Reason Roundup

Trump Brazenly Suggests Ukraine, China Should Do Opposition Research for His 2020 Campaign

Plus: Why you think all your friends get their news on Facebook, the trade-offs that come with higher minimum wages, a modest proposal for AOC, and more...

|

L'état, c'est moi. A recurring theme throughout Donald Trump's presidency has been his inability to distinguish between the interests of the country and the interests of Donald Trump. This has manifested itself in myriad ways, from the use of Trump hotels for official state business to Trump's insistence that negative news coverage violates libel laws. A different strain of the same logic has consumed the Republican Party and conservative media, which increasingly are organized not around principles or interest groups but around the interests of Trump above all else.

Now, as the president braces against a possible impeachment, he seems ready to deploy this same untruth as an explanation for possible misdeeds. The state is me. I am the state. Therefore, my interests are those of the United States.

Consider what Trump tweeted late on Thursday night:

That tweet capped a crazy day that began with Trump, during an impromptu press conference in the White House driveway, raising the prospect of Ukraine (and China) opening investigations into former vice president (and possible Democratic presidential nominee) Joe Biden. You know, the exact same request Trump made during a phone call in July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy—a request that has caused a flurry of renewed speculation about impeachment. And here was Trump, standing in front of TV cameras, suggesting once again that foreign governments should help his re-election bid by digging up dirt on the Democratic primary front-runner.

Then came the news that Trump had dismissed Marie Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported that this was because "she also had been an obstacle to efforts to push Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden and his son Hunter," citing none other than Rudy Guiliani, Trump's personal lawyer, as the source of that info.

Before the day was out, CNN had reported that Trump raised the prospect of China investigating Biden during a phone call with Chinese trade officials in July. In the same call, Trump reportedly promised not to condemn China's crackdown on Hong Kong.

The request reportedly befuddled Chinese officials, who mistakenly believed they were on the phone with the president in order to hammer out a trade deal between the two countries, not to engage in American domestic politicking. "One Trump ally outside the White House described receiving a message from Chinese government officials asking if Trump was serious when he suggested China open an investigation into Biden," CNN reported. "The response: investigating corruption is an easy way to earn goodwill with Trump."

The theme repeated later Thursday night, when the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight committees released the first trove of documents lawmakers have been reviewing related to l'affaire Ukraine. A series of text messages between William Taylor, a top U.S. diplomat in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, seems particularly damning.

The pattern that's now emerging suggests Trump routinely intertwined his reelection effort with official state business—either implicitly ("an easy way to earn goodwill") or explicitly ("WH meetings are conditioned on investigations").

Which brings us back to Trump's late-night tweet. Now that Trump is openly admitting he solicited foreign assistance to investigate Biden, he's pivoted to claim that all this was in the best interest of the country. He's just trying to uphold the law! If you buy that argument, ask yourself how you'd respond to President Barack Obama openly declaring that China should investigate Mitt Romney.

Clearly, the United States has an interest in tamping down corruption abroad—particularly when it may involve Americans currying favor, as Joe or Hunter Biden may have done. That does bear investigating. But Trump hardly seems interested in investigating corruption, broadly speaking. He has a singular focus on implicating a domestic political opponent in corruption. And he's clearly willing to leverage his office to convince foreign governments to do opposition research for his campaign, and to do it all via diplomatic backchannels.

And he is unwilling or unable to grasp that distinction.

Is all of this impeachable conduct? That's for Congress to decide. But it's obviously inappropriate, completely at odds with a constitutional system that makes the president the head of state but not the state itself, and probably illegal. Oh, and Republican senators are already normalizing it.


FREE MINDS

Facebook feeds your friends fake news, but you're too smart for that. An expansive new survey from the Pew Research Center examines Americans' attitudes towards social media. It finds that only 28 percent of Americans say they "often" get their news from social media. Despite that, most Americans believe social media have too much influence over what everyone else is seeing.

Pew's survey found that 62 percent of Americans say social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have "too much control" over the mix of news people see, and that 82 percent believe those social media sites "treat some news organizations differently than others." Self-identified Republicans are far more likely to believe social media have too much control over news content than self-identified Democrats.

This is what a fertile ground for government intervention looks like.


FREE MARKETS

I was told there would be no trade-offs. When the minimum wage increases, employers often cut non-wage benefits such as flexible leave, health insurance coverage, tips, and employee discounts, according to a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank.

"The negative economic tradeoffs for minimum wage workers, unfortunately, cancel out most of the paycheck gains," says Ryan Young, a senior fellow at the institute and the author of the report.


QUICK HITS

  • A constituent—apparently a follower of the late Lyndon LaRouche—has a modest proposal for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y):
  • Trump won't have Rick Perry to kick around much longer. The Secretary of Energy will resign next month.
  • In a speech from Florida's massive retirement community, The Villages, President Donald Trump promised to "save" Medicare from Democrats. But can he save it from itself?
  • Who will Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) wreck at next week's Democratic primary debate?
  • "With or without Trump, any world order that depends for its survival on the whims of a single person in a single branch of gov­ernment in a single country is simply untenable," write three foreign policy experts at the Cato Institute.
  • Chicago is holding this grandmother's car for a $6,000 ransom, even though she didn't commit any crimes.
  • Good luck getting a ride at Los Angeles International Airport after October 29:
  • More than 5,000 inmates die in the Philippines' national penitentiary every year.
  • MGM will pay an $800 million settlement to victims of last year's mass shooting in Las Vegas.
  • Hong Kong is banning masks.
  • Yes, your dog really does love you.

NEXT: Vaping Panic Ignores How E-Cigarettes Save Lives

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. The negative economic tradeoffs for minimum wage workers, unfortunately, cancel out most of the paycheck gains…

    But all worth it for the increased taxes.

