct that liberty is a right wing concern.

            What you seek is another matter entirely.

            1. “You are at least correct that liberty is a right wing concern.”

              How so?

              1. How so?

                Because the left is lock, stock, and barrel of a gun collectivist, that’s how.

        3. ════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
          ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
          ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
          ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
          ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
          ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
          ────────────────║║
          ────────────────╚╝
          ____________________________________________________

  13. For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    So, congresscreatures cannot be criticized for what they say “on the floor”, but any other utterances are fair game?

    1. Replace “questioned” with “interrogated”. A member of Congress can’t be forced to come to any other location and be questioned/interrogated about anything. It’s not about criticizing or suggesting the Congressman could be wrong (or worse).

  14. “The president didn’t directly threaten to start a civil war, of course, nor make an actual attempt to incite one (yet). But Trump even broaching it as a possibility is disturbing and provides yet more evidence of his truly twisted, selfish way of looking at things.”

    Dont tell Reason about The Resistance.

    1. And he didn’t threaten anything. He made the very reasonable observation that if the day ever comes that the Congress does remove a President without widespread public support for doing so, it would start a civil war. How you read “he is threatening a civil war” out of that is something known only in the deep recesses of the TDS affected mind.

      1. Trump was elected without popular support so your point is pretty fucking mute you gerrymandering pos.

        1. Trump was elected with enormous popular support in a very close election. You need to calm down and take some of your meds and just post the talking points that were sent to you because incoherent ranting and raving is not what they are paying you to do.

          1. “Trump was elected with enormous popular support in a very close election.”

            Where “enormous” means “less than half?”

            Or “that of half-educated bigots and superstitious slack-jaws?”

            Get an education, you bigoted rube.

            1. What does emormous have to do with half?

            2. 48% of the population is an enormous number of people. Even someone of your limited intelligence has to understand that.

            3. Fuckhead Rev can’t count to 304, the number of electoral votes Trump got.

              1. “”Fuckhead Rev can’t count to 304,””

                Does he play drums or something?

            4. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the rules for getting elected President. Anyone would have been elected by much less than half of the eligible voters in the country.

          2. He lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever for a winning candidate. He is officially the most consistently unpopular president in history, since data has been kept. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/trump-cant-stop-lying-about-his-unpopularity.html

            How can you possibly claim he is/was “enormously popular”?

          3. These Lefty retards don’t even understand that there are millions of American adults who don’t even vote.

            Hillary lost by 62,984,828 Trump votes, 4.5 million LP votes, 1.4 million green Party votes, hundreds of thousands of various Independent parties votes, and million of Americans who didnt vote.

            1. typically 40% of the eligible voters don’t show up to (vote for president).

              There’s yer majority.

        2. I learned about the electoral college in 6th grade. What about you Pod?

        3. It’s ‘MOOT’ you ignorant shitstain!

          1. It is moot and that’s what I intended and realized myself after posting the comment. If that mistake says anything about me what do Trump’s massive gaffes in his tweets reveal about him by your standards?

            1. I know trump is but what am I.

              Novel approach.

              1. I know trump is but what am I.

                ROFL

            2. Lol you used the wrong word and now are lying about it how silly. It wasn’t spellcheck, your fingers didn’t type it on their own, you just didn’t know it was wrong until you were told. Amazing.

        4. Trump was elected without popular support so your point is pretty fucking mute you gerrymandering pos.

          Hillary got less than 50% of the vote, too, dumbass. And “gerrymandering” doesn’t mean shit when the popular vote winner in each state gets all of the state’s electoral votes.

          And it’s “moot,” not “mute,” you illiterate proglydyte.

          1. Gerrymandering isn’t relevant to the presidential election but the GOP’S support and use of it is relevant if we’re talking about respect for voting and democracy.

            1. Wait… you think Democrats dont gerrymander. Do you know where the term comes from? My god man, stop proving you’re an idiot.

              1. stop proving you’re an idiot.

                Not gonna happen.

              1. Your point is mute.

                Mute?

            2. “but the GOP’S support and use of it is relevant if we’re talking about respect for voting and democracy.”

              Wow you thought that gerrymandering mattered in the Presidential election. Wow p, you’re dumb.

            3. No, it’s a lame deflection, just like all of your other arguments.

            4. As a Californian I always crack up when the left flips out over gerrymandering. CA sends 53 people to the House and 46 are Dems.

              Mute yourself.

              1. I thought that was because they let “illegals” vote? You guys gotta get your stories straight.

                1. 2/10. Unlike your side, we aren’t unhinged, and are perfectly willing to concede both that i) CA is a Dem state and ii) that the states get to draw the boundaries. So we don’t whine incessantly about a 60/40 state being 85/15 in the House, because we recognize that it’s just part of the game.

                  Your side, of course, complains about just that all the time, but only if it’s done by a Republican statehouse in a way that disadvantages Democrats.

                  1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering/virginia-republicans-lose-in-u-s-supreme-court-racial-gerrymandering-case-idUSKCN1TI1TN

                    You really want to defend gerrymandering based on race? That’s not very libertarian of you. Bad look, too. It

                    Seriously, have any of you even read Paine, Bastiat, Hayek…any of them? The individual is the most basic unit of liberty. Gerrymandering is obviously harmful to the individuals who are affected. I don’t know how comments like the one above are allowed to sit here, unchallenged by all you so called libertarians. Your focus and opinions seem to align more with fascists and nihilist conspiracy theorists than libertarianism.

                    1. None of them argued that a man is an island. You have a rather solipsistic view of how society should function.

        5. Trump was elected without popular support so your point is pretty fucking mute you gerrymandering pos.

          Hillary, as oblivious to facts and history as Beto O’Rourke, declared the party of Lincoln to be the party of Trump. Lincoln had a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Trump. He forcibly removed Confederate flags from private property, jailed Copperhead Democrats, and arrested judges. Lincoln had loads of opportunity to defuse the Civil War and frequently lamented that it had to happen.

          Trump lamenting/threatening Civil War is not new, almost 80 score of years old if not older.

        6. “Trump was elected without popular support so your point is pretty fucking mute you gerrymandering pos.”

          Fucking lefty ignoramuses keep repeating lies and/or irrelevances in the hopes that they will somehow get better.

      2. If he was impeached though it would have been done by a majority of the people’s representatives ergo broad public support. I don’t think so highly of our Senate to think the wouldn’t read the polls on this when all they ever do is read polls to figure out what their opinion is on any issue.

        1. I agree that it is very unlikely. If, however, Congress removed a President over the objection of a majority of the public, there would be hell to pay and maybe a civil war over it. That being said, even the Republicans are not dumb enough to try and remove Trump over the objection of their own rank and file supporters.

      3. He wrote ” Civil War Like” which can mean many things including how people vote or treat the scumbags who vote for impeachment and maybe an actual Civil war because if they impeach over a fake story then many of us will have utter hatred for the left. for many until Trump it was okay they can their ideas and we have ours but now they are trying to shut down different ideas and votes. there is no longer a peace between the two parties the left is already at war with America

        1. “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe our country can no longer remain half capitalist and half communist. It must become all one or all the other.”

          If Trump had said something like this, the screeching from the left would have been high enough to shatter every window in the country.

          1. Heheh — good point.

  15. Stormy Daniels will get a $450,000 settlement from police in Columbus, Ohio in a lawsuit stemming from her 2018 arrest at a strip club there.

    Probably the most expensive boners the city has had.

    1. So far…..

    2. To be covered by a new 25% lap-dance tax.

    3. Will Trump have it garnished for the amount she owe him?

  16. Of course, if Democrats plan for civil war in 2020 if Trump doesn’t leave office, that’s perfectly okay.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/23/opinions/trump-contest-2020-election-loss-geltzer/index.html

    1. We all know now that the only political group that refuses to accept defeat are the Democrats.

      1. Same with the Remain morons in the U.K. Its a prog thing.

  17. First… it is not “literally” unconstitutional for POTUS to claim a Member of Congress has committed treason. He can’t make a claim about speech on the Congressional floors, sure… but that’s a pretty limited sphere of action that is off limits.

    Given that nearly anything that sticks in Congress’ craw is impeachable, sure… the tweet is “impeachable.” But to claim that a statement about off-limits speech by a Member of Congress rises to the level of a high crime or a misdemeanor is ludicrous. And this analysis is from a professor? Hell… I just teach HS social studies and my ability to think rationally and sober about this is light years ahead of this guy. I mean, I’m not a fan of all things Trump… he may be the monster in the closet but all the Dems keep saying is that he’s the monster under the bed yet when we look under the bed, there are no monsters.

