Reason Roundup

Unable To Let 2016 Go, Trump Asks World Leaders To Stay Obsessed, Too

Plus: the case for trading with corrupt countries, the problem with current criminal justice reformers, and more...


More meddling from foreign countries was reportedly sought by the Trump administration. Revelations about "quid pro quo" requests President Donald Trump made to Ukraine's president appear to have opened the floodgates on stories about Trump trying to make self-interested political deals with foreign leaders.

This includes asking the Australian prime minister for help poking holes in the Mueller report, The New York Times reported yesterday, and it includes having his attorney general ask leaders in Australia, Italy, and elsewhere to investigate the CIA and FBI's handling of Trump-Russia collusion fears.

Like Trump's chat with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the conversation with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison "shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests," the Times said, continuing:

The discussion with Mr. Morrison shows the extent to which Mr. Trump views the attorney general as a crucial partner: The president is using federal law enforcement powers to aid his political prospects, settle scores with his perceived "deep state" enemies and show that the Mueller investigation had corrupt, partisan origins.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Bill Barr was reportedly talking to British intelligence authorities, Italian officials, and folks in the Australian government about the FBI and CIA's actions leading up to the 2016 U.S. election and motivations for Trump-related inquiries, according to The Washington Post and "people familiar with the matter."

"The attorney general's active role also underscores the degree to which a nearly three-year-old election still consumes significant resources and attention inside the federal government," notes the Post.

Combined with the actions undertaken by Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, in Ukraine, we see "a kind of two-front war" happening, write Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and


"Twenty-five years after the infamous 1994 crime bill, too many criminal justice groups are simply reimagining mass incarceration." A powerful op-ed from Derecka Purnell, a human rights lawyer, and Marbre Stahly-Butts, executive director of Law for Black Lives, calls out the timidity of current criminal justice reform efforts, which often still center on interventions by police.

"The reality is this: The police fill prisons," they write. "We can't repair the harm that the 1994 crime bill has done by promoting mass incarceration without reducing the size and scope of the police."

And yet, "politicians promise jail closings even as they increase police budgets—and, as a result, arrests." People see the fault in old drivers of mass incarceration and yet, faced with any new or persistent social problem, still turn to cops, arrest, and imprisonment as first solutions.


Why trade with China when its government perpetuates horrible human rights abuses? Simple, writes Scott Sumner: "Politics is the answer, trade is the solution."

Free markets and international trade promote peace and liberalization, while isolationism and poverty make authoritarianism worse.

"Hundreds of years of human history strongly suggest that trade makes people better, both at the individual level and the national level," writes Sumner. "History shows that if you want to bring peace and freedom to the world, trade is one of the best ways of doing so."

Whole thing here.


  • Another case of the U.S. Justice Department bravely catching traitors created by the U.S. Justice Department.
  • A proposal in Nye County, Nevada, would confine women working in the area's legal brothels to the brothels, stipulating that they only leave the premises "for six (6) hours per ten (10) day" period.
  • "The power of the Ukraine revelations lies in their simplicity," writes Politico columnist Renato Mariotti, warning Democrats against getting "greedy" with the impeachment inquiry.
  • Gen Z and millennial Americans say they want a European-style democratic socialist state. And yet "Europe's young are less progressive—or 'woke'—than their American contemporaries," suggests The Atlantic. "A third of Millennial and Gen Z voters in Europe consider themselves centrists…and they are emphatically not socialists." In fact, "they are also less in favor than older generations of fiscal redistribution to reduce inequality."
  • If you haven't watched this Saturday Night Live parody of the Democratic presidential debates yet, you should:

NEXT: In Today’s America, Everybody Who Disagrees With You Is a Traitor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Was letting 2016 go on the table for anyone?

    1. Now that we are investigating the investigation it is time to let it go. Nothing to see here.

    2. Well, I was able to let go of my dreams for Gary Johnson. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        1. Sigh. Wish just once there were a Presidential candidate I could be truly enthusiastic about.

          1. Too good for Kool-Aid, are you?

          2. The whale-humping Person of Interest isn’t good enough for you, you finicky voter?

    3. Hello.

      Gen Z and Millennials are 50 years too late to the game. Possibly the most unread and illiterate generations yet. No wonder psychos like Sanders and Warren are popular with the kiddies.

      Go get another knuckle tattoo and spend your pay check (that you should be saving) visiting another trendy vacay spot.

      1. So the Boomers had everything right until they had kids?

        1. No, tail fins on autos were a mistake. But for most they had the right of it.

      2. Gen Z and Millennials are 50 years too late to the game. Possibly the most unread and illiterate generations yet. No wonder psychos like Sanders and Warren are popular with the kiddies.

        What generation was it again that called the boomers a bunch of long-haired hippies who were pro-socialist? Weird that they got it so wrong, huh? Turns out they were the adults all along?

    4. Is this a troll? Am I being trolled?

    5. Last month I have made Dollar19365 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…>>>

  2. Like Trump’s chat with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the conversation with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison “shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests…”

    It’s like he never thought of creating a foundation.

    1. The theory seems to be, and I am not kidding, that it is a crime any time a Republican President asks for an investigation of a Democrat.

      1. That is the theory. And did you notice that reason linked to a NYT opinion piece instead if the publicly available letter about Australia. Isnt the use of primary sources one of the first things a journalist learns?

        1. Are you referring to the one from back in May where the Australian embassy indicated that they would make every effort to assist Barr?

          1. The one I linked to below.

        2. These days they don’t care about primary sources or investigation so much as feelings and intersectionality, facts be damned.

      2. That’s skipping over the part of the theory concerning asking a *foreign government* to investigate a Democrat.

        1. Okay. Why does that make any difference? If Joe Biden and his son are involved in criminality in Ukraine, why is it wrong for the President to tell them about it? Moreover, there is a treaty that Obama signed with Ukraine that obligates the President to do so.

          By your logic, the President informing any foreign nation about suspicions of wrong doing on the part of any Democrat is somehow criminal. That makes no sense.

          Also, the people who have decided this is such a big deal are the very same people who went to Ukraine looking for dirt on Trump during the 2016 election. So, their complaints and novel legal theory ring a bit hollow.

          1. It’s not “my” logic. ENB has been reporting on their (the Democrats) logic, and you were mischaracterizing their (the Democrats) theory.