    1. Hello.

      You know, with Russia 2.0 via Ukraine revving up and all these whistleblowers chiming in with what amounts to hearsay, it’s no secret the strategy is to throw the kitchen sink now. Trump has to be Gatti-Ward now.

      1. Does Eric want Trump to fill out FISA paperwork before requesting foreign influence or are we now going to admit that the Russia investigation was started through corrupt means?

        1. Right. Because Obama wasn’t aware the flock led by Hildragon weren’t looking for some dirt and take down Donnie.

          Watergate’s place as the great corruptive moment in contemporary American politics should be upgraded. The previous administration’s shenanigans were pretty cynical if not criminal.

        2. *Draws in breath sharply* This kind of thing has never happened before!

        3. Mere peons like me have to pay high taxes (tariffs) to get goods and services for Ukraine and China…

          When Dear Leader POTUS gets HIS goods and services (electioneering assistance from Ukraine and China), is HE paying high taxes (tariffs) on HIS goodies? If not, why not?

          1. Show where your costs increased in the inflation data.

            1. Why should I bother? You are neither going to change your Trump-adoring ways, nor reimburse me for my losses!

              1. Then why ask the fucking question in the first place troll?

                1. Simply to point out the obvious, which conservatives like to ignore, and that is, peons like me are abused by the double standards set up by Trump and Minions, for the benefit of Trump. Trump’s minions merely IMAGINE that they, too, will benefit.

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/

                  1. It’s so obvious you can’t support it. Got it.

                  2. “Simply to point out the obvious”

                    That you’re crazy, stupid, and a slaver who eats shit?

                  3. “” peons like me are abused by the double standards set up by Trump and Minions,””

                    That’s pretty funny since dems love double standards.

                    But her Emails!

              2. Youd would bother if you wanted to argue honestly. Now you believe inflation data is biased by Trump. Pretty dumb.

                1. Now you believe inflation data is biased by Trump.

                  For years right-wingers claimed that Obama was manipulating economic data in order to give a false impression of the true state of the economy.

                  If Obama can do it, why can’t Trump?

                  1. Who claimed inflation was biased by Obama?

                  2. Hey you switched from that stupid fucking sock you’ve been lying wasn’t you.

                    “For years right-wingers”

                    It’s always the same tune, but no you’re not a Chocolate Jesus worshipping leftist.

                  3. Holy shit you’re retarded De.

                    1. Obama changes metrics, pretends they compared to previous metrics, but didn’t manipulate anything. Lolololol this is what De Oppresso Liber actually believes lololoo

                    2. “Obama changes metrics…”

                      Yes, just like you change your handle as often as a baby has his-her diaper changed! Mary, Mary’s period, “.”, Satan, Tulpa, ToolPoopy, Shithead, Doofus, Trump-dick-sucker, Chester the Child Molester, Pester, Fester, Molester… PLEASE forgive us if we forget HOW MANY handles you claim, EVERY friggin’ day it seems!

              3. There’s a tariff on manure?

                1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                  So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                  Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                  Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                  Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                  At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                  Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                  Thank You! -Reason Staff

                  1. Hahaahah you want to eat shit and now everyone knows it.

                  2. I’m looking for an actual cost to your monthly budget here.

                    1. I jump through hoops to recycle and repair some items that used to be a lot cheaper (easier to throw away and replace) because of Donald’s China-tariff wars, truth be told. I’ve not tracked my hours, and what are my home-labor hours worth anyway? It’s nebulous… But the costs are very real. Unlike the unreality of the supposed “sincerity” of your arguments here, and the arguments of may of your non-libertarian cohorts here.

                    2. And you eat shit, which saves you money too.

                    3. You’re the one claiming your bank account’s being drained more quickly these days, a dollar figure shouldn’t be hard to determine.

                2. “”There’s a tariff on manure?”‘

                  Hihn is making someone very rich if that is true.

  2. “We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! … We have to get rid of the babies! … We need to eat the babies!”

    They’ll do anything to keep a revenue stream for Planned Parenthood.

    1. With this and Blankstrap, maybe I need to stop trying to tune out politics.

    2. I’d think eating the babies would cut into the revenues brought in by PP’s sales division.

      1. Who do you think has the most tender meat?

    3. Wait. Are we to cook them or are we talking sushi?

      1. Why do you think they call them “buns in the oven”?

      2. Smoke em for 14 hrs with some apple wood chips

    4. I remember hearing this song many years ago, and lo and behold, it’s on the Internet. Radioactive Chicken Heads, _I Eat Kids_:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bHg2nF71lA

  3. Trump won’t have Rick Perry to kick around much longer.

    Was he even on Trump’s radar?

  4. So how did the first round of impeachment go…

    From yesterday. Contemporary text…

    ““Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s [sic] of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign,” he wrote.”

    1. I like how you left off the exchange that shows that diplomats carrying out trump’s request clearly saw quid pro quo and illegal activity.

      “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” –Taylor, diplomat to ukraine

      “Call me,” Mr. Sondland replied.

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

        1. ________________________________________________________________
          _/___|________(_)______________|_|_|_|____|___)__\___)__\|_|_|_|
          _\___\/___\/__|_/___\_’__\/__`_|___|_’_\___/_/_()_/_/_()_|_|_|_|
          _|___/\___/\__|_\___/_.__/\__,_|\__|_||_|_/___\__/___\__/(_|_|_)
          ____________________|_|_________________________________________

          1. I must be getting old… I can’t read this.

            1. Not important. Just some random derogatory remark about Trump.

              It’s not you. If I do this again, I’ll find a better font. I wasn’t sure it would even post correctly, since it was my first time trying it.