    Second, POTUS referred to a Civil War-LIKE fracture… as in he referred to a FRACTURE (not a war) that would not be unlike the fractures present during the Civil War era. There is a massive leap one must make to think that a reference to fractures in the country, which are real, is somehow tantamount to threatening war. A leap so large that one’s head must be full of air to float across the chasm.

    WTF… again… Reason. You would be better off NOT trying to fill your website with super-recent current events and instead lag behind every other news outlet yet actually do, you know, some reporting and critical analysis before rushing to publish.

    1. I am surprised the Reason would appear to endorse the notion that the tweet (or most any imaginable tweet) may be Unconstitutional. I would’ve expected Reason would’ve been more likely to push back against such a notion.
      Perhaps it is time for Robby Suave and the editors to revisit their own mission statements.

      1. They are fully in on the arrest trump bandwagon. Its not Reason, its Woke.

        1. Woke minds and woke markets!

      2. I still come here for the “news” in that they call attention to stories often ignored elsewhere. I end up cutting out all the editorializing they do (it’s not analysis when you just make crap up especially if it is both one-sided and demonstrably illogical) and leave happy with a few answers to the “Who? What? Where? etc”.

        Then I scroll to the comments for good parsing of the facts. There is usually someone from both sides making an argument. At times its trolls on one side, but even they… mired in a pile of dog excrement, sometimes have a singular point that is worth thinking about.

        Plus the comedy in these comments is sometimes real, honest gold.

        1. Yep. I see some dumbass story on the front page, say to myself “what the fuck?”, come to the comments, and usually see at least a dozen other people that have already said “what the fuck?”.

      3. ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN not Robby Suave

      4. These fevered headlines and absurd analyses drive clicks. It’s all about the clicks!

        KMW is driving up revenue by this and the ads on the podcasts. Capitalism at work is sometimes ugly, and usually separates people from their principles.

        1. Yes. There is good money in not having principles.

    2. Members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for treason or any other crimes they commit in furtherance of their duties. That, however, doesn’t mean they cannot be guilty of a crime. They have immunity from prosecution not from reality. So, Trump is free to accuse them of any crime he likes.

      This stuff is not complicated. The media reason included seems to have lost its mind.

      1. Fun Fact: Article I, Section 5: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

        Each House of Congress can expel members for disorderly conduct and 2/3 concurrence.

    3. re: “You would be better off NOT trying to fill your website with super-recent current events…”

      This is the Reason blog. It would be weird to not discuss current events on a blog. Reason *Magazine* has tons of actual reporting.

      1. “It would be weird to not discuss current events on a blog.”

        1) why?

        2) it’s not the blog anymore

    4. Reason. You would be better off NOT trying to fill your website with super-recent current events and instead lag behind every other news outlet yet actually do, you know, some reporting and critical analysis before rushing to publish.

      You new around here?

      Because since the last election it’s been all click bait TDS hot takes, tribal virtue signaling, and cocktail party invite posing.

      1. Not new. Just typically a lurker rather than a poster. But yeah… it has become TDS all day, ever day most of the time. But I suppose it’s called clickbait for a reason… here we are chatting it up.

    5. He can’t make a claim about speech on the Congressional floors, sure

      Sure he can. I think people don’t know what “questioned” means in this case. It does NOT mean “criticized”. It more like “interrogated”.

      1. A claim as to its “legality”… at least not an official claim. He can bitch and moan, but he cant really do anything about it ex oval officus (that’s my attempt at making up neat latin sayings).

        But it is also quite possible I suppose that Trump was referencing actions not taken on the floor. These guys dont live in the chambers exclusively. As such, he can call it treason until the cows come home.

  18. “”For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.””

    Would media outlets count?

    1. The law is literally talking about taking in legislative members into executive police actions. Reason is trying to twist this into the president cant talk badly about a member of congress. This is the dumbest thing reason has asserted in a while.

      1. It got you to comment. $ for Nick and the gang.

        1. Short term gain is way more important that long term credibility. Just ask Vice, Buzzfeed, Vox or any of the other “journalism” outlets that have had waves of layoffs during the past couple years.

      2. That’s a pretty high bar, to be sure

  19. “Propaganda about the gender pay gap seems to be having an impact.”

    lol… no shit. This happens with climate change, healthcare, illegal immigration, gun control… you name it. And you know what? you’re literally feeding the propaganda machine in this very post. You are supporting the drum beat of impeachment through deep state bureaucracy propaganda. You are part of the problem.

    Welcome to the Cathedral

  20. “If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal,” Trump tweeted on Sunday night, quoting what Pastor Robert Jeffress said on Fox News. This followed Trump tweets accusing Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) of treason and fraud and saying Democrats were trying to “destabilize” America.

    All true.

    US Constittuion, Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    Democrats levied war against the US Constitution and the United States in 1861 and after losing they paired with Socialists to levy war against the USA starting in the early 20th Century to present.

  21. “a Civil War like fracture”

    Is this what’s got everyone in a tizzy? Besides the poor grammar/punctuation, it is obviously alluding to a country divided in half which has been the standard take by just about every politician and talking butthead for about 30 years now.

    1. Hasn’t the media been shitting itself since 2016 about how ideologically divided the country is, due to the first real pushback against Wilsonian philosophy that’s dominated political thought in this country for the last 100 years? Where the fuck else do they think this leads to, long-term, a beer summit?

      But when Trump acknowledges it, “HE’S THREATENING CIVIL WAR REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!”

  22. For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    He didn’t question him. He criticized him. Is the President not allowed to say anything about what’s spoken in Congress. Or just this President?

    1. I’m no Obama, but I think that means no legal action can be taken against them for what they say there.

      1. It was designed to protect speech on the floor and disallow the executive to arrest members in session so they would miss votes. It was not written to stop criticism of legislators.

        1. ‘designed to protect speech on the floor and disallow the executive to arrest members in session”

          In the same way as what is proposed and discussed in executive policy discussions is protected. In meetings, all kinds of solutions are proposed, and in ensuing discussion may be decided as not feasible or unworkable.

          On the floor of Congress, proposals are floated and the proponent(s) can not be brought up on criminal/civil charges for policy they promote – even though the policy may be in violation of the current constitution which they might like to change.

          The executive holds meetings and asks for input and the ensuing policy discussion should not be disseminated. A decision to act though, if unconstitutional/illegal, would be subject to existing law.

      2. ‘Questioned’ is probably even more specific in that it probably refers specifically to the subpoena power. Like, the FBI, DOJ, etc. can’t request a judge to subpoena a Rep or Senator about something they said on the floor. That would actually make sense.

        1. It in fact ties directly to executive actions such as police enforcement. That’s what makes reason look so stupid here.

          1. Agreed. That’s close to my understanding of the clause. Reason looks stupid on this one. They should know better. Perhaps Volokh will take up the Constitutional status of the tweet/speech and educate Reason a bit.

  23. It’s very telling that CBS has to lie about the results of their own poll. Their own numbers show over 60 percent of Americans say we need more information. Also it shows only 40 percent of America believed the fake news from NYT. That’s amazing, when more than half the country immediately doesn’t believe NYT and needs more information.

    1. I would add that those numbers are not “of America”.

      Those numbers are “of polled” Democrats. Much of conservative and Libertarian American does not get polled. The math would scare the shit out of lefties living in bubbles.

      This would imply that ~60% OF DEMOCRAT VOTERS do not support impeachment until more information is gathered. Lefties have ~0% support from non-Lefties and less than 40% support of Democrats.

      1. The funniest thing is that Biden is spending time having to deny it, and tried to intimidate the media from having Guiliani on there shows. Warren has overtaken him, Sanders is fading and Biden is to busy playing defense and blundering to do anything about it. Whereas Trump has raised over $15 million dollars in small contributions since this started.

        1. On top of it all, it looks like they cried wolf too often. The more evidence I’ve seen, the more I’m bothered by some of Trump’s actions, but the Democrats disgust me even more (c’mon Schiff lying during testimony) and it seems the stronger Trump’s base supports him.

          1. I still think Impeachment is stupid, especially as Mendoza did exactly the same thing this spring and Biden bragged about doing the same thing. Oh and the whole Obama and his administration spying on Trump and Hillary getting information from the Ukrainians in 2016.

  24. “For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

    Lese-Majeste. Wasn’t a revolutionary war fought to get rid of that kind of horseshit?

    1. Taken out of context. Much like how people take Bible Verses or anything Trump says out of context to make it fit their narrative.