            I’m not a constitutional or Federal law expert. I’m just a neutral observer of this sideshow.

            1. Sorry to attribute it to you. And the logic makes no sense. The President cannot use his power to go on fishing expeditions against his adversaries. If Trump, for example, had called the President of Ukraine and told him to use Ukrainian intelligence services to get Biden’s taxes and see what he could find about his private dealings, I would agree that would be a misuse of power. But that is not what happened here.

              Biden’s son’s connection with the Ukrainian gas firm and Biden’s role in getting the prosecutor investigating it fired was highly suspicious. Maybe Biden is totally clean in all of this. But, Trump was right to wonder if he wasn’t. So it wasn’t a fishing expedition. It was Trump telling Ukraine that the US is no longer objecting to their continuing that investigation, which is what he should have done since Biden, given his conflict of interest, should have never been allowed to strong arm them into dropping it.

              1. Personally, I think:
                * It’s fairly clear that Biden’s son was scoring all kinds of goodies from riding on his father’s coattails.
                * I agree with you that the phone call fell short of Trump demanding an investigation. Trump may have done other things to pressure the Ukraine, but the Democrats are probably going to fail in proving that part of their case.
                * Pelosi and the Democratic leadership probably know they are going to fail and are also scared they will lose the next election, so they are trying to time an impeachment inquiry to dig up dirt during the campaign season. It will probably backfire, but they are desperate.

                I just get annoyed when commenters, many of whom are clearly pro-Trump partisans, come on here day after day and dump on Reason for not being “neutral” or libertarian in their reporting.

                1. I don’t have a problem with reason not liking Trump. He is not a libertarian. But, they would be a lot more effective if they would not buy into every single crazy accusation made against him.

                  1. This is my problem. The anti trump furor is so strong that I have to defend it the actions taken against him have been unconscionable. The attempted use of obscure law and fabricated very loose lawfare is just wrong no matter who the target. It is literally the lawfare that authoritarian regimes use. The fact that Reason backs up these attacks is just silly.

                    1. They could have actually been the voice of reason. What a concept. It goes all the way back to 2016. If reason had a competent editor, Suderman would have not been allowed to write about Trump because he was totally unable to control himself when doing so. Some of Suderman’s rants in the fall of 2016 are just unbelievable.

                    2. Reason magazine has an editor and editorial policies. The blog is a blog. The policy here is to let just about anybody on staff or even loosely affiliated with Reason to post their unedited thoughts. And same policy applies to the comments section.

                      I know some commentariat members want the blog to be more than that, but it’s not practical. It would kill the spontaneity necessary to a blog.

                    3. What reason has done is piss off paying Libertarians and other independent thinkers and went with a financial strategy of auto-play videos and sock trolls to boost web traffic for advertising.

                      reason made their bed and are lying in it.

                      When reason shuts down and Gillespie, ENB, Shikha, Welch, etc are crying and have no idea what happened, I can refer them to this discussion.

                      Gillespie and ENB don’t care because they will be able to shift to Social Security for income. Fucking up reason will impact young Libertarians writers looking for some outlet to get a start. Boomers like Gillespie fucked it up for them.

                    4. loveconstitution1789, serious question: If you feel that way, why do you spend so much time here?

                    5. ., I didn’t see your comment yesterday. Why do you say it is not a blog anymore?

                    6. I explain why every time someone asks that.

                      If someone new, who is not a reason sock troll, comes to visit reason they can read John, Ken Schultz, JesseAz, and others providing counter points to the nonsense that reason prints.

                      reason still has their name out there and we are very much targets of Lefties come election season. Lefties hate that there are independent voters that they cannot control. The dissenting facts to the Lefty Narrative drives them crazy.

                      I come here to add my two cents too. I have a bunch of knowledge in certain areas and I learn from other good commenters.

                      Why are you here Mike Laursen?

                    7. I’ve been a Reason subscriber, contributor, booster, and member of the commentariat here since the Hit & Run blog was first started.

                    8. I’ve been a Reason magazine subscriber since, like, the 1980s.

                2. Trump is not Libertarian.

                  Neither is reason.

                  Every time reason is factually forced to write about something Libertarian-ish that Trump does, reason includes the TDS slams. They cannot write a piece that simply states what Trump is doing wrong and what Trump is doing right.

                  1. That is reason’s right to do articles on whatever and however them choose.

                    I will be Goddammed if I will let the Lefties, Never Trumpers and Anarchists at reason say that they are Libertarian, and what is best for the USA and Americans, without some retort from me.

                  2. But you also post Trump “bumperstickers” here in ASCII. I assume that’s meant to show that you are a huge Trump supporter.

                    So, it seems you are not exactly an impartial observer of Reason’s reporting on Trump.

                    1. Impartial observers do not exist.

                      If you’ve been reading Reason for as long as you say then you surely know that.

                3. eh, I think for some of us (not all), it’s less us being pro-Trump, and more anti-democrat. I have quite a few issues with Trump, but I’d take him any day of the week over a democrat. The Dems have been up to shady shit since the last election, pretty much out in the open, and that rubs me all sorts of wrong. Plus, you know, I’m not much of a fan of a party that wants to villainize my demographic as the source of all the country’s wrongs, especially the parts of said demographic that doesn’t participate in the dem group think. I know enough history to understand where that can go once those folks get in power

                  1. John has been around forever and always posts intelligent comments. And I can understand libertarians criticizing how Democrats have reacted to Trump’s presidency (Trump derangement, etc.)

                    But it’s disheartening to come to a libertarian website, and see the comments full of Trump apologism and people even posting bumpersticker-like TRUMP ASCII graphics. At the end of the day, Trump is a horrible, person, and not a libertarian, and it’s a shame he is our President. (And, no, that’s not an endorsement of the Democratic Party.)

                    1. I understand your point. But I think reason walks into that by buying into every absurd criticism of Trump and by obsessing over Trump for click revenue. I don’t think anyone shows up here for the specific purpose of defending Trump. But reason loves to launch absurd attacks on Trump and that makes the entire thing way too Trump focused. Reason would be better off if they ignored Trump and just posted on the issues they cared about and less about the daily partisan soap opera. But they have been guilty of that for a while and well before Trump. They did much the same with Bush, though not to this extent.