              1. It clearly says sociopath 2020.

                1. Well, not that clearly, I must admit. I tried to find the same font loveconstitution1789 used, but there are a LOT of fonts on the ASCII art generator site.

                  1. Hahaha. You trolls are so stupid you cant even out Trump a Trump message.

                    Its like Election 2016 all over again.

              2. I think it is Aramaic or Sanskrit. Not sure.

                You have to read it right to left. Sheva .. something … chav… etz..

                Lost it.

          2. viewed from a 37-degree angle it becomes a stargate.

      2. And the response to that text is what I stated jeffrey. It was them making clear what trump asked.

        So you go with the impression someone had and ignore the explicit condition they were told.

        This is because you are a partisan dumbass.

        1. I’m sure it was just clarifying. Sure, sure.

          I wonder why Trump is so concerned with Biden’s dealings? Is Trump personally in charge of anti corruption investigations, and is just starting his career as top lawman with a very thorough investigation of potential dem nominees? I wonder why he supposedly asked Xi about Elizabeth Warren, also? What crime is she suspected of? It couldn’t be that Trump is using the foreign policy apparatus of the US government to benefit his own re election campaign. No! Never!

          https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464324-warren-calls-for-transcript-of-trumps-call-with-chinese-leader-to-be

          1. Fuck off jeff.

            “I’m sure it was just clarifying. Sure, sure.

            I wonder”

            Ah, Jeff doing the “innuendo is evidence” thing again lolol

        2. And the response to that text is what I stated jeffrey. It was them making clear what trump asked.

          And Sondland would never have been making a less-than-fully-honest assertion in order to control the perception of something he knew already looked really bad.

          Call off the investigation! They say they didn’t do anything wrong!

        3. JesseAz : “And the response to that text is what I stated jeffrey. It was them making clear what trump asked.”

          Uh huh. Who here is actually gullible enough to buy this malarkey? Here’s what most people see : Two people trading messages begin talking about a crime in progress. One criminal realizes the conversation is being recorded, suddenly “insists” their every thought is pure, sweet & wholesome, then immediately hisses they should take the conversation off-line. I bet detectives listening to wiretaps hear that exact same kind of conversation every day.

          You see normal people just can’t ignore the “tell” in this, Sonland’s response: “The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms..”

          Let’s have a show of hands if ANYONE here believes Donald John Trump ever worried a single minute over “transparency” or “reform”. This is the guy who was wasn’t bothered a second over the Saudis cutting Khashoggi into little bits. This is the guy who just told the Chinese he won’t criticize them over Hong Kong, and once told the Russians he didn’t care if they interfered in U.S. elections. Who honestly thinks Trump cares one whit whether Ukraine or anyone is corrupt?

          Well, sometimes criminals have to think fast, and I’m sure Sonland did his best. But we’re left with two different stories to judge – all of JesseAz’s bluster can’t change that. So :

          Story One : “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign”

          Story Two : “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”

          Given the amoral trash that Trump is (and has always been), which story is more creditable?

          The one that warrants impeachment, I’d say…..

          1. “Two people trading messages begin talking about a crime in progress”

            Lolololol try harder.

          2. Fuckin’ LOL at grb’s exceptional attempts at mind-reading.

            1. Well, I’d read your’s Whitey, but my “See Jane Run” days are long behind me. Up your game to grade-school-level and I’ll give it a shot, distasteful as the exercise would be. Besides, who needs to read minds? By the numbers :

              (1) There are two stories in the Taylor-Sonland exchange, with Taylor suggesting a crime.

              (2) Which one sounds credible and which one sounds like an oily weaseling politician? Taylor’s the former; Sonland’s the latter.

              (3) Given Trump’s total indifference to truth, openness, transparency and ethics in government, which story is credible? Which story isn’t even remotely credible? Taylor’s the former; Sonland’s the latter.

              It’s really that simple, Red Rocks. There are already reports of a second whistleblower. Trump insists on incriminating himself in public, apparently believing a crime isn’t a crime if committed live on television. All those years of Reality TV really did a number on DJT’s tiny little brain, eh? Meanwhile, this White House apparently left a slime trail of dozens of people & scads of documents while bribing / blackmailing a foreign government to serve Trump’s private ends.

              And there’s a simple narrative: Withholding military aid to a country under invasion by Russia – all to force that country to help Trump’s campaign. Remember “no collusion” ? That now seems like a whole lifetime ago.

              And the blackmail aims? CrowdStrike and “Joe Pressured Ukraine Over Hunter” ? Both lies. Both easily refuted lies. One batshit lunatic crazy to boot.

              Do you really want to wait til the last minute to cut the chord, Red Rocks White Privilege? Trump has embarrassed you enough, why hang on until the very end……

      3. The mirror image of Trump Derangement Syndrome is Trump Defense Syndrome. It takes a lot to be a Trump apologist; there’s a lot to overlook.

        1. So you have no actual argument huh?

          1. Posting “Trump 2020!!” is an actual argument?

            If we want to start having an actual argument as a standard around here I’d be fine with that.

            1. I didnt post trump 2020 dipshit.

              1. I didn’t say you did.

                You called me out for not having an actual argument. I have no problem if the commentariat want to make that a standard for posting comments here, but then let’s also call out loveconstitution1789 for not living up to that standard.

                1. He didn’t say you said he did, but you DID use it as a stupid fucking deflection, and argue against his point with a non sequitur

                  1. He said, “I didnt [sic] post trump [sic] 2020 dipshit.”

                    That’s pretty clearly saying that I said he did.

                    1. Another reason to post that about Trump.

                      The reason socks expose themselves.