  25. It’s also telling the media is lying about public sentiment on impeachment. They are quoting “more than half the country” but aren’t mentioning it’s down 16 percent from a week ago. Less people believe in impeachment now than a week ago.

    1. They are quoting “more than half the country” but aren’t mentioning it’s down 16 percent from a week ago.

      Probably because the more the media talks about it, the more Biden and the Obama administration come out smelling stinkier than a two-day old fish in the sun.

      1. Is that a regular sun or global warming sun?

    2. The reality for many Democrats is that they don’t want federal power diminished.

      Why they tend to hate Trump, a precedent of impeaching President for no real reason will allow Republicans to impeach Democrats for no real reason. Not that there will ever be a Democrat President ever again but many top Democrat politicians (like RBG, Sotomayer, Breyer, Schummer, and Pelosi) could be impeached or removed from Congress when the GOP takes over.

  26. The Hunter Biden timeline, from Yale to Ukraine. Not a day without mentioning access to his father.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/hunter-biden-comprehensive-timeline/

    1. Why would a corrupt company bribe the son of an American vice president to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor who wasn’t investigating corruption? The answer is you’re really fucking dumb and/or blinded by partisanship.

      1. The fact that you wrote the question how you did shows you ignorant you are.

        You could read the article and see it didnt involve only Burisma too. Butnignroance is easier isnt it pod.

      2. Good question, Pod–why would a crackhead son of a Vice President of the most powerful country in the world get a job that paid him $50K a month, in an industry that he had no experience in whatsoever?

        Or do you only ask these questions when it’s not Democrats getting the favors?

        1. I’ve already said it’s a damn shame our laws allow these ex officials and the children of officials to leverage their proximity to govt into money. It’s just hilarious that Rudy Giuliani is the one calling this out considering he left public office worth $1 million but was worth $50 million a few years later. Do I even need to point out that Trump’s daughter’s husband’s family got a billion loan from Qatar? We need better laws to rein in these practices. We need campaign finance reform to take money out of our politics but conservatives resist because they support and are owned by the big money that corrupts are politics. I’m glad we’re having this debate.

          1. LOL. Like Dems aren’t owned by ‘big money’. I’m also certain Democrats leave politics more wealthy than they came in just as much as Republicans – probably more.

            Never mind that the main frontrunner is a left-wing nut case who rails against a capitalist ‘rigged system’ only to profit off foreclosed homes in the past and invests in fricken private prisons.

            In Italian they say, ‘ma va’.

            Loosely translated as ‘GTFOH’.

            1. Have you noticed how that since Bernie’s now a millionaire, he only rants against billionaires, not millionaires and billionaires like he had been for decades?

          2. Hunter Biden wasn’t given all that shit for “proximity”.

          3. We need better laws to rein in these practices. We need campaign finance reform to take money out of our politics

            There’s no law that any society can ever develop that will accomplish this. Politics is, quite literally, the art of selling access for favors via legislation.

            Arguing that “we need campaign finance reform to take the money out of politics” is like arguing that “we need global rotation reform to ensure the sun doesn’t rise in the morning.” It’s a childish shibboleth that shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone over the age of 6.

            1. Well said. People like Pod absolutely worship government and advocate for virtually unlimited power for the executive branch. They honestly believe that when Steve Bannon said the Trump administration was going to “deconstruct the administrative state” that Bannon was suggesting a move toward Nazism. Explaining to them why smaller government will reduce political corruption is like trying to explain 3-D printing to a member of an undiscovered amazonian tribe.

              1. It’s just a matter of being around long enough to understand the limits of government.

          4. “It’s just hilarious that Rudy Giuliani is the one calling this out considering he left public office worth $1 million but was worth $50 million a few years later.”

            Yeah, that Bernie guy is doing….
            Oh, wait!

      3. Nobody ever said Democrats were anything but dumb and corrupt.

        I for one welcome this craziness by Lefties. It exposes all of their positions publicly, so we can impeach each and every politician and bureaucrat from power once Trump gets reelected.

        As for reason being crazy and supporting Lefties, the writing is already on the wall when they added these auto play videos and send in troll bots to try to increase web traffic and revenue.

  27. I thought Reason were progressive water carriers before, but it’s reached new heights, fucking hell.

    Is there any principal you folks won’t abandon?

    1. Free markets without acknowledging reality and open borders that never have a negative cost. Basically 2 principals bound in naivete. See Boehm and Shikha.

    2. So many new commenters here that won’t be happy unless Reason becomes a conservative water carrier.

      1. Would settle for “not completely intellectually dishonest”.

      2. Not a new commenter, but thanks for your non-sequitur.

      3. I have read Reason for decades. They attacked Bush when appropriate and defended him when appropriate. They did the same with Obama. They don’t do anything close to the same with Trump. They’ve lost their intellectual honesty.

      4. Super inaccurate.

        Libertarians left on reason comment area would likely be satisfied with mostly unbiased news and issues to discuss. Actual Libertarian-centric issues/people would be a cherry on top.

        reason is not fooling anyone with Anarchists and Lefties parading as LINOs.

  28. Trump shits on the constitution! Vote us because we pROtecT aN cARE abOUT deH pAper.

    Democrats shout they’re defenders of the Constitution and then….

    NYC’s Democrat Mayor makes saying ‘illegal alien’ illegal.

    So taxpaying citizens are threatened to protect ILLEGAL citizens. Superb. Now that’s social mores and justice we can all get behind! Move over Moses you fag and your foggy 10 commandments time for some real equality! This to go along with their climate change fanaticism of refitting buildings (speciously claiming they account for 70% of emissions) and $15 min wage killing restaurants and SMEs.

    Standing ovation stuff right there.

    1A and 2A. They’re, erm, gunning for it. And we all know it.

    I look forward to another one of Reason’s false equivalencies claiming ‘snowflake conservatives’ are ‘just as bad’.

    1. Same!

      *pounds desk*

      BOTH SIDES
      BOTH SIDES
      BOTH SIDES

  29. “Trump’s tweet is by itself arguably impeachable”

    They’re giving each other impeachment-gasms.

  30. The pronouncements of members of Congress in official settings may not be questioned, ever? Because I don’t think a tweet by a president is the start of legal proceedings against that member of Congress. Which is not to say that Trump should be throwing around treason accusations lightly, but what Schiff did was also crass and lacking in prudence to slander the president in the committee hearing.

    Truly the times have gotten to the ridiculous.

    1. It is an impeachable offense to ever question a Democrat. It is also impeachable to even suggest investigating one.

      Didn’t you know that?

      1. The fun thing is that clearly the Democrats are hiding all sorts of criminal/bad acts that they don’t want the public to find out about.

        Trump signed on as President to help right the ship. He does not like what is going on and wanted to fix as much as he could. He mostly used his own money and skill to get elected. Does anyone honestly believe that Trump is not going to point all investigative tools at Democrats in his second term? I would get reelected and then sick the FBI and DOJ on any rumor or admission of guilt that was committed by every politician. If the FBI and DOJ, find enough evidence to indict, then indict. At least these politicians will at least pause in the future before fucking Americans over.

        1. Could only happen if 2/3 of FBI and DOJ were replaced. Too many long standing relationships and back scratching.

          1. True. I think Trump was waiting to be reelected before issuing mass pink slips.

            Trump needs to politically balance his strategies with reelection and that means no mass layoffs of government personnel right now. Remember Trump and McConnell worked together to keep the federal shutdown for the longest period in US history. That was not around election time though.

  31. Any president who would prefer civil war to being removed from office does not love their country and is certainly not serving it

    — Katie Mack (@AstroKatie) September 30, 2019

    This is getting a little too pro-slavery for my tastes.

  32. According to a new brief filed by Locast the other day, the broadcast networks are not only using their case against Locast to protect their rent seeking activity but also appear to be screwing over the taxpayers by purposely broadcasting weak signals on the spectrum they get from the FCC for free–in order to subject more consumers to their rent seeking.

    Locast is an app you can install on any device for streaming local broadcast television like it was coming from Hulu, Netflix, or a live TV cable streaming service like Sling or YouTubeTV. Locast has a giant antenna in your town, and they’re picking up all the free local broadcast signals and streaming them online. These are signals anyone should be able to get for free with an antenna. Locast just puts them all in one place–and makes it so you don’t need an antenna.

    The problem is this: The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 requires cable operators to carry local broadcast station and prohibits the cable companies from charging local broadcast stations for the privilege. In 1992, before the internet, really, cable companies were considered natural monopolies–and there was no way anyone would invent, finance, and build an internet so today’s streamers could compete with them. This means that local broadcasters charge cable companies through the nose to carry local signals–because they’re required by law to carry them.