                    2. Reason does that — or ENB and a few other writers on Reason staff do that?

              2. I don’t count you as one of the commenters I’m talking about. You’ve been around forever and posted insightful and intelligent comments.

  3. So the same people who spent all of 2017 and 18 screaming “Collusion!!” are now accusing Trump of not letting the 2016 election go? Wow.

    Trump is just a big meanie because he would like to find out who in the intelligence and LE communities spied on him and tried to frame him as a traitor and ruin his presidency. Why can’t that guy let it go?

    1. There has to be something in the water.

    2. It’s a spin on AOC whining wondering why conservatives are ‘obsessed’ with her.

      Not because she’s an illiberal, smug twat. Nope.

      1. She says they’re obsessed because she needs them to be.

  4. ” it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.””

    Used PJ since WSJ is pay walled.

    1. And in China news…

      “A high-ranking Chinese businessman was charged by the Justice Department with global corruption and bribery in 2017, and the first call he made after his arrest was to Vice President Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, who thinks the call was meant for Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.”

  5. Meanwhile, Barr himself was reportedly talking to British intelligence authorities, Italian officials, and folks in the Australian government about the FBI and CIA’s actions leading up to the 2016 U.S. election and motivations for Trump-related inquiries…

    This is what holding former administrations accountable looks like. There’s a reason no one does it (other than few were personally targeted and are as narcissistic as the current president and, let’s face it, we’ve had some narcissists in the White House).

    1. My favorite Dem spin on this is how it is somehow wrong for the AG to take a personal interest and assert control over a high profile DOJ investigation. Ahh, isn’t that the AG’s job?

      1. Could’ve sworn some of the bitching about the Ukraine deal was that Trump asked and not Barr.

        What, precisely, do they want? It’s bad when Trump AND Barr ask?

  6. Letter from australia shows them working willingly and eagerly with Barr and the DoJ to I investigate their participation in the 2016 election, most notably Downer who is the supposed catalyst for the Russia investigation.

    Of course the New York times tried to claim Trump was pressuring Australia.

    So it turns put that Barr and Horowitz have been working with all the countries involved in the Mueller investigation. This includes Ukraine. So asking Ukraine for help in looking into Crowdstrike seems like a normal operation of the investigation into the 2016 election.

    1. Suddenly, investigations into foreign election interference are evidence of corruption and impeachment is necessary.

      This has clearly become an effort by the intel community to cover their asses for using poorly-sourced fanfiction to justify the FISA warrants. No wonder the Dems recruited so many people from there for the 2018 elections.

  7. Another case of the U.S. Justice Department bravely catching traitors created by the U.S. Justice Department.

    Job security. It’s why the government makes new criminals every day.

  8. A proposal in Nye County, Nevada, would confine women working in the area’s legal brothels to the brothels, stipulating that they only leave the premises “for six (6) hours per ten (10) day” period.

    Fuck off literal slavers.

    1. The term “slaver” is one of the most overused insults by Libertarians. But in this case, it seems to be actually true. Nye County wants the tax revenue no doubt. But, the slaves can’t be out wondering around being all uppity you know. Wow.

      1. How the hell would this pass any kind of legal challenge? These women aren’t under house arrest. The municipality has literally zero right to make such a fucking idiotic demand.

        The people who did so should be forced to live in the capital and never, EVER leave.

    2. Make Harems Great Again

    3. Do they have to wear a burka or a red dress in public?

    4. I really have to wonder how someone who proposes such a law thinks that a government in this country has the just authority to enforce something like that. What is their theory of appropriate government power?

  9. The power of the Ukraine revelations lies in their simplicity…

    Hopefully also how boring they are.

    1. So simple Schiff had to resort to parody immediately.

    2. Except the revelations aren’t simple enough to be clear cut. Trump came up with an alternate explanation of why he withheld funds for the Ukraine, so that part of the case is now in he-said/she-said territory.

      1. It wasn’t even an alternate explanation. it was the explanation. it was undergoing DoD review by Bolton and Esper since all foreign sales of arms have to go through proper clearing procedures.

        1. I don’t buy that it is “the” explanation. Trump could have had more than one reason for his actions. I don’t think the Democrats can ever prove that he delayed funds to pressure the Ukraine, though.

          1. What we can prove is that Ukraine didnt even know of a delay nor an extortion attempt. Kind of hard to extort someone who doesnt know they are being extorted.

            1. How can that be proved? Serious question.

              1. The Ukrainian President says he felt no pressure to do anything. Maybe he is lying but what reason does he have to do so? If he said he felt pressured, he would be untouchable since anything Trump did to punish him would look like revenge. Yet, he says he wasn’t. Why would he lie about that?

                1. That would work in the court of public opinion (and to a degree already has, among Trump’s base). But I’m pretty sure Congress cannot subpoena a foreign leader, and wouldn’t go to having foreign leaders testify in a Congressional hearing even if they could.

                  Flippant comment: I have some Ukrainian friends who I could see lying just out of sheer love of stirring up chaos.

              2. Every statement out of the Ukraine. Witnesses are a valid form of proof.


    So this is supposed to be the scandal that brings Trump down. The walls are closing in. He is losing control. Yet, the only fall out of it so far, other than giving Trump a huge fundraising boost in September, seems to be that it has caused Joe Biden, the candidate most argue would make the most formidable Democratic nominee in a general election, campaign to go tits up.

    I am starting to think that either God loves Trump like no other man since Jesus or that maybe Trump is the only one here that knows how to play this game.

    1. Biden’s pullback is a striking and potentially worrisome sign about his appeal among the digitally active.


      1. Maybe Joe figures since he has the most active digits of anyone in the race, he has that constituency in the bag already.

    2. No way. Nothing about this reflects poorly on Biden or his son.

      PS — Biden isn’t even “the most formidable” candidate. Warren and Harris would also win easily in 2020.

      1. Biden’s son made over a billion dollars in China and Ukraine after being kicked out of the Navy for drug use on his looks and personality. His father running foreign policy for those two countries had nothing to do with it. And Joe would never use his son to launder bribes or anything. never.

        1. Billion? If that is the case I got give them props. No politician is worth that kind of money and they fleeced those shitbags.

          1. In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China. The deal was later expanded to $1.5 billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president.