          1. ORANGE MAN PERFECT! Just like his phone calls!

            Yes there are people who will criticize Trump no matter what he does.

            But then there are people like Jesse, who will defend Trump no matter what he does.

            These are the people who, if Trump really were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, would be the very first people to say BUT OBAMA!!!

            1. “These are the people who, if Trump really were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, would be the very first people to say BUT OBAMA!!!”

              Lol. You’re a joke Collectivist Jeffy.

            2. De, you’re analysis of things is awful. I dont defend trump. I defend an abuse of legal warfare against him. Unlike you I believe the use of the IC and obscure law to attack opponents is wrong. You clap stupidly like a Maduro supporter at its use. You cant disassociate media lies from trump support, because you’re a dumbass. You’re not a libertarian either.

              I’ve defended against ant misuse of the law from Trump, to Perry, to Steven’s. I never once called for obama to be jailed. You seek to jail Republicans. It is you who is a dishonest fuck.

              1. I defend an abuse of legal warfare against him.

                No. I’ll hand it to you that you’re probably the smartest, best informed Trump defender here, but you have some massive and seemingly willful blind spots when it comes to his behavior.

                A lot of the attacks against him over the last three years have been completely fabricated, but you have to be coming at it with some intention if you never see anything untoward in his behavior.

                Your willingness to take Sondland’s text at face value with no skepticism whatsoever is evidence of this.

                1. The problem is, the text IS evidence, and the speculation about it isn’t.

                  Coudl it be a cover-up? Of course. Is it damming in any way? No.

                  1. Yes, but he’s presenting it as evidence there was no wrongdoing, which it isn’t.

                    1. Sure it is. Whether you believe it or not is something else.

                    2. Sure it is. Whether you believe it or not is something else.

                      Then Taylor’s text counts as evidence, too, whether or not you believe it.

                    3. What will Ambassador Taylor say if and when he is deposed?

            3. So according to your logic, if Biden shoots someone on 5th avenue in Kiev that’s grounds for Trump’s impeachment?

            4. The text supports Trump. You require speculation to get to your conclusion.

              So, who has the better of it!

            5. Given Obama had the US military assassinate an underage US citizen, what exactly would be wrong with saying “BUT OBAMA!” in that case?

        2. I’m sorry you think that people who think “no quid pro quo” mean no quid pro quo are deranged.

          Go with that.

          1. loveconstitution1789 is basically posting Trump campaign bumper stickers (in ASCII art). That’s a pretty clear indication his support for Trump goes a bit beyond just being concerned with fairness in reporting.

            1. Poor Mikey troll dont know how html works.

          2. ” No quid pro quo” which was proceeded by “I worry about the quid pro quo” and followed with “let’s stop texting and talk over the phone instead” totally exonerates the president, thank youuuu!

            1. so you think because an underling is an idiot and insists on being wrong about a point that his boss requesting he called to clarify it somehow evidence of something

              1. I guess several “underlings” were mistaken, including the ambassador to Ukraine. Just a big fat misunderstanding! What was the reason for withholding the aid, anyway? Never seem to get an answer on that one.

                https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-ordered-ukraine-ambassador-removed-after-complaints-from-giuliani-others-11570137147

                1. https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/ukraine-government-trump-aid-freeze-phone-call/

                  Ukrainian Government Reportedly Didn’t Know About Trump’s Aid Freeze Until Month After Call

                2. YOUR link said an ambassador was removed. Did you think you had a point Jeff?

                  “I guess several “underlings” were mistaken”

                  So far you have one and an ambassador not an underling, sock. Why do you keep lying? Especially when my link shows the ambassador WAS wrong lololol

                  This is how everyone knows you’re Jeff. You’re the only one who posts this much beside me, and you have all his shitty debate fallacies that yiu constantly bust out, like links that don’t say what you claim.

                  1. Is the ambassador over or under Trump in the command chain? Why do we have to explain what words mean to you?

                    And why was the aid frozen at all? No one seems to have an answer. Oh well, best not to ask, eh comrade?

                    1. And why was the aid frozen at all?

                      Since when did you think a country deserved foreign aid?

          3. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

            – Bill Clinton

            1. Again, you have speculation, the text is evidence.

              1. I just quoted text proving Clinton had no relationship with Lewinski. I don’t know what speculating you are talking about.

                  1. He lost sock, that’s what happens when he had to lie.

                    1. What did I lose?

                1. For what it’s worth, I appreciate your point of view on this. That said, notably Bill Clinton would have gotten away with that statement if not for physical evidence. In some fairness his was a crime with the potential for physical evidence and that evidence was found. Quid pro quo is a little harder to prove with a semen stain.

                  To prove quid pro quo, one usually needs to point at actual goods or services that were actually traded. That’s my understanding for criminal trials, anyway. It’s less clear what that means for Presidents, even while the appearance of quid pro quo isn’t healthy for any politician.

                  I’m not saying there isn’t a stained dress in this situation, but I’m not positive there is one. Yet.

                  1. I’m not saying there isn’t a stained dress in this situation, but I’m not positive there is one. Yet.

                    And I’m not arguing there is one.

                    I’m criticizing the notion that the whole thing is obviously false and should be dropped because Sondland’s tweet says there was no quid pro quo.

                    Clinton also asserted that he hadn’t done anything wrong. We wouldn’t take Clinton’s word for it, so why are we being asked to take Sondland’s?

                    1. I didn’t think you were making such a point, I give you more credit than that. What I said was unrelated to your specific point. It seems obvious that just because someone says they aren’t guilty that doesn’t automatically make it true, but I can see why you’d feel the need to point that out.