    According to the Ars Technica story I’ll link below, local broadcasters charged cable companies more than $10 billion to carry their signals in 2018–despite the fact that consumers are supposed to be able to access those signals for free with an antenna. When consumers move from cable to streaming in droves, and from cable to Locast, there are fewer subscribers watching broadcast stations over cable, and hence, fewer consumers paying those exorbitant fees. Locast is a huge threat to that $10 billion revenue stream. The broadcast networks successful shut down a similar service in the past under the argument that the rebroadcaster should be regulated as a cable company–and should be required to pay the same fees to carry their broadcast signal as the cable companies. But there was a loophole!

      1. +10

        I love it when Lefty cronyism gets its back broken.

    1. This means that local broadcasters charge cable companies through the nose to carry local signals–because they’re required by law to carry them.

      Actually, no, under current law (which IIRC was changed from the 1992 act you cite by the 1996 Telecommunications Act), there’s a choice. Each local broadcast station can choose either “must carry” status or “retransmission consent” status, but not both.

      If they choose “must carry”, the cable system must carry them (at no charge to the station), but the system is not required to pay the station. If they choose “retransmission consent”, they can charge the cable system for permission to carry them, but the cable system is not legally required to carry them.

      1. Well I guess you know more about this than I do, and I appreciate the correction. Still, it seems to me that the law was hopelessly outdated soon after it was written, and by “outdated”, I mean they’re a rent seeking drag on consumer discretionary spending and progress.

  33. Does refusing to accept the results of an open election count as civil war?

    1. I would say that refusing to play by the same ground rules results in no game.

      If we have no game, then all bets for civility are over and rules don’t mean anything.

      Time to polish up my armored vehicles and make sure they have extra fuel.

      1. For maximum effect, tune the armored vehicles so they run rich and belch out visible clouds of exhaust. That way half the snowflakes will die of heart attack before you need to expend ammunition.
        Put a big banner on the front; “this is creating 40 pounds of CO2!”

        1. And I’m eating beef finished in a CAFO. While drinking a whole milk milkshake with a plastic straw.

        2. Haha. Good idea!

          With your suggestion and my plastic straw launcher, I might not fire a shot!

  34. My understanding is that the broadcast networks and their affiliates are allocated free spectrum in exchange for the promise to broadcast their signals for free to the general public. The reason the earlier service was required to pay the same fees as the cable companies by the court ruling the broadcasters won was because the earlier service was charging subscribers for relaying what the broadcasters were broadcasting for free with free spectrum. If the broadcasters can’t charge for access to the broadcasts because the spectrum is free, why should anyone else be able to rebroadcast their signals and charge for it?

    Locast was founded as a non-profit. They don’t charge subscribers but they do accept donations. Rather than try to compete with Locast’s app–and they do all have their own apps–the broadcast networks are trying to shut Locast down to protect their free spectrum and the government mandated fees they squeeze out of the cable companies anwyay. Of course, they’re not trying to repeal the stupid law that requires the cable companies to carry their local broadcasts free of charge and, in fact, makes the cable companies charge consumers for broadcast signals they already get free of charge with an antenna either. No, their response is just to have the courts shut Locast down.

    . . . with one new revelation.

    According to the link, Locast is claiming in their brief to the court that the broadcasters are making it harder and harder for consumers to get local broadcast signals via antenna for free. The broadcasters are purposely burying underpowered equipment to limit the strength of their broadcast signals and force more consumers to pay up for cable to watch broadcast television–which makes them subject to the broadcasters’ rent seeking fees. Again, the broadcasters are allocated that spectrum by the FCC with the understanding that they’re broadcasting their content to as many local consumers as possible and funding it all with advertising.

    1. Solutions:

      1) Repeal the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 that requires cable companies to carry local broadcasters without charge. That’s the secondary cause of this rent seeking.

      2) Auction off the spectrum the broadcasters are using for free to the highest bidder–make it private property!

      P.S. It should be noted that one of the justifications for making the cable companies carry local broadcasts without charge was for “ideological diversity”. If you think the news is insufficiently diverse now, you should have seen it when everybody got their live news from three broadcast networks and one cable company–all of which were liberal as hell. Fox was a new network, and the fear was that the cable companies would use their monopoly power to squelch the voice of conservatives in the media. There’s a lesson to be learned there by anyone who’s gung ho on whatever it is they think we should do to Facebook and Google in the name of ideological diversity.

      1. I never understood why government could not give tax breaks or some other non-cash incentive for private spectrum holders to donate some local air time for certain “public” broadcasts.

        Public radio and public TV are definitely not needed in an era of streaming anything anywhere.

        1. Yeah, the concern that the news media was too conservative went out the window when the baby boomers came of age.

          If you’re not denouncing the Vietnam War, then you’re not covering the news fairly!

          I think it was Greenspan was under Rand’s sway that he wrote something I read about the FCC that always stuck with me.

          I remember those arguments being incredible prescient, written at a time before the internet was even a twinkle in anybody’s eye.

          Anyway, the “conservatives” of yesterday are the liberals of today in terms of jealously hogging the microphone. Half the purpose of seizing the microphone is to be the one that sets the limits on what is and what isn’t acceptable to think. Certainly, once they get their hands on the microphone, no one seems to want to give it up in the name of ideological diversity. That argument about the need for ideological diversity seems to be reserved exclusively for the people who can’t get their hands on the microphone.

          1. Hi Ken, do you think you’ve logged in to your personal blog?

            1. poor Cleveland coulda had that ’97 World Series…

              1. The real Trail of Tears.

  35. If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal

    That statement clearly is not a threat of inciting a civil war. It’s not even a warning of the outbreak of civil war. Trump is simply observing that Democrats’ efforts to remove a sitting president will, if successful, create a schism in our society on par with that created by the civil war. That’s probably a bit of hyperbole, but he isn’t entirely wrong, and it certainly isn’t in any way “unconstitutional.”

    1. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      Trump already survived one coup attempt and is fully aware of the same type of bureaucrats circling him with other another attempt.

      Et Tu Brute?

      1. This attempt is even weaker and more stupid than the first. Whatever you think of the Russia hoax it at least contained an element of the unknown. When the Democrats first made the accusation, no one other than Trump knew for sure it was untrue. Even though it was very unlikely to be true, until you saw the evidence of just what if any contacts Trump had with Russia you couldn’t say for certain it was untrue.

        In this case, we have the transcript of the call. We know what went on between Trump and the President of Ukraine. And it obviously wasn’t Trump leaning on him to investigate Biden. Moreover, even if it were, the Demcorats can’t seem to explain why a President should not tell a foreign leader of possible corruption going on in his country when it involves Americans.

        At least in the Russia hoax there was a possibility there was something to it. Here, we know for certain there is nothing to it and the Democrats are just pretending our eyes are somehow lying to us.

        It is the most surreal and crazy thing I have ever seen. It is so shameless and absurd. Even I didn’t think Democrats would be crazy enough and shameless enough to think they could get away with it.

    2. That is a very good way to describe it. And it is obvious to anyone with an 8th grade education that is what is going on and that Trump isn’t calling for a civil war. The question is are the media people claiming he is calling for a civil war so stupid they can’t understand the meaning of a simple sentence or so dishonest they will lie and claim this means something anyone reading it can see that it obviously doesn’t?

      I am honestly not sure which it is. And it can’t be both since if they are too dumb to understand its meaning they are not being dishonest claiming Trump is calling for a civil war.

      1. Propagandists are necessarily dumb but they are blinded completely by this last ditch effort for Socialist Utopia.

        I also see evidence that even Lefties know that their end is near. This might be more desperation of their backs against a wall than a carefully planned strategy.

        Without illegals entering and most illegals in the USA being rounded up and deported; more and more Black Americans leaving the Democrat Party; many RINOs being kicked out or leaving office; the remaining non-Lefty politicians standing up to the Party of slavery; and Census 2020 taking House seats from Blue states and giving them to Red states even some Democrat leadership knows they cannot compete nationally anymore.

        1. *not necessarily dumb…

        2. I tend to agree with you that this shows real desperation on their part. If Trump were such a horrible President, they wouldn’t be trying to impeach him. They would be sitting back letting things run their course knowing they are going to clean up in 2020. Think about it, they hated Bush every bit as much as they hate Trump. Yet, when they took over both houses of Congress in 2006, they never tried to impeach Bush. Why? Because they knew he was an unpopular and weak President and they felt confident they were going to win big in 2008. So why mess with impeaching a guy who is killing the other side by being in office?