            That is billion with a “B”.

            1. They were given a billion to invest. The fees of profit would have been far less for the investment firm, but still in the millions. The bank of china had never invested with an outside firm prior. Yet they chose a firk that existed for a few more months and did so only a week after Hunter flew on AF2 with his dad to China.

              1. The fees on a billion and a half dollars would have been in the tens of millions. Remember, you pay a fee on that every year.

                1. and just having that that money even though not theirs gives a firm a huge credit jump that will attract more business

            2. it is amazing how the left screams about Trumps family and what they may gain but ignore and approve of what Biden and Hillary and Kerry clearly have done

              1. Trump stays in his own hotel and it is just corruption. Biden’s son makes millions from China and Ukraine and it is a crime to even question it.

        1. The rumor is that Wall Street has told the DNC they won’t get a penny in donations if Warren is the nominee.

          1. So much for Wall St. being mostly Republican.

            1. Lies that Lefties tell America

              Should be on Oprah’s top 10 book list.

            2. they’re businessmen. They don’t care about sides as long as they get to make money. And Warren is gonna prevent that.

              1. Yes, many donate to both sides of the aisle

          2. I heard Rush Limbaugh say that. You’re fucking pathetic John.

            1. Apparently Rush reads CNBC too. Good for him


              You should listen to Rush a little less and try reading the news a little more. You might be less of a half wit if you do.

              1. Good you fuckers can have whoever those people are.

                1. You are pathetic. Just pathetic.

                  1. It’s a “mute” point now john.

                2. Lol. How angry younger when you’re proven a fool.

                  1. Angry you get*

          3. I totes believe that. Just as I believe feminists who think we should believe all women’s accusations, even if made against Democrats.

    3. Or the Democratic leadership is really incompetent.

      1. which is another way of saying Trump is the only one who knows how to play this game. Remember, Trump doesn’t have to be good if his enemies are really stupid, which they appear to be.

        1. Yes, they do.

          Their servers get hacked during the 2016 election and it reveals all kinds of internal corruption within their party. So, they keep that front and center in the news for three years. Not smart.

          1. I don’t get that at all. The DNC servers had no dirt on Trump. It was all about how they fixed the primaries so Hillary would beat Bernie. Why they didn’t want that story to die and just never talk about it again is beyond me. The whole thing makes no sense.

            1. Because the server is the only link to russia they had. Of course once you realize that they used Crowdstrike, a DNC backed IT firm, and they refused to hand over the servers to the FBI, that link also gets destroyed.

              1. Wikileaks always said it was an inside job. And that explanation made the most sense. Most such things are inside jobs. Moreover, if a foreign intel service was reading the DNC emails, the last thing they would have done was dumped them on Wikileaks and let the DNC know they were doing so. Intel services barely share intel with their own governments. The idea that Russian intel would share a means and method that valuable with the world on wikileaks was always absurd.

                Some Bernie fan in the DNC got pissed off and gave wikileaks the email. That is almost certainly what happened.

                1. Some Bernie fan in the DNC got pissed off and gave wikileaks the email. That is almost certainly what happened.

                  or someone with a consious but he is dead now

            2. The only explanation I can come up with is hubris and incompetence.

      2. Little of column A, little of column B.

    4. According to the church of Sweden, god lives his son Greta Thrumberg.

      1. Someone needs to reboot The Omen and cast her as the female Damian.

        1. How dare you?

    5. The RNC pulled in something like $15 million this month thanks to all the media chimpouts. The Dems’ big money donors are even making noise now that they’re going to turn off the tap if Warren is nominated, because she’s one of the few candidates who legitimately hates anyone who makes more money than she does (Bernie’s just a jobber to the stars, so he doesn’t count).

      1. Warren is an even less appealing version of Hillary. Hillary is an awful candidate but there is a certain evil genius quality to her. Warren doesn’t even have that. She would surpass Hillary as the worst major party nominee in history.

        1. Warren is far more shrill than Hillary, which is saying something.

          She’s the political equivalent of the know-it-all, vindictive, brow-beating office manager who takes out her frustrations at life on everyone.

          1. The hard left loves her. Warren has a cult that is smaller but no less devoted than Bernie’s cult. But, I can’t see her appealing to the wider electorate. Maybe if we were in the middle of a depression, it might work but I can’t see how a “we must destroy all of the rich people and corporations” message will sell in good economic times.

            It is funny how the left constantly accuses Trump of being an evil “populist” yet the one candidate who has an old school populist platform is Warren. Warren is the one claiming there is an evil conspiracy among the rich and Wall Street to screw the common man not Trump. It just goes to show that words have no meanings to these lunatics.

            1. I feel like everyone out there offering free stuff is aiming to be populist?

              1. Depends on how you define the word. Populism in the pejorative sense is appealing to the masses by claiming they are the victim of unseen and powerful forces among the rich and elite. That is pure Warren.

          2. The left seems to be enamored with shrill. Hogg and Greta are also shrill. Schiff is as well.

          3. No self respecting male could ever vote for Warren

            1. But drives of women will vote for her just because of her lady bits.

        2. Hillary was evil who just wanted to be President while Warren wants to be President to do evil things

  11. Gen Z and millennial Americans say they want a European-style democratic socialist state. And yet “Europe’s young are less progressive—or ‘woke’—than their American contemporaries…”

    It’s easier to want socialism the further – farther? – no, further you are from it.

    1. Such are the wages of letting the left destroy the schools. Public schools have become a cancer on society.

      1. They do help prepare kids for college though. Ask the kids with the pink fungo bats at Evergreen college.

        1. The one radical libertarian position that I have come to embrace over the last few years is the need to get rid of public schools entirely. In addition to costing trillions of dollars that could have been better spent elsewhere, they have had a horrible effect on society. Not only are the sources of the worst sorts of political indoctrination, they have also caused people to see the government as responsible for their own and their children’s education. It is just a cargo cult for most people where by they think if they drop their kid off at the magic building every day they will come out with an education no work or effort needed. They are a disaster at every level.

          1. The whole enterprise needs to be torn down and literally re-formed from the ground up. We’re still using an industrial/agricultural model of schooling that’s a relic of the Prussian system.