                      I think the thing that bugs me the most is that it seems Biden and Clinton get preferential treatment from both government and the media in regards to accusations. It doesn’t seem like anyone is really interested in getting to the bottom of corruption, but they are interested in tarring and feathering Trump in particular. He might very well be guilty of something (after all, who really trusts New York real estate types), but if he is it raises some questions about why he is uniquely bad in this regard when we can point at several other similar cases that no one seems all that interested in exploring beyond the superficial. The actions of Vice President Biden at the time, in particular, didn’t even move the needle for anyone which is a little bizarre. As noted elsewhere, even if what they are doing is perfectly legal it’s something the American public don’t appreciate. It’s probable the same can be said of Trump.

                      At the very least, the Starr report was much more clear in it’s recommendations for impeachment than the Mueller report and notably Clinton was impeached but not convicted. Even with pretty hard evidence that Clinton committed perjury at the very least and likely obstruction and witness tampering in regards to his various affairs.

                      It seems Democrat leadership is still mulling over if they’re willing to throw the dice based on Trump’s popularity and their lack of Senate votes. This type of investigation has backfired badly in living memory, but I guess it remains to be seen if Clinton was uniquely immune to conviction. After all, he was sexy and played the saxophone. That might be the main difference at play.

                    2. It seems obvious that just because someone says they aren’t guilty that doesn’t automatically make it true, but I can see why you’d feel the need to point that out.

                      I, too, thought it seemed obvious, but it’s literally the argument Jesse was making.

                      I completely agree with everything else you say, and say something similar below (which you may have responded to – haven’t gotten there yet on this pass).

                      “Other people have done similar things and gotten away with it, and if you’re outraged about this, you should be outraged about that” is a perfectly legitimate point.

                      “There’s no way this NYC real estate developer who has openly bragged about his navigation of NYC corruption did something corrupt, and look – he himself says he’s not corrupt” is not particularly compelling.

                2. Of course you do, and playing dumb like that proves my point.

                  Thanks!

                  1. It does prove a point, but not the one you think it does.

      4. “that shows that diplomats carrying out trump’s request clearly saw quid pro quo and illegal activity.”

        A diplomat. Thinking it. And being corrected. Jeff.

        ” “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” –Taylor, diplomat to ukraine

        “Call me,” Mr. Sondland replied.”

        Lolo what THAT shows is that the idiot Taylor is simply not getting that he’s wrong.

        You know like us and you, where you stupidly think that is damning in any way.

        You’re literally screeching that ” no quid pro quo, you’re mistaken” is evidence of a quid pro quo lolololol

        Sure bud. Hang your hat on “crystal clear there’s no quid pro quo” being the smoking gun ahajajjajaj

        1. I’m sure the phone call was so he could hear his lovely voice, and not an attempt to avoid making a record of the conversation. Seems legit.

          All this totally legal extortion, er, sorry, investigation requests must not have been what prompted the head of the FEC to tweet out a reminder that soliciting help from foreign governments for election campaigns is fucking illegal.

          https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/fec-chair-subtweets-trump-after-plea-for-china-to-investigate-bidens.html

          1. “De Oppresso Liber
            October.4.2019 at 1:15 pm
            I’m sure”

            And again, you ignore the actual evidence to rely on speculation. Jeff.

            1. Trump just asked China to help his reelection campaign on TV. But sure, I’m the one ignoring evidence.

              1. And what do you think thats evidence of re UKRAINE?

                Mooove those goalposts jeff!!!!

                1. It’s the same crime, new location. No goalposts have been moved.

                  1. Why are you so invested in protecting Joe Biden?

      5. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” –Taylor, diplomat to ukraine

        Taylor is clearly going for a gotcha. Not saying he’s wrong, but this is not proof-positive evidence.

        1. Not a smoking gun, but this text exchange and the firing of the ambassador to Ukraine for not going along with the Biden investigation, and the aid being withheld for no apparent legal reason, and the whistleblower, and the China comments are all painting a picture, though.

          1. And the picture is that you are desperate because you have nothing but innuendo.

          2. Not a smoking gun, but this text exchange and the firing of the ambassador to Ukraine for not going along with the Biden investigation, and the aid being withheld for no apparent legal reason, and the whistleblower, and the China comments are all painting a picture, though.

            I agree. When you take all of it together it’s a little silly to say “nothing to see here, move along.”

            Maybe he’ll be exonerated. Nothing in these texts alone tells us either way (although IMHO while Taylor’s fishing expedition is painfully obvious, it’s also pretty obvious Sondland is issuing a specific denial of quid pro quo because he know that’s exactly what it looks like).

          3. Intent is most often proven circumstantially.

      6. I wonder what Ambassador Taylor will say if and when he is deposed.

      7. Sad to see Reason piling on and facilitating the narrative Trump tried to buy fake info on Biden using US money. After all we do have the transcript, and it only supports that narrative if you leap to a lot of assumptions, say compared to Joe telling us he told them he was withholding the money unless they fired the prosecutor looking into that business paying his son a fortune for what is obviously “protection” from the Ukranian government.

        What seems obvious to me, is the reason Trump “brazenly suggest China should investigate his opposition” is to troll the statists, causing them to start talking about why this is illegal and should be prosecuted, so he can then reveal to the public the Democrats who’ve done exactly that, and all the Democrats who let it happen and said nothing. Remember, that’s exactly what Hillary and Obama did.

    2. Completely missing the point that — Trump has turned into the globalist of all globalists. Only Ukraine and China can save America from itself – and only Trump can do whatever Ukraine and China want us to do in return for that help.