          They don’t see it that way with Trump. And that is not a sign of strength on their part.

          1. 100% agree John.

            They got Bush to implement Medicare Part D. Why impeach a President for helping you.

            Fun Fact: Churchill had ordered multiple operations to assassinate Hitler. One included sending in a few snipers to shoot Hitler on his daily walk to the Tea House from the Berghof.
            Operation Foxley

            By late 1943, Hitler was helping shorten WWII so much that no attempt was made on his life. He was not the threat he once was.

          2. Not even sure if it’s that complicated. After Hillary lost, the dems lock onto impeach like a pit bull at all costs, including throwing everything that remotely makes Trump look bad into the wind. True or false.

            1. Impeachment was Democrat’s last ditch strategy.

              We are literally at the last thing Democrats can do to NOT stop Trump from being reelected.

    3. Again, all the talk from Lincoln about what would cause a Civil War and what he could, but wouldn’t, do to prevent it was rather obviously more pertinent with regard to initiating a war.

      It’s not like Trump’s tweets are the first texts we have from a sitting President regarding a domestic war/conflict.

      1. Lincoln might have postponed the civil war, but it had been building up for 40 years (at least) and was going to happen at some point.

        1. I admit the topic to be so multi-dimensional/multi-faceted as to accommodate entirely opposing viewpoints.

          I think he could’ve solved slavery without a war and thereby preserved the Union. I think there’s plenty of evidence today that even if he were successful, Civil War/strife would(‘ve) still be(en) inevitable.

    4. When he calls for the arrest of those who disagrees with him that would be act of civil war much like the left has been calling for the arrest of anyone who denies climate change or doesn’t abide by their determined gender pronouns

      1. That’s a big jump from ‘disagree’ to ‘slander’. Get some perspective.

  36. One time, when I was a little kid, Mom was trying to get me to see things from my brother’s perspective. She asked me why I thought he did something, and I replied that I thought it was because he was, “being an asshole”, so then I got in trouble for using foul language. I tried to defend myself with the observation that Jesus sometimes makes us choose between using foul language and telling the truth.

    “The president accusing a member of Congress of treason for something they said on the House or Senate floor is unconstitutional”

    With all the honest objectivity I can muster, that statement is fucking retarded.

    1. It is. The whole thing is retarded. You tell me Ken how a President telling the leader of a foreign nation that they should look into possible corruption in their own country is the wrong thing to do much less “impeachable”? I would love to hear the other side of this story because I don’t see one.

      1. The other side of the story is that Democrats were doing illegal acts and don’t want to get caught, so they deflect using the remaining political power that they have.

        The Democrat Party is a criminal syndicate and has been for a long time. They even have their own Propaganda wing.

        1. Yes that is pretty much the other side of it.

          1. In the days to come, the remaining RINOs will be outed for their refusal to accuse the Democrats of being criminals that are afraid of having their crimes revealed.

            Hillary was supposed to have won and all the criminal acts under Obama would have been properly #MemoryHoled

    2. ENB quoted the exact passage from the Constitution that makes it unconstitutional. So, that kinda makes it not “fucking retarded.”

      1. Except that the language she quoted doesn’t mean what she claims it means. So, it most certainly is retarded.

      2. “ENB quoted the exact passage from the Constitution that makes it unconstitutional. So, that kinda makes it not “fucking retarded.””

        Quoting a passage =/= understanding and properly interpreting a passage.

        1. For example, “shall not infringe” meaning “no guns unless you’re in the militia”

          1. Lefties cannot even get the “shall not be infringed” part down.

      3. “ENB quoted”

        How much will it bother you when I say that isn’t proof of anything?

      4. “His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason…..”

        —-Donald Trump via Twitter

        Trump said he wants Schiff questioned.

        “For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

        —-ENB Quoting Constitution

        Trump didn’t question Schiff with this tweet.

        He called for Schiff to be questioned.

        The idea that the president should be impeached for publicly calling for someone to be questioned is fucking retarded.

        1. The President is literally the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch which includes all Executive departments and agencies like:

          FBI
          DOJ
          CIA
          NSA
          DHS
          DEA
          ICE
          and all other federal investigative and prosecuting employees.

  37. For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    This clause “serves various purposes: principally to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch by protecting against executive or judicial intrusions into the protected legislative sphere,” notes Todd Garvey of the Congressional Research Service.

    Treason is also defined very clearly in Article 3, Section 3, not that I think Schiff is committing treason by shooting off lies and conspiracies. In fact, that is how I know he is not. But you should understand by now that Trump is full of rhetorical bluster. Focus on actions.

    1. Levying war against the USA is treason as defined in the US Constitution.

      If Congress gets to decide that “high crimes and misdemeanors” means something besides some kind of violation of a law or rule, then the President can absolutely claim someone or some group is levying war against the United States of America.

      1. That’s not what ‘levying war’ means and you know it. Don’t start talking about how Trump can change the definitions right after you complain about someone else potentially doing so.

        1. What do YOU think “levying war against the United States” means?

          US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

          The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

          It’s also fun that now witnesses don’t need to be first hand witnesses but can recite gossip to convict.

          1. I would also remind YOU that we don’t declare war on nations anymore.

            Once Democrats decided that Declarations of War are not longer needed to engage in war, our enemies are everywhere and can be any group. Socialists (Democrats) trying to undermine the US Constitution are that group.

            There are consequences Lefties and this is one of them.

            1. The ‘consequences for lefties’ is that you want to cut all the trees down Roper.

              No thank you.

              ‘Levying war’ doesn’t mean ‘political fuckfucking’.

      2. You are totally fucking unhinged. And here it is, the result of all of Trump’s civil war talk: an unhinged Trump supporter now talking about real civil war, not even a few hours after the president’s tweet.

        But I bet you all will still claim Trump is not trying to threaten civil war with that tweet. “Just joking, bro!”

        1. If you Lefty trolls hate it, Trump is doing something right.

  38. Republicans are starting to get behind impeachment

    Nobody has polled me, but I am for it as well. The entertainment will be epic, as will the butthurt from leftists when Trump 1) is not removed from office and/or 2) Trump decides to burn the whole thing down by releasing incriminating information on everyone involved.

    1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      I also think Trump has always had a Plan B of using the Left holding a trial type forum as a means to release everything he has on Democrat crimes and/or behavior that the public would tiki-torch the Democrat Party.

    2. Even if the poll were valid, I don’t see how 23% is “Republicans” getting behind anything. Moreover, you can’t square that poll with the literally dozens or perhaps hundreds of election polls that show upwards of 90% of Republicans plan to vote for Trump’s re-election. Does ENB think there are Republicans out there who plan to vote for Trump but also want him impeached?

      If the best push poll they can come up with still has the majority of the country objecting to impeachment, impeachment is wickedly unpopular with the country at large.

      1. The MSM has no problem pushing a poll with +/- 30 point error rate.

      2. I’d love to see him impeached – and then re-elected by write-in in 2020.

        Fuck, I don’t like the man *at all* and I’d be willing to write him in.

        1. The Democrats have made this about much bigger issues than Trump. It is every American’s right to loath Trump and do everything in their power to see him defeated in the 2020 election.

          What is not every American’s right is to try and see Trump removed from office via extra electoral means on totally bad faith accusations that are acted upon for purely political reasons. You can’t have a Republic if one or both sides refuse to accept the results of an election. The people pushing impeachment are directly attacking the institutions of the Republic and trying to claim a purely political veto power over the wishes of the electorate. It is disgraceful and everyone with any sense or loyalty to the country ought to be appalled regardless of their opinion of Trump.

          1. Trump WON’T be defeated by ballot and that is the problem as far as Lefties see it.

            Another anecdote that I have for why Trump will win is that I was in Atlanta shopping the other day. A bunch of Black Americans were out spending money like crazy, having a great time being with their traditional families (mother/father/kids), and acting like other Americans rather than victims. We were all shopping and holding doors open for each other and saying hello and thank you.

      3. Besides campaign donations from small donors to Trump is through the roof. I think that’s a far better metric.

        1. Donald Trump (R) Incumbent- Summary data campaign donations

          Total: $204,911,513
          Small Individual Contributions (< $200) $28,301,647 (22.5%)

  39. How did we get to the point where most of our news now comes from Twitter?

    1. I think it has to do with the failure of the Microsoft Zune, but could be wrong.

    2. It’s where “journalists” live and it’s how they think.

  40. People keep telling me that Trump is obviously guilty (of something), and I keep asking them the same question: If Trump is so obviously guilty based on the evidence you’ve seen so far, then why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi moved forward with a vote for impeachment?