            1. Get rid of all funding for brick and mortar schools and give every parent a voucher to spend on any school of any kind they want for their kids. Let the market figure it out. Yes, some parents would make terrible choices but far more would make good choices and millions of kids would be left much better off than they are under the current system.

              1. ^THIS.

                Georgia churches are building a bunch of schools to take advantage of what parents want for their kid’s education. We voted this in to give money to parents for private schools instead of the money going automatically to public schools.

                The Georgia GOAL Scholarship Program provides tuition scholarships to children who desire to attend private K-12 schools.

                Parents are pretty excited about it.

                1. Now if we can just lower federal taxes that go to Dept of Ed and keep that in Georgia.

                  BTW: Our Georgia Governor Brian Kemp was for this and the Democrat candidate Stacey Abrams was against this law.

  12. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $60.3 billion

    With our billionaire benefactor struggling during this #DrumpfRecession, maybe Reason should do more of that sponsored content they’ve experimented with. Because Mr. Koch alone can’t keep the lights on — not when tariffs and immigration restrictions have crippled his finances.

    1. Do you actually get daily updates of his net worth?

      1. Pretty sure those numbers are estimates +/- 20% or so.
        J. P. Morgan: ‘If you know how much you are worth, you’re not worth much.’

  13. A proposal in Nye County, Nevada, would confine women working in the area’s legal brothels to the brothels, stipulating that they only leave the premises “for six (6) hours per ten (10) day” period.

    Look, women are only allowed so much agency. You want permission to work in sex? Well, fine, but you have to give up the ability to move freely among us moral people. IT’S A COMPROMISE.

    1. “We don’t want your kind walking among us decent folk ‘cuz sex is gross”.

    1. So they shot a protester to mark the anniversary. They certainly choose an appropriate way to mark the anniversary of a communist revolution. You have to give them that.

      1. It’s like blowing out a candle.

    2. it only take one shot to start a revolution, will it be the shot heard around the world

      1. MIght be. But you look at the video, the protester was swinging a 2′ metal pipe (an expandable baton) at a police officer wearing no armor and no shield, backed against a wall. Just sayin’, I would shot him too, rather than take a pipe beating.

  14. The discussion with Mr. Morrison shows the extent to which Mr. Trump views the attorney general as a crucial partner

    John Kennedy’s AG was a crucial partner as well, and both of them fought against the deep state. History shows they weren’t very successful.

    1. Since when doesn’t the AG work for the President?

    2. Holder was Obama’s wingman. And obama even used executive privilege to shield him from criminal wrongdoing in Fast and Furious.

      1. Yeah, but Holder never denied a subpoena targeted at him.

        Oh wait.

  15. The news media has been nothing short of disgraceful lately.

    Exhibit 1:

    “Acting Director of National Intelligence Threatened to Resign if he Couldn’t Speak Freely before Congress on Whistleblower Complaint”

    —-Washington Post, September 25, 2019

    Isn’t it awful that the Trump administration put so much pressure on the Director of National Intelligence to lie that he had to threaten to resign if they wouldn’t let him tell Congress the truth?

    Unfortunately for the Washington Post, the story was exposed as false later the same day.

    “At no time have I considered resigning my position since assuming this role on Aug. 16, 2019,” Maguire said in a statement. “I have never quit anything in my life, and I am not going to start now. I am committed to leading the Intelligence Community to address the diverse and complex threats facing our nation.”

    —CNBC, September 25, 2019

    How embarrassing!

    1. There is a story like this about every week. I think they have decided that it is best to tell the lie and get the attention that comes with it knowing that the damage done by the correction will be less than the revenue made by the mistake.

      They are all about facts and the truth like that.

      1. The first tweet out gets thousands. The correction follow up gets tens.

        1. And by the time the correction is issued, the initial lie has become the narrative across the entire media spectrum, so the correction becomes irrelevant. And the media wonder why people hate their guts.


    1. Stop being racist. You can’t know the race of text on a screen.


        1. Without toxic masculinity, that would be flaccid.

    2. hello.

  17. Turns out I was right. They are all rotten.
    Vote everyone out, every time.

  18. What self-respecting libertarian journalist reads a NYT opinion piece and thinks it would be something worth writing about?

    1. No self respecting ones work at reason.

      1. +100

      2. libertarians or journalists? ba dum dum

    2. The question answers itself, really.

  19. Here’s a better headline:
    Media Shill Efforts To Protect Biden Fail

  20. Exhibit 2:

    “Meanwhile, Attorney General Bill Barr was reportedly talking to British intelligence authorities, Italian officials, and folks in the Australian government about the FBI and CIA’s actions leading up to the 2016 U.S. election and motivations for Trump-related inquiries, according to The Washington Post and “people familiar with the matter.”

    Is foreign governments interfering in our elections no longer an issue?

    I thought we wanted to get to the bottom of how Hillary Clinton’s emails made it into the hands of the Russians!

    Yeah, we went on a wild goose chase with an independent counsel, but what did we learn about who was involved in hacking those servers, how they did it, etc.?

    Isn’t that still a major crime? Shouldn’t we prosecute the responsible parties or at least make sure that they aren’t still operating in the same capacity and ready to do the same thing again in 2020?

    Once we find out that it’s not enough to impeach the President, I guess you don’t care anymore–but why should the rest of us ignore it?

    My understanding is that we first found out about the hacked emails from the Australians. Is Trump the first person to ask the Australians for whatever information they have? If so, why has no one has asked them for this information before?

    1. It is almost like the media and the Democrats never really wanted anyone to turn over that rock or something.

      Ken, the plan was never to impeach Trump for working with the Russians. The knew that didn’t happen and there was not going to be any evidence of it. The plan was to use the accusation that he did as an excuse to launch an investigation that would find something Trump was guilty of and could be removed from office as a result. Once that was found, no one would have remembered or cared that the whole thing started because of a bogus accusation of “Collusion”!!

      The problem is they didn’t find anything. I think they assumed Trump was a crooked and careless as they were and therefore it would be easy to find something once they started looking. It turns out he wasn’t and they are just grasping at straws now.

      1. I think they would find something impeachable if they dug deep enough, and when they didn’t . . .

        What they never took seriously was the accusation that the Russians interfered in our elections.