      1. Did you think your response made sense?

        1. Obviously it’s not intended at you since you are the one completely missing the point.

          To you all i can say is Isn’t Trump wonderful. Isn’t he amazing. The best Prez ever. Makes my legs all tingly too. Ooh look – you’re pregnant. Are you having his baby or are you just gonna name the baby TheDonald in reverence? Well I gotta go now. Just not enough hours in the day to pray that theDonald in the sky helps theDonald in the White House save us from all the foreigners trying to decide whether they’re going to hurt us or help us.

          1. The point that there is contemporary evidence of trump explicitly saying he didnt want a pid pro quo?

            1. Is that why Trump kvetched that Ukraine was not being reciprocal prior to his asking favors?

          2. That appearently means he wants a quid pro quo in idiot world.

          3. Any and all defense of Trump = defense of all and anything Trump
            That is how they think

            1. It’s a projective thing

              1. Pointing out the abuse of the IC and corrupt lawfare is defending trump as well.

                1. Head of the FEC seems to certainly agree with the majority of Americans that soliciting re election help from foreign governments is illegal.

                  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/fec-chair-subtweets-trump-after-plea-for-china-to-investigate-bidens.html

                  I know, I know shes a (((DEEP STATE))) operative, right?

                  1. So Weintraub agrees Hillary needs to be locked up?

                    1. So you don’t know how a bill becomes law or government agencies work? Ok, read this piece of law which Trump is currently breaking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

                      Speaking of the founders though, I don’t think George Washington would be much a fan of Trump.

                      “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government ….” -George Washington, in his Farewell Address

                  2. Ooooh a jeffian argument from authority.

                    That’s the same FEC that said Trump using private fund to settle with Stormy is a campaign violation sooooo yeah.

                    1. Yea, the same FEC that got Michael Cohen in prison as we speak for that crime. Yes, that one. They are literally the authority on what is illegal when it comes to elections.

                    2. Except they lose in court constantly.

                      Oh wait, thy gotichael Cohen so yeah that’s nothing, and you still have a sad fucking argument from authority

                      But hey, at least you outed yourself as an unlibertarian supporter of process crimes

                      “They are literally the authority on what is illegal when it comes to elections.”

                      No actually government-sucker, that’s the CONSTITUTION

                    3. So you don’t know how a bill becomes law or government agencies work? Ok, read this piece of law which Trump is currently breaking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

                      Speaking of the founders though, I don’t think George Washington would be much a fan of Trump.

                      “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government ….” -George Washington, in his Farewell Address

                    4. “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake,

                      What foreign influence has taken place?

            2. Any criticism of Trump = Hillary loving proggie troll sock DIE YOU FUCKING TRAITOR DIE

              That is how they think

              1. Except nearly everyone here has criticized trump for his words. What they have also pointed out is he has done well in action w deregulation, lowered taxes, and originalist judges. You see any defense of trumps actions as wrong because of your bias.

                1. I love how he is unilaterally deregulating elections!

                  1. I love how everyone knows you’re Jeff after you’ve lost your shit for days.

                    1. No, you’re the one who is jeff.

                    2. It’s gotten traction Jeff. That sockpuppet is over. Fuck off now Jeff.

  5. Who will Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) wreck at next week’s Democratic primary debate?

    Candidates, start to your Russia conspiracies.

  6. With or without Trump, any world order that depends for its survival on the whims of a single person in a single branch of gov­ernment in a single country is simply untenable…

    WRONG. The world just needs the right single person.

    1. But Trump is married – – – – – –

  7. Chicago is holding this grandmother’s car for a $6,000 ransom, even though she didn’t commit any crimes.

    The car’s crime is being a valuable source of revenue.

    1. To the cars credit, it hasn’t ratted out anyone.

  8. LAX to end curbside pick-up by rideshare companies, such as Uber and Lyft. Passengers will need to catch a shuttle ride to a designated lot beginning Oct. 29th.

    I assume this is all because reasons.

    1. Are they going to open a lane for electric scooters?

    2. It’s to slow the spread of the typhus outbreak.

  9. Trump Brazenly Suggests Ukraine, China Should Do Opposition Research for His 2020 Campaign

    Why not, British and Russian spies did Hillary’s opposition research.

    Poor Boehm. He no likey Trump.

    1. In Mother Russia, opposition research does YOU.

      1. Why not, British and Russian spies did Hillary’s opposition research.

        Hillary was not the President.
        Squeeze in some more crazed conspiracies.

        1. So you dont think the DoJ, State, and FBI are under the executive? Sounds like something ignorant you would imply.

          1. That’s how you know he’s a lefty.

            1. He’s not a lefty. He’s the one true Libertarian! Here to tell us why we can’t have our guns (unless they were made on or before 1789).

              Oh, and we need to bake a damn cake or two. For Liberty.

              1. Well good luck to him on exercising his right to life via self defense with a musket.

          2. The implication being that candidates for President can use foreign dirt as opposition research, as long as they use a middle man. Only the President can’t do that.

            Of course, in this situation that could actually be a reasonable argument but the apparatus of the state being involved along with the Hillary campaign remains an interesting point as does the FISA courts involvement. We still don’t know if that’s their standard operating procedure or if it was a unique situation just for Trump. That’s part of the problem with ‘secret’ courts.

            1. The implication being that candidates for President can use foreign dirt as opposition research, as long as they use a middle man. Only the President can’t do that.

              And there’s a certain logic to that, considering the President has leverage over foreign governments that candidates don’t. I don’t have any particular problem with handicapping the incumbent to a certain extent.

              But this is also what Nick was talking about the other day – i.e. clearly the things Trump is doing aren’t qualitatively different from things Obama did or that HRC tried to do – the thing is that Trump doesn’t understand/doesn’t care about the normal political boundaries and the convoluted ways these things normally happen.