    Sure, Nancy Pelosi says this, and Nancy Pelosi says that–but why hasn’t she called a vote in the House on articles of impeachment? If you think the evidence that’s already been presented is overwhelmingly persuasive, then what have you seen that Nancy Pelosi hasn’t seen?

    Either Nancy Pelosi is secretly in cahoots with Trump–and she’s protecting him from an impeachment vote despite the overwhelming evidence against him–or she doesn’t think she has the votes to get an articles of impeachment bill passed.

    Other explanations include the possibility that Pelosi thinks the evidence against Trump is so meager that the American people will stick it to the Democrats at the polls in 2020 if she impeaches the president based on the evidence we’ve seen so far.

    Are there other explanations for why Nancy Pelosi hasn’t moved forward with article of impeachment based on the evidence we’ve seen so far? Someone who thinks that Trump is guilty and should be removed from office based on the evidence we’ve seen so far, please clue us in. Why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi moved forward with a vote on impeachment if the evidence we’ve already seen justifies impeachment?

    1. they have to A/B test the public view of the shadowy rule changes that allowed this whole thing to gain traction in the first place.

      If it works there will be more “whistleblowers” coming out in order to pile on. It will never be about actual wrongdoing, it will be about the number of accusers.

      They learned from Kavanaugh that you need way more than 4 accusers if you’re going to fling fake shit.

      1. +100

        Astute observation.

    2. I think Pelosi is well aware that formal articles of impeachment cannot contain charges that are flimsy, based on speculation, or not true. She knows Trumps lawyers will question witnesses and any claim will meet trial level scrutiny. While that scrutiny may or may not be in play with how the senators vote, it will be a factor amongst voters. She wants to avoid a circus that makes the dems look distasteful to the voter and lose their votes.

      1. The evidence is meager, and the risk of a backlash against the Democrats for overturning a presidential election on meager evidence is real.

        I don’t see any likely explanation that doesn’t include the observation that the evidence against Trump is meager–despite the way it’s being presented in the media as an open and shut case.

        I’m open to other suggestions.

        1. Someone suggested that this “inquiry” is only for DNC fundraising and this will run until a week or two before Election 2020.

          I personally think this is a possibility as Congressmen need to start campaigning soon for Election 2020, so they won’t have time to spend all their waking hours on Trump. There are a lot of House seats that the Democrats will lose if they don’t campaign. Additionally, the DNC said they intend to spend resources trying to win new Senate seats.

          What better way to kickstart the 2020 Election season than with Democrat leadership throwing supporters an impeachment bone to get money.

          1. Democrats have to offer free shit to get elected and they have not been in power nationally to give away free shit.

        2. Nancy was there in ’98. She knows how this charade plays out on election day.

    3. Other explanations include the possibility that Pelosi thinks the evidence against Trump is so meager that the American people will stick it to the Democrats at the polls in 2020 if she impeaches the president based on the evidence we’ve seen so far.

      That is exactly what she thinks. This entire thing is an act of desperation intended to distract the public from Biden’s corruption and likely some very damaging things that are going to come out about the Russia hoax.

      1. AND I suspect she’s worried that if she doesn’t do anything, then she may lose the Speaker’s chair–because the progressives in deep blue districts will replace her if she doesn’t impeach Trump.

        She may just be trying to buy time until the unpopularity of impeaching Trump over this becomes obvious to even the most progressive representatives from the deepest of blue districts.

        1. Pelosi wont be voted out now that she did something with impeachment.

          She had to do something because as y’all said, she would be voted out and replaced as speaker with someone who would try to impeach.

          Lefties need a win and in their minds, the House sending Articles of Impeachment to the Senate and Trump winning at trial is as good as they can get.

          1. “”Pelosi wont be voted out now””

            She’s so entrenched, she could personally shit in the streets of SF and still get elected by a landslide.
            Shitslide?


        2. AND I suspect she’s worried that if she doesn’t do anything, then she may lose the Speaker’s chair–because the progressives in deep blue districts will replace her if she doesn’t impeach Trump.

          Pretty much this. Honestly, I’m not so sure that she won’t be out either way since she doesn’t represent the current bent of the Democrat party. While I dislike her, she isn’t full-bore Communist which will be her undoing if things keep going the way they are.

  41. While the Civil War tweet is getting more attention, the Schiff tweet⁠ may be a bigger deal. The president accusing a member of Congress of treason for something they said on the House or Senate floor is unconstitutional.

    1. A member of Congress can no say anything treasonable if they’re speaking in the House or Senate? I don’t think so.

    2. How can a Tweet be unconstitutional when its done by the President but not only constitutional but perfectly within the bounds of decency when a member of the House or Senate accuses the President – directly – of treason?

    Like, he is, literally, like, just doing what everyone else, like, is doing. Ok?

    1. ENB quoted the exact passage from the Constitution.

      1. Yeah, so what?
        Directly quoting the second amendment doesn’t stop unconstitutional gun control laws.

      2. She quoted it out of context. When placed in context it is obvious the intent is far different then what she implied.

      3. Article III, Section 3.
        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

        The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

        1. Nobody accused Trump of treason; they accused him of violating the Constitution.

          And in keeping with that, ENB quoted a completely different part of the Constitution than the part about treason that you just quoted: “For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

          1. Cite that part of the US Constitution.

  42. Claiming the President is an illegitimate occupant of the Oval Office and marching in the streets demanding his removal from office by any means necessary – starting approximately 5 seconds after he’s elected – is a civil war as long as the other side doesn’t push back. Once the other side pushes back, things start getting very uncivil. Obviously, it’s the resisting the #Resistance that’s the problem here.

    And if calling for an unconstitutional action is just as unconstitutional as the action itself, lots of people are going to be in trouble. And, holy shit, suggesting that is just dumb.

  43. Speech or Debate Clause
    . . .

    The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.

    Is this ‘Jacob Levy’ a constitutional lawer? Indeed, is he a lawyer at all? Or does he just ‘teach’. Because law teachers are well known for teaching what they *think the law should be* – and pushing that interpretation everywhere they can – and not *what the law is in practice*.

  44. For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    That’s “questioned” as in “FBI/police-style interrogation”, not “questioned” as in “doubted or criticized”.

    Until Trump officially orders the arrest of a member of the House, he doesn’t violate this clause.

  45. >>political science professor Jacob Levy

    Expert. Witness.

  46. “I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason”

    Why can’t people comprehend English anymore?
    That is not accusing anyone of anything. Could be inferred, but that depends on the person. Saying that you want someone questioned for fraud and treason is not saying someone committed fraud or treason. It would be like claiming “I hope you die” is a death threat or violent speech. It’s not. It is just wishful thinking that could involve non-violent ways such as cancer or suicide.
    Trump could want a lot of things.
    “I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud and Treason and I want him to admit that he is gay and thinks I’m super sexy”
    That’s just what Trump wants. He didn’t accuse anyone of being gay. Just stated he wants it.

  47. It was about three years ago when ENB posted on this story, but it seems like just yesterday–because it might as well be today:

    “Drake accused the Republican presidential nominee of “uncontrollable misogyny, entitlement, and being a sexual assault apologist””

    —-ENB

    “Donald Trump Accused of Kissing Porn Star Jessica Drake Without Her Consent”

    https://reason.com/2016/10/22/donald-trump-accused-of-offering-porn-st/

    Do a quick search for this porn star, and she appears to have done bukkake and gang bang videos. Meanwhile, not only was she suing Trump for the trauma she experienced when he kissed her on the cheek, she also accused Trump of, “uncontrollable misogyny, entitlement, and being a sexual assault apologist”?!

    I’m not into slut shaming, but if we’re talking about the credibility of someone’s claim against a presidential candidate, I think the claim that someone who appears to make bukkake and gang bang videos was traumatized because Trump kissed her on the cheek deserves a little scrutiny. Meanwhile, being accused of promoting misogyny, entitlement and being a sexual assault apologist by a porn star who apparently makes bukkake and gang bang videos is more than just a little rich.

    And yet, the tone of that whole article reads to me as if Trump is supposedly ineligible for office because he was accused of kissing this woman on the cheek–and all the other sexual assaults he’s perpetrated. We didn’t have the hindsight necessary to know that Trump would survive these accusations and win in 2016 despite them (or because of them), but if you look through the comment section of that story, most of us didn’t need that hindsight in 2016 to have 20/20 vision on the irrelevance of those accusations to the outcome of the election.