        It’s like the anthrax attack on 9/11. We might not have invaded Iraq if it hadn’t been for that anthrax attack. Our entire public policy between 2001 and 2012–foreign and domestic–may have been as a result of that anthrax attack, and yet we know practically nothing about where it came from, who initiated it and why. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but it’s like once it was used to justify the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror, it just didn’t matter to anybody anymore.

        The Democrats want to reorganize Facebook and Google because of foreign influence in the 2016 election. The Democrats are using foreign interference in the 2016 election as an excuse to regulate speech on social media and elsewhere online. And now, at the same time, we’re supposed to pretend that finding out what really happened and why is the stupid, outdated, and unimportant effort of an obsessed conspiracy theorist?

        They just end up making themselves look stupid.

        1. The Democrats wanting to regulate, reorganize, and centrally plan two American companies worth a combined $1.3 trillion because of interference in the 2016 election is perfectly rational.

          The president asking foreign countries for any help in finding out precisely what happened and who was responsible for interference in the 2016 election–well that’s just crazy?!

          I think you’d have to be insane to hold both views at the same time.

          I think people who say both things are mostly those who can believe one of those ideas to the total exclusion of the other idea–in quick succession.

  21. And to no surprise, the SNL thing wasn’t funny.
    Don’t waste your time.

    1. Very telling that reason staff advocates watching SNL for political satire.

      1. Gillespie literally argued that South Park obviates the need for free speech protections.

  22. Anybody else see that girl scolding the world’s leaders for caring about our economy–when the earth is literally cooking under our feet? Are we supposed to sacrifice our standard of living because this girl is screaming at us?

    I think that’s about where we are in the Ukrainian witch hunt, too.

    During the Salem witch trials, the girls who were accusing people of being witches would writhe around on the floor and scream whenever someone they claimed was a witch walked into the room.

    Are we supposed to believe the media’s absurd accusations just because they’re writhing around on the floor and screaming, too? Obviously, if Trump wasn’t guilty of something awful, the media wouldn’t be writhing around and screaming like that every time he walked into the room!

    I’ve read the transcript. There is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

    If Trump asked the Australians for whatever information they had about foreign meddling in our elections, that isn’t evidence of a quid pro quo either–and all the writhing around and screaming in the world won’t change that fact.

    1. The whole plan is to stomp their feet until they get their way. They think if enough people get sick of hearing about it they’ll just give in and not vote Trump. Like a parent giving into a kid in the grocery store.

      And these are the people Reason staff call friends, family, and coworkers.

      1. It may be that all the writhing around is because they realize they’re not getting their way.

        It’s a temper tantrum.

    2. No quid pro Quo, no one works for free and they shouldn’t be expected to either.

      1. Ah shit now the left will complain that Trump asked a foreign nation to do something for nothing and how treasonous that is.

  23. Unable To Let 2016 Go…

    Unable to deal with losing an election…
    Unable to let impeachment go…
    Unable to find purpose in their lives…
    Unable to handle being wrong…
    Unable to deal with Trump returning the favor…

  24. If British intelligence warned Trump about an impending terrorist attack on the Dem presidential field, he’d still be accused of using foreign sources to influence the election.

    1. journolists would dox the kingsmen.

  25. Reason bootlicking the establishment has got to be my favorite part of Trump getting elected. Who’d have thought a magazine dedicated to free minds and free markets would join in writing propaganda to defend a bureaucratic police state trying to take down elected officials.

    Comey, Strzok, Page, the Steele Dossier, the FISA abuse… just keep your hands over your ears and yell LA LA LA LA you spineless cowards

    1. “When REASON speaks of poverty, racism, the draft, the war, studentpower, politics, and other vital issues, it shall be reasons, not slogans, it gives for conclusions . . . . Proof, not belligerent assertion. Logic, not legends. Coherance (sic), not contradictions. This is our promise: this is the reason for REASON.”

      —Lanny Friedlander, May 1968

      Reason Volume 1, Issue 1

      I may have disagreed with this statement or that person, but the magazine stayed true to that vision through to, I’d say, about mid-2015. TDS just overwhelmed everything for most of them. They can’t look at Trump objectively or see anything objectively if he’s standing next to it.

      I consider Doherty, Sullum and some other contributors to be as solid as ever, which isn’t to say that I agree with them. They’re using Friedlander’s formula even if they’re coming to conclusions I wouldn’t. The others have mostly indistinguishable from non-libertarians since mid-2015 or so, maybe even earlier than that.

      1. Ronald Bailey seems to be libertarian even though i disagree with the causes of global warming

        1. Yes, he belongs on that list, too.

        2. reason staff are not Libertarian because they only cherry pick Buttsex, Global warming, ‘Mesicans, and weed to blather on about.

          Libertarians want to be principled on every issue. They look for the non-government solution first. Then if that is not practical, a tiny and limited government might be utilized.

          Ron Bailey wants to use government force to make sure he and his friend’s delusions about humans warming the Earth are accepted policy. Fuck Ron Bailey.

          1. Another example is reason blathering on about “legal weed” and no US state so far has 100% legalized marijuana. Its all heavily regulated, heavily taxed, and only mostly decriminalized.

            Repealing the unconstitutional Controlled Substances Act is the fastest way to make weed 100% legal tomorrow. I have yet to see reason advocate this.

            Gillespie just wants to be able to spend reason donation dollars on a few joints that he can stash in The Jacket for those Cosmo Parties.

    2. Or it’s pathetic losers like you who love every thing Trump does for no other reason than to spite other people.


      1. IT is totally okay for the CIA to interfere in US politics and for journalists to repeat its talking points because Orange Man Bad.

        You called it dude.

      2. “Just more bs from the mouths of morons.”

      3. When other people are busybody assholes, spiting them is the appropriate response.

      4. I’m one of those crazy people who is able to like some things he does, hate others, and can also call out bootlickers like you when they pop up to defend the CIA.

        Reason is where I learned to distrust bureaucracy, now I have to come here to defend that position from chuds like you

    3. exactly this.

  26. Lol, Reason. Their childlike faith in open borders and open markets is touching to see. Even if the actual data severely contradict their vision of reality, they still believe with the fervor of a fundamentalist.

    We’ve coddled the Chinese on trade for nearly three decades now and the result has not been a democratic China, but an aggressive, militaristic, totalitarian neo-empire that bullies its neighbors, suppresses dissent, and keeps many members of its Muslim population in camps.