              So we have to decide whether we’re going to give Trump a pass because everyone else got one, which I personally think is a bad idea, or we don’t give him a pass and acknowledge that we need to address the fact that other politicians get away with the same things under the color of laws that they wrote for those purposes.

              Of course, there’s the very real possibility that Trump doesn’t get a pass and we go on pretending that politicians don’t do this kind of thing all the time, but I still don’t think that’s a good reason to give Trump a pass.


              1. And there’s a certain logic to that, considering the President has leverage over foreign governments that candidates don’t. I don’t have any particular problem with handicapping the incumbent to a certain extent.

                There is indeed a certain logic to that, but notably in the specific case of Biden we’re talking about a period of time when he was Vice President and specifically involved with Ukraine.

                In the case of Clinton, that research being used (at least in part) to justify a FISA case that was repeatedly shot down prior to that reports inclusion is suspicious at the very least.

                None of this directly relates to Trump’s guilt or innocence, but they do relate to selective prosecution and politically motivated investigations. They also relate to how ‘business as usual’ in Washington is often indistinguishable from corrupt behavior to your average joe. A fig leaf is enough for politicians to turn a blind eye, but to the voters that may not be the case. Especially if you were someone who voted for Trump because he was an ‘outsider’, or if you’re a political independent.

                1. in the specific case of Biden we’re talking about a period of time when he was Vice President and specifically involved with Ukraine.

                  Indeed. I’ve expressed my opinion elsewhere that to pretend Biden wasn’t engaged in plain-as-day corruption is absurd.

                  I feel similarly to how I feel when some little kid is tattling on another. In those situations, my impulse tends to be to punish both of them. Biden should face consequences for his corruption, but Trump’s motives here almost certainly aren’t pure as the driven snow.

                  In the case of Clinton, that research being used (at least in part) to justify a FISA case that was repeatedly shot down prior to that reports inclusion is suspicious at the very least.

                  As I’ve expressed elsewhere, Clinton, too, belongs in jail.

                  A fig leaf is enough for politicians to turn a blind eye, but to the voters that may not be the case. Especially if you were someone who voted for Trump because he was an ‘outsider’, or if you’re a political independent.

                  And that’s going to make this coming election very interesting.

                  But IMHO the worst thing is to say “we’re going to go ahead and tolerate open corruption when it’s our guy doing it,” because that leads nowhere good.

                  1. Morally I agree with you that just because person A gets off for a crime it doesn’t excuse person B from the same violation. The law isn’t moral, though, and if person A gets off legally person B should also get off. That’s equal protection under the law in a nutshell.

                    Of course, we already know Clinton got off scott free (minus being elected, but no prison time) and it seems Biden is on course to be excused as well (though perhaps not elected) whereas Trump will almost certainly be impeached, even if a conviction is unlikely. This isn’t a moral question, it’s noting what has actually happened.

                    Democrats have told us since before Trump was even elected that they intended to impeach him. This is before Trump did anything in office at all.

                    So, I suppose if I’m being really honest I feel like selective enforcement is actually worse. If only a Republican can be guilty, then justice is no longer possible and it’s really starting to look like only Republicans can be held to account. This is probably why some people are knee-jerk exonerating Trump. They see this happening, and think to themselves ‘why are we the only one’s accountable to the law’?

                    Ultimately, these types of things are what directly contribute to people’s support of Trump. It doesn’t have to do with his innocence per say, it’s the injustice of such blatant party favoritism in the bureaucracy and media. If you don’t defend Trump against those accusations, it’s tantamount to agreeing with the methods used by his opponents. It’s not a logical position, but it is an expected emotional result.

                    If we were being logical, Clinton and Biden would have been prosecuted years ago and Trump would have already been impeached (and note I don’t make a judgement on the conviction either way).

                    1. I mostly agree with this, and I share your sense that this is why people leap to Trump’s defense in ways they wouldn’t for other politicians.

                      But I would also argue that this is uniquely about Trump, not about Republicans. Trump is uniquely persecuted because he’s an outsider, and establishment Republicans are almost as apt to turn on him as Democrats are.

                      I also think that people get over excited about Trump’s image as an outsider, since he’s not really an outsider. He’s an outsider to politics, but he’s not an outsider to the American Aristocracy in the way that you and I are.

                      Democrats have told us since before Trump was even elected that they intended to impeach him. This is before Trump did anything in office at all.

                      And they’re now dealing with a serious “Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf” problem as a result. I’ve been saying this from day one – that Trump is a garden-variety crook, and a careless one, is painfully obvious. Taking him down politically could have been child’s play if the political left had any self-discipline or integrity.

                      This is why I kind of liked Nick’s article from the other day – the way Trump engages in corrupt behavior is a reflection on how open that corruption has become, such that as hard as his opponents try to attack him, they can’t ever seem to come up with any charges that they aren’t open to themselves, just for things conducted under slightly better legal cover.

                      I suppose to put what I’m saying in brief, I don’t mind if Trump goes down if Biden goes down with him. It’s not certain that Biden will go down with him, but it’s also far from certain that he won’t.


                    2. This is why I kind of liked Nick’s article from the other day – the way Trump engages in corrupt behavior is a reflection on how open that corruption has become, such that as hard as his opponents try to attack him, they can’t ever seem to come up with any charges that they aren’t open to themselves, just for things conducted under slightly better legal cover.

                      I suppose to put what I’m saying in brief, I don’t mind if Trump goes down if Biden goes down with him. It’s not certain that Biden will go down with him, but it’s also far from certain that he won’t.

                      I rather liked it as well, Nick is occasionally a pretty insightful guy. I’m not going to weep if Trump is removed from office, I just have little confidence that it won’t be for actions that are essentially the same acts his opponents are openly engaged in which really just leads to more corruption to even greater extents.