    Everything Trump did before November 2016 made him ineligible for office in these people’s minds, and there’s no reason to think anything has changed. They imagined themselves as gatekeepers and authorities in 2016 and lost, but they’re just as delusional about their relevance and importance now as they were back then.

    “The president accusing a member of Congress of treason for something they said on the House or Senate floor is unconstitutional.”

    Fast forward to 2019, and statements like this aren’t surprising. We saw worse than this from Reason staff in 2016, and I suspect we’ll see even worse before election 2020 is over.

    Incidentally, you can see the Russia probe as a continuation of the same thing they did to him with the porn stars coming out of the woodwork. They’ve been insisting that Trump is ineligible for office since before he was elected, and everything that’s happened every day since has only confirmed this belief in their minds–and it will continue to do so right up through the end of Trump’s second term.

    1. no means no, Ken lol

      1. I didn’t say it doesn’t mean no!

        I’m saying that the irrelevancy of that lawsuit to Trump’s election probabilities weren’t clear to plenty of journalists back in 2016, and they don’t seem to have learned anything from that experience–or the Russia probe, or . . . . any one of a dozen other Operation Covfefe stories that were suppose to bring the Trump era to and end. They have all collectively shit their pants every day for three years–to no avail–and the pants-shitting hasn’t even begun to slow down!

        The Russians say Trump likes people to pee on him, and they reported it as straight news.

        A pr0n star that does gang bang videos accused Trump of traumatizing her by kissing her on the cheek, and they report it as straight news.

        Someone says that Trump’s tweets are unconstitutional and an impeachable offense, and suddenly we stop taking these stories seriously?

        Over the next year, there will be ten more of these stories–each as outrageously absurd as the last. At some point, we need to look at ourselves for taking the people who report on these stories seriously.

        1. i’m sorry, didn’t figure /sarc was required I’m totally with you here.

          i did *not* know who jessica drake was so now she’s famous-er

          1. No, I got it!

            I was just riffing on it.

            1. dang i’m 0/2 today i should quit and go home.

              Drake could be Stormy’s sister I don’t get the attraction to that look but i guess T likes the type

        2. Ken, porn actresses have an almost impossible task of going from porn to regular movies.

          But Lefties want regular Americans to believe them when they find some tool chick to go after Trump.

          1. And when they do they play themselves, a porn star of a different name, or a hooker.
            Kind of like how trans women only play trans women.
            Woke Hollywood, eh?

    2. Trump is every politician’s worst nightmare: A somewhat well-known celebrity comes out of nowhere and takes everything they want.

      It’s not surprising that there is a line of people and institutions trying to get the guy.

      1. He’s a whipping boy for everything the fashionably elite hate about America.

        I read a lot about ancient history and how we know things about the past with so little evidence.

        I forget who I was reading about (it may have been Sargon of Akkad), but they were trying to separate legend from fact, and they were talking about how the legend said he did something for reason x–but that doesn’t make much sense, so he was probably doing it for reason y.

        I found myself thinking, you know, if alien archaeologists millions years from now discover our society, 1) They’ll think we worshiped a fat god in a red suit who climbs down our chimneys, and 2) They’ll come across the story of Donald Trump and come to the wrong conclusions using the logic of that historian.

        If I told you that there was playboy billionaire from New York City, who lived as lavishly in public as he could–with a foreign trophy wife to rival Marie Antoinette and all. That he was a casino magnate, but the people on the lower rungs of society came to embrace him as their man, the only guy who really cares about them–who would believe that? How could people like that come to embrace a guy like him?

        It seems impossible–and yet that’s exactly what happened.

        1. To be fair, Trump doesn’t write down much of his plan to roll back government on parchment.

          If he did, Lefties would demand that his private journals be publicly released immediately so they could formulate a plan to destroy him.

          As of yet, no court has struck down that ridiculous decision saying Trump’s Tweets are public record and he cannot unfriend followers.

          1. At least that ridiculous decision has been applied to AOC as well. A judge has ordered her to come explain why she blocked a Democrat city councilman that lives in her district.

        2. Not so much they embrace him, as the loathe the people who loathe him.

      2. “”It’s not surprising that there is a line of people and institutions trying to get the guy.”‘

        Yep. What were are seeing is the establishment try to regurgitate an outsider.

  48. Great take as usual ENB.
    Insightful, well-informed and well-written. You’ve always been one of my favorite Reason writers, along with Suderman and Shikha Dalmia, but I will admit that I used to wonder if you actually had a ‘libertarian bone in your body’. (only if her husband around ayooo) Now it is obvious that your passion for advancing liberty permeates all that you do and is second only to your radiant good looks and talent as a writer. I hope you win an award.

      1. Since when is parody a synonym for for tribal retardation?

        1. Since Schiffhead used it as an excuse for making up shit about Trump in a committee hearing.

          1. I understand why you’re too chickenshit to be specific.

            Trump is the same way. And it’s okay if he invents bat-shit crazy things about Biden and Crowdstrike, while inviting a foreign country to interfere in ANOTHER election.. (Just in case you’re confused on how to be specific)

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is worried about his CIA buddies getting helicopter rides.

  49. Unconstitutional?! Are you out of your cotton-picking mind? That just means you can’t take them to court for something they said in Congress!!

    1. Yeah, time to take a deep breath and count to 10 or something. It’s just talk.

    2. Are YOU out of YOUR cotton-picking mind?

      That just means you can’t take them to court for something they said in Congress!!

      Read it again!! That’s precisely what Trump is calling for. Hello? Hello?

      The Constitution is secondary. The crazed Napoleonic mind always says that its treason for ANYONE to disagree with his self-righteous ass. Or some attempt to overturn an election. And his cult swallows it all, eagerly. SCARY.

      He did say they would lie to even defend him from murder, a massive insult that they accepted.

      1. Another fucking idiot leftist claiming their enemy’s speech is action.

        1. (posted in defense of verbal aggression by a TOTAL fuckup)
          Pay attention, dumbass Finrod. THIS IS ABOUT THE SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT WAS QUOTED. (sneer)

          For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

          Even CRAZIER:

          Another fucking idiot leftist claiming their enemy’s speech is action.

          Also a fucking liar!

          Oh yeah, it was ROBERT’s fuckup that dealt with what was said., (smirk)

          And it was YOUR crazy President who said speech is TREASON, while also LYING for his cult of goobers..

          Your Authoritarian Right has AGAIN shit on our beloved Constitution … even when it’s quoted for you!

          You will now bellow and WHINE again, to PUNISH me for DARING to ridicule your latest screwup, THUG. (sneer)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has another dementia-addled chimpout.

  50. So, is there anything that can be done to a sitting member of Congress when they knowingly and intentionally fabricate evidence in the service of unjustly ousting a sitting President? Are Congressmen not expected to tell the truth while on the floor? If not, that should concern EVERYONE.

    The bad things Pres. Trump said were in a tweet, not official communications.

    The outright falsehoods Rep. Schiff said were on the FLOOR OF THE HOUSE during an ongoing session…oh I’m sorry “parody” *wink* *wink*

    1. Malicious prosecution would be interesting legal theory to sue Congressmen for fabricating evidence to attempt to impeach.

      Although most people don’t yet know this but Article I, Section 3 requires all Senators to be sworn in: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation.

      If those fuckers lie, they can be charged with perjury.

      Fun fact: The Founders valued their word, so they likely would have never imagined that Congressmen would lie and/or suborn perjury to impeach a President.

    2. The outright falsehoods Rep. Schiff said were on the FLOOR OF THE HOUSE during an ongoing session

      Which is constitutionally protected speech, thug.
      List the falsehoods so you can be properly ridiculed.

      1. Which is why there’s a censure motion against him in the House.

        1. READ THE CONSTITUTION.

          Tell us what Schiff lied about, so I can humiliate you again.

    3. So, is there anything that can be done to a sitting member of Congress when they knowingly and intentionally fabricate evidence in the service

      No.
      And it would take EVIDENCE, not your brainwashed bullshit.

  51. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1BsWtp1d6w

    If anyone wants the full scoop on Biden and Ukraine, Jimmy Dore did a nice segment. Amazing how a jaggoff in a garage can do better coverage than a 50 year old publication. FYI, Jimmy is a leftist and I disagree with most of his policy positions. But unlike Reason he won’t bow to the establishment.