    Meanwhile Emperor Xi shows no signs of ceding power anytime soon.

    We saw this back during the Cold War too, when the pacifist Left and Libertarians argued that the Soviet Union was here to stay and the only way to liberate Eastern Europe was to be nice to them.

    1. Idealism is not a good trait and it is generally intellectually lazy. Reasons writers tend to be idealists.

      1. I am not against idealism as long as it comes with practical strategies to achieving said lofty goal.

        Especially men should be hard-wired with this. Real men that is, not Incels.

        Real men think of something to build, make a plan to build it, and then build it.

    2. Yea its kinda of like paying the mafia to not trash your business hoping they won’t come back for more.

    3. I disagree with this almost entirely.

      The benefits of trade with China are mostly about the way that trade increases our own standard of living. The standard of living improves when consumers can afford to buy the same or better things for less money. If the manufactured things I buy cost less, then I have more money to buy more and better other things like housing, food, etc. Because China can manufacture things for less than we can, our standard of living has grown higher than it would have if we didn’t have that trade relationship.

      More to the point, the idea that I shouldn’t be allowed to make the choice to buy good from China for less because doing so it isn’t the best interests of other Americans who are overpaid to manufacture them is a progressive idea. Moreover, the idea that I shouldn’t be allowed to buy Chinese imports and enjoy the benefits to standard of living because doing so isn’t in the best interests of pro-democracy activists in China is also a progressive idea. If you’re willing to forgo the benefits of buying Chinese manufactured merchandise because you care so much about displaced factory workers in the U.S. and democracy activists in China, you should be free to avoid buying imports from China. And the rest of us should also be free to do as we please–regardless of your personal preferences.

      In regards to national security, we could only wish that Iran were as reluctant to attack the U.S. and its allies as the Chinese are to attack the U.S. and its allies. The reason the Chinese are so much more reluctant to attack the United States now than they were during the Cold War is because of our trade relationship.

      Before China decided to try to join the WTO, they used to fund and arm communist insurrections all over the world. Nowadays, when you hear people talking about Maoist rebels, they’re talking about the movement’s ideology rather than their funding. China is no longer an active force for instability in the Third World like it used to be. Nowadays, they’re a force for stability–because insurrections get in the way of resource extraction. That change is fundamentally attributable to our trade relationship with China.

      1. Sure Ken, nations trading with each other keeps them from going to war. That is why the great powers of Europe in the early 20th Century never went to war with each other, right?

        1. Beyond the fact that early 20th century trade was vastly different than 21st century trade, I think Ken’s point went over your head.

          I think Ken is saying that trading with China is a net good for American standards of living, and that we shouldn’t cut off trade with them based on what China is doing to its own citizens or what ideology its leaders follow. BUT, if we are going to focus on China’s behavior, at least we can definitively state that they are less destabilizing then they used to be from an international perspective.

          1. I think Ken is saying that trading with China is a net good for American standards of living, and that we shouldn’t cut off trade with them based on what China is doing to its own citizens

            That’s because Ken is a craven, disgusting piece of shit.

        2. “Sure Ken, nations trading with each other keeps them from going to war.”

          Because they’re less likely to go to war with each other because of trade doesn’t they never will–and the more trade there is between nations, the less likely they are to go to war.

          In the case of China, the fact that their economic health has been largely dependent on trade with the U.S. has been a great deterrent to go to war with us.

          1. I am not sure that they are less likely. It is just not that simple. You could make a very good argument that the obsession with international trade as necessary to be a great power had a lot to do with World War I. Why was it that Germany, a nation that had an enormous economy, the best army and stood astride over Europe in 1900 could convince itself that it was doomed to be dominated by its enemies and reduced to second rate status? It convinced itself of that because it bought into the idea that you had to have colonies and captive international markets to be a great power and since it didn’t have any and its enemies did, it was doomed.

            That was complete nonsense. It didn’t need colonies, it had its own domestic demand. Moreover, colonies cost England and France money and were a luxury. But the belief in the necessity of international trade and access to foreign markets was so great in Europe at that time, nothing else mattered.

            And what was Germany’s goal in starting the war? They much like Napoleon in the Continental system wanted to create a single European market that was open to and captive of German goods. Germany’s plans for post war Europe had they won the war are almost identical to the current EU.

            So trade doesn’t make war less likely. It can in some cases make war more likely because the desire to keep trade going and markets open is one of the more common motivators for nations to go to war. Why has the US been so willing to go to war in the Middle East other than for its desire to trade for the oil there? Make the US energy independent, like it is becoming, and the US desire to go to war in the Middle East greatly decreases and decreases as a result of less trade not more trade.

      2. I don’t necessarily disagree with you Ken; in purely economic terms it makes sense to trade with any nation, regardless of how brutal the leaders may be. But that doesn’t mean everyone will benefit.

        99% of the time when you give a dictator money all you get is a rich dictator. China doesn’t fund local revolution anymore because it can afford to set its sights higher: becoming a global hegemony and the main power in the eastern hemisphere. Not a peaceful liberal democracy intent on respecting its neighbors and respecting human rights.

        The Soviet Union collapsed they couldn’t afford to maintain an arms race with the West. Not because we imported Stolichnaya and Ladas.

        1. I totally agree with you except that I don’t think anyone ever imported a Lada

          1. They had them in Canada for a while in the 1970s; I actually rode in one.

            It was like a bare-bones Fiat that had been built by a tank manufacturer.

      3. I disagree with this almost entirely.

        Golly gee, Ken the sociopath is completely fine with enabling the most prolific mass murdering regime in the entire recorded history of humanity. What a motherfucking shocker.

  27. Right, it’s Trump who can’t let 2016 go. Pathetic.

    1. It’s really one of the most blatant examples of gaslighting I’ve ever seen.

    2. If Hillary was willing to let the server investigation go, surely Trump should be willing to let it go too.

      I’m in the same boat, though, I’m willing to let the issues with my 2016 tax returns go, the IRS just keeps bringing it up. It’s like they’re obsessed about my tax deficiencies or something.

  28. Meanwhile, Attorney General Bill Barr was reportedly talking to British intelligence authorities, Italian officials, and folks in the Australian government about the FBI and CIA’s actions leading up to the 2016 U.S. election and motivations for Trump-related inquiries, according to The Washington Post and “people familiar with the matter.”