    1. The crazed Biden conspiracy shows how totally suckered Trumpsters are, especially the psychopathic lie on what Biden “admitted” — or that Hunter was EVER investigated — which is somebody’s wet dream with a limp cock. It’s downright scary what these people will swallow.

      Trump’s Crowdstrike conspiracy may be even crazier than Pizzagate and Birtherism COMBINED.

      And it’s absolutely undeniable that Trump invited a foreign government to interfere in our election, by working with his Attorney General. duh. Just as he publicly invited Russia to do so in 2016? (The Crowdstrike wackiness)

      Show of hands. How many retards believe Biden withheld funds from Ukraine? (For ANY reason) How many will publicly admit to being totally mind-controlled robots? (Scary)

      1. Hihn -Crowdstrike conspiracy -Pizzagate and Birtherism combined=a shit ton of crazy Hihn.

        1. (posted in defense of aggression by a PATHETIC LOSER ON THE FACTS)

          Pay attention, Sucker We SEE Trump saying Crowdstrike is owned by a rich Ukrainian, and the server (Hillary’s) is in the Ukraine.

          YES, that IS as psycho Pizzagate, and now YOU! (snort)

          Crowdstrike is the top cyber-security firm that first PROVED Russia hacked the DNC less than 12 hours after Trump PUBLICLY invited Russia to do so.

          The CONSPIRACY is stated in the transcript. Trump says it was HILLARY who hacked the DNC, to hide her server in Ukraine. (Are YOU crazy enough to believe that HACKING means capturing a server??? AND that Hillary’s emails were buried at the DNC???) lol.

          Now google the facts … IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS
          Crowdstrike is an AMERICAN corporation, PUBLICLY owned, traded on NASDAQ, HQ in California, office in DC area (Virginia).

          It will take you less than 5 minutes. Unless you’re just another PUNK, bullying for the Orange Christ. Tick …. Tick … Tick …

          a shit ton of crazy Hihn.

          Anything else, Punk? (sneer)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano valiantly defends the CIA.

      2. Are you trying to take OBL’s gig? He won’t be happy.

      3. Idiot leftist doesn’t think Biden says what we have video of him saying.

        1. PROOF: Finrod a lying sack of shit, brainwashed puppet!!!
          (

          Idiot leftist doesn’t think Biden says what we have video of him saying.

          HERE’S THAT VIDEO GOOBER.O

        2. (Posted in defense of ANOTHER assault by Finrod, AGAIN based his bullshit)

          MORE PROOF: Finrod is a brainwashed puppet of the political elites!!! (I set the bait. He bit!)

          Idiot leftist doesn’t think Biden says what we have video of him saying

          (SNEER)
          Here’s the video, SUCKER!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=RpQZ0e-Ux7w
          “I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t. .

          Now … wipe the egg off your puss. (snort)

          what we have video of (Biden) saying.

          PROVE IT, LOSER.

          Trump has BETRAYED your trust in him … Do you even care?

          How are you ANY better than Bernie’s and Elizabeth’s puppets?

      4. He was behind the conspiracy to place several sharks in the pool at Mar a Lago though.

      5. It’s such obvious distraction, too. The president freezes aid and then asks for a “favor” which includes working with the president’s personal attorney against a political rival’s son. These whackjobs take the bait 110% and focus entirely on Biden and, bizarrely, whistleblower submission rules, instead of the complaint, which was ruled “credible and urgent” by a Trump-appointed IG.

        Such obvious suckers.

      6. Count the whiny COWARDS!

        Show of hands. How many retards believe Biden withheld funds from Ukraine? (For ANY reason)

        Fats of Fury … FAIL (cowardly evasion)

        BigT … FAIL (cowardly evasion)

        Finrod … FAIL (cowardly evasion)

        Finrod (again) … FAIL (cowardly evasion)

        Thomas D … FAIL (cowardly evasion)

        So far … others will bellow in, obediently.

        1. I got called out BY NAME.

          This is so exciting.

          I feel like Gidget at the Oscars.

          1. So, you’re proud of being a fake and a coward.
            Figgers. So is Trump.

    2. Doing a good job is a lot like tackling in football.

      It’s more about want to more than anything else.

      And Reason don’t want to.

  52. Damn. Today’s Roundup makes me realize just how dumb US politics has become. And you “journalists” seem to be reveling in it.

  53. Wait, so we’re pretending that Will Wilkinson has something interesting to say, and that the Niskanen Center is something other than an effort to garb progressivism in libertarian drag?

    1. Right-wing psychos like left-wing psychos, have always been clueless on what libertarianism is. And quite willing to reveal their ignorance publicly.

      They’re also ignorant of progressivism. They ‘tThink” it means anyone who strays from total subservience to the alt-right manifesto. So …. (laughing) … George Will is a progressive! Conformity rules!!

      And they vote.
      And they breed.

      Left – Right = Zero.

      1. Go away, Hihn, you fatuous twat.

        1. What kind of punk is PROUD to be a sociopath????i

        1. I’ve had too much fun PROVING you full if shit … three times on this page alone!

          Now you’re just a snarling bully, a punk like Trump. (smirk),

      2. And they breed.

        Eventually the psychos subconsciously reveal their real motives.

        So what is it that drives your hatred of children, Mr. Hihn, incel, or belief in The Population Bomb lies?

        1. Holy shit! I just flashed on Hihn as the child-catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

          That is gonna give me nightmares.

        2. Count the bulliesall in a row. Then jam PROOF up their pathetic asses

          Did you miss Biden’s actual words? Here’s the video, Gomers, PROOF that Trump has TOTALLY brainwashed you (yuk yuk)

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=RpQZ0e-Ux7w
          “I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t. .

          There was no funding, SUCKERS.

          FACT IN DENIAL: Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election, and work with his AG to do so.,

          Left – Right = Zero
          Two sets of brainwashed puppets, obedient serfs of the political elites.

        3. So what is it that drives your hatred of children,

          So, for how long have you been illiterate, or liar, or a punk, or ….

          Since you’re a Trumptard, which explains your slavish belief in the Hhn Conspiracy …added to all those other trashmouth punks in the thread, also ignorant of what libertarianism is.

          We’ve always been despised by the Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Right, but we outnumber them both combined. In today’s ‘Merica. (yawn)

          1. We’ve always been despised by the Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Right

            What do you mean, we, Kemosabe?

            I admire libertarians. I despise you. Mostly because you rarely respond to anything people are actually writing and instead engage in red herring fallacies with predetermined diatribes. I was actually curious as if you believe breeding is a bad thing. It might shed light on some of your more curious positions.

            But if you would rather direct your answers to the voices in your head, be my guest.

  54. If the Democrats in Congress could behave like adults they might succeed in making Trump seem unhinged.

    Which means Trump is in no real danger.

    1. He’s gone. Finished

      1) Are you a FOOL enough to DENY Trump invited a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election?

      2) Why do YOU approve of this?

      1. Keep trying, you’ll get better at this.

        1. Although, I’d lose the ALLCAPS if I were you. Makes it too obvious.

          1. 1) Are you a FOOL enough to DENY Trump invited a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election?

            2) Why do YOU approve of this?

            Cowardly diversion, laced with sarcasm, totally devoid of substance, like all 18 others on this page. Typical Trumptard.

  55. “…shall not be questioned” appears in two places in the Constitution. In section 6 the kleptocrats may be questioned in Congress, and even outside if Treason is involved. The other place is in the “All persons born” 14th Amendment, the ratchet that makes the deficit spending binding on everyone except spendthrift politicians. Anyone seeking to ban birth control has to first end the binding nature of deficit spending. That ain’t gonna happen, and I’ll lay odds the looters will not vote to impeach The Don either.

  56. Ridiculing Trump’s bullshit has NEVER been more FUN!

    Intelligence community watchdog debunks whistleblower conspiracy pushed by Trump and other Republicans

    The intelligence community inspector general is forcefully pushing back against assertions made by President Donald Trump and several Republican lawmakers about the whistleblower complaint that has rocked Washington.

    In a rare statement released Monday, the inspector general addressed a false claim pushed by Trump and some of his allies on Capitol Hill, including House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, that the whistleblower lacked firsthand knowledge of the conduct outlined in the complaint and therefore the allegations were based on “hearsay.” But the statement from the inspector general made clear that the whistleblower was not simply communicating secondhand knowledge.

    “The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information,” the statement read. “The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. “

    The whistleblower NAMED all the other first hand sources, but we don’t know how many (if any) became whistleblowers also.

    DAMN. Trump IS bringing down the GOP.

Please to post comments