    If by ‘people familiar with the matter’ you mean the maintenance guy that changes the toilet paper rolls in the white house bathrooms.

    More from the WaPo:

    Our source was also heard to mutter under his breath, “Not supposed to answer the phones. Always over, never under. Not supposed to answer the phones. Cheerio, Billy! Buongiorno, Billy! G’day, mate!” Not supposed to answer the phones.

    1. I am pretty sure one of the sources is still angry about DOJ taking his swingline stapler.

  29. Too late- already filled with comments “but it’s ok because…”

    Just more bs from the mouths of morons.

    1. wearingit
      October.1.2019 at 11:06 am
      “Just more bs from the mouths of morons.”

      And you show up to provide it.

    2. “Too late- already filled with comments “but it’s ok because…”

      What’s okay?

      The issue isn’t that Trump’s quid pro quo is okay.

      The issue is that the quid pro quo never happened.

      That business about a quid pro quo being okay is just a figment of your imagination.

    3. Here’s the transcript:

      Quote from it.

      Show us the quid pro quo.

      If you believe there was quid pro quo despite the fact that the evidence shows there was none, then you’re probably either dishonest or delusional.

      So go ahead and show me the quid pro quo.

      I dare you.

    4. wearingit

      One of the most ignored trolls on reason.

  30. “The attorney general’s active role also underscores the degree to which a nearly three-year-old election still consumes significant resources and attention inside the federal government,” notes the Post.

    1. I wanted to write a comment about the sheer brazenness of writing a sentence that twisted, but I literally could find no words. Jesus, that sentence deserves to win a prize of some sort, it practically demands to be honored for its breathtaking awesomeness, it’s like the Holy Grail of journalism. That sentence needs to be framed beneath bullet-proof glass and hung in the Smithsonian. RECOGNIZE, motherfuckers, and bow down before its majesty! That I am alive at this time to see the likes of such a thing as has never been seen before nor will ever be seen again is truly a wondrous and awful thing.

      1. the sentence itself or the criminal activity it describes?

      2. The Democratic-Republican party took aim calling Adams a “bald, toothless, hermaphroditical character”, and the Federalists (republicans today) went with the fear factor claiming that if Jefferson was elected “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes”.

        Adams couldn’t send Jefferson away, as the Vice President needed to be available to take office if necessary. Jefferson hung around Phili and made Adams presidency as difficult as possible. This shit has been going on since the very beginnings of the Republic.

        1. I love to read all of the awful things the founders said about each other. Washington seemed to be above reproach even in that group. You get the feeling Washington really was the father figure. But the rest of them were like jealous siblings and fought like wild animals.

  31. Gen Z and millennial Americans say they want a European-style democratic socialist state. And yet “Europe’s young are less progressive—or ‘woke’—than their American contemporaries,” suggests The Atlantic. “A third of Millennial and Gen Z voters in Europe consider themselves centrists…and they are emphatically not socialists.”

    Sure, now that Eastern Europe is part of Europe again. They still have big families in the East, and there are still plenty of elders who remember when the Iron Curtain fell. They are not going to empower the police state again if they have any choice. Socialism inevitably leads to a police state when it becomes necessary to ration goods and services.

    Meanwhile, 50 million American children are being convinced they are in danger from school shooters, which is statistically less likely to affect them than a lightning strike, and that only by giving up freedoms can they saved from being murdered.

  32. woody harrelson still funny.

  33. Talk about being unable to give up on 2016, HRC (Her Royal Cuntiness) has hit the trail again. This time she lost to a corrupt tornado due to vote suppression. Tornado’s should come with a warning that they are dangerous to the health of wicked witches.

  34. More meddling from foreign countries was reportedly sought by the Trump administration. Revelations about “quid pro quo” requests President Donald Trump made to Ukraine’s president appear to have opened the floodgates on stories about Trump trying to make self-interested political deals with foreign leaders.

    $50,000 a month job for a sitting vice president’s frat boy son with a meth addiction to be on the board of a foreign oil company while sitting as vice president? That kind of meddling?

    1. HEY HEY HEY. It’s not meth, it’s coke. That’s just slander.

  35. in other news that female cop that shot the guy in his own home was found guilty of murder

    1. Holy shit – never would have believed that was possible, not in Texas at least.

      1. She walked in and shot the guy. It was so obvious and bad even a Texas jury had to convict her.

  36. shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests

    And no other politician anywhere has ever done this before. Trump is the first. What an innovator!

    1. I think President Trumps innovation here was that he was the first to directly ask for campaign assistance. Previous Presidents have used diplomacy to enhance their resume. President T. Roosevelt mediated the Russo-Japanese war (won a Nobel Prize but not another term), Nixon opened China, and Carter brokered peace in the Middle East. With President Trump it was seeking more direct foreign assistance.

  37. “Why trade with China when its government perpetuates horrible human rights abuses? Simple, writes Scott Sumner: “Politics is the answer, trade is the solution.””

    So, uh, when do we label this theory a failure? Just keep running it indefinitely and never see if this claim is true or not?

    1. There isn’t a single example of trade destroying an oppressive regime. In fact, the entire Eastern Block is an example of the opposite. The US never traded with the old communist block. By Reason’s logic, it should still be there.

  38. Free markets and international trade promote peace and liberalization, while isolationism and poverty make authoritarianism worse.

    Clearly evidenced by the dissolution of totalitarianism even as multibillionaires profit off of slave labor and gulags.

    Go fuck yourself to eternity you craven, disgusting piece of subhuman fucking shit. I hope you die in precisely the manner you’ve consigned 40 million Chinese to.

  39. Hmmm…Schiff got a copy of the whistleblower complaint BEFORE the DNI received it. The whistleblower went to the Democrats FIRST.

    Seems, you know, fishy.

  40. Why should Trump “let 2106 go” until the dhimmicrats stop trying to impeach him or ‘Reason’ stops huffing pink unicorn flatus, whichever comes first? Are you saying Trump has no right to defend himself?

  41. Yes with politics each election cycle lets everything prior go, so there is no accountability for the various scandals. 2 parties protect their own and their voters waive standards of justice for their side so there are no standards remaining for anyone.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.