                      It’s probably unwise to note the open corruption and expect that very same corruption won’t dictate the end results.

                      It’s pretty clear that there are many thumbs weighing down the ‘Trump is guilty’ narrative and that many of them are from within the Intelligence community and government. That doesn’t make them wrong, it makes them at least appear biased.

                      Ultimately the parable about the boy who cried wolf is applicable. Rather than patiently waiting for Trump to do something impeachable, they screeched about impeachment for three years thus desensitizing people to their screeches and causing huge amounts of friction with the executive branch.

                      If this was the first time they had brought it up, and they hadn’t been screeching since the first seconds of the Trump administration, it would be more believable and less partisan. As is, I’m just not willing to give them the benefit of a doubt any longer.

                      They need to prove their case in actual impeachment proceedings. That they aren’t doing so makes one wonder if they’re concerned what might actually be revealed rather than purely political concerns that most want to claim.

                    3. I’m not going to weep if Trump is removed from office

                      Personally, I will weep that we’ll have President Pence.

                      I just have little confidence that it won’t be for actions that are essentially the same acts his opponents are openly engaged in

                      It would have to be. I’ve also maintained from Day One that the Washington Establishment hates Trump exactly because he’s a cartoon version of them.

                      it seems Biden is on course to be excused as well whereas Trump will almost certainly be impeached

                      Probably so.

                      It’s pretty clear that there are many thumbs weighing down the ‘Trump is guilty’ narrative and that many of them are from within the Intelligence community and government. That doesn’t make them wrong, it makes them at least appear biased.

                      Agreed, and they’re going to attempt to use it to make themselves look like crusaders against this sort of thing. But while I don’t think they’ll suffer real consequences, I think that they will fail politically.

                      They need to prove their case in actual impeachment proceedings.

                      Exactly. Which means this whole thing with Biden’s son gets looked at really closely.

                      Biden himself won’t be indicted or anything like that, but Hunter might be, and the taste of the whole thing is going to linger in the mouth of the American voter for a long time.

                    4. Pursuant to what federal statute(s) might Hunter Biden be indicted? Please cite by number.

                  2. 0=[] is an Orange man bad kind of person.

                    Discussions are not in its programming.

          3. “So you dont think the DoJ, State, and FBI are under the executive?”

            Well, yes they are. Which begs the question, why are people who work for Trump, making up stuff about him and leaking (or now resorting to calling themselves whistle blowers, and letting the Democrats leak their “complaints”) against him?

            The answer is the political class (aka. deep state) is against Trump, and they have a lot of people in the government, highly engaged in politics, instead of their job, and who owe their wealth (or are being blackmailed) to powerful politicians.

            So no, the people in the government work for themselves, not Trump, unless Trump can fire them at will.

        2. Hillary Clinton has no power!

        3. That was a weak ass defense Hihn lolol it’s OK because she only WANTS to be president lolplop

        4. Hillary was not the President.

          And Joe Biden’s not the nominee.

    2. besides, there’s enough smoke to warrant an investigation and it would be in the public’s best interest to uncover corruption. I think Boehm is confusing Trump’s personal interest with what’s in the country’s interest.

      I don’t see Biden of all people giving Trump any trouble in a debate, the guy’s been practically hiding as much as possible, even before these allegations came out. He’s weak as hell, and most people know it, he’s just the least crazy out of the Democrat’s candidates which is why he’s up in the polls.

    3. Only in lc’s twisted mind can he rage against Clinton for “supposedly” doing this (hint- she didn’t) but then excuse Trump.

      It’s all good for lc- anything Trump does is fine. That’s the extent of thinking that goes on the pea.

      1. Admit Hillary did something illegal and then we can talk about Trump should not be doing the same thing.

        There poor paid trolls think that they can change Libertarian minds to vote for Trump.

        1. Hillary did something illegal, and should be in jail.

          Your turn.

          1. You’re the wearingit troll?

      2. Just to be clear, you’re suggesting that that Russia investigation did not start with corruption and foreign influence?

      3. With respects to what LC is referring to. Christopher Steele himself said in court he was paid by the Hillary camp, and the purpose of the dossier was so Hillary can “contest” the election.

    4. The FBI investigated some of Trump’s associates. That’s what you’re missing. If you think you have evidence that an American has committed a crime then you bring that evidence to the FBI. The FBI has protocols for getting cooperation from foreign govts if those govts have evidence. Trump was trying circumvent that to create the false illusion that Ukraine had independently decided to put Biden under criminal investigation. We would have never known that Trump had pressured Ukraine to start the investigation. Trump wanted the Ukrainian govt to then contact Barr and say “We’re investigating Biden for corruption”. Barr who claims he didn’t know anything about the scheme to pressure Ukraine would have began his own investigation. Trump would have used the Ukrainian investigation to cripple Biden. This scheme to pressure foreign govts into investigating Trump’s political opponents is all about circumventing the FBI and the normal protocols for starting criminal investigations.

      1. What do you do when the head of the FBI is a partisan hack trying to remove you from office?

        1. Hmm, what do you do when you are head of the Executive Branch.

          1. You fire him only to have democrats push for a special counsel. You’re bad at this argument thing.

            1. Let them push. There’s clear precedent for an incoming President to appoint his people as heads of Federal agencies.

              1. One of Trumps biggest mistakes is allowing most of these same assholes to stick around.

                1. Since he wasn’t a professional politician, and may well have not expected to win the Presidency, he didn’t have appointees prepared.

            2. Mike hasn’t been paying attention the last 3 years.

      2. If you think you have evidence that an American has committed a crime then you bring that evidence to the FBI.

        Which was completely ignored by them until the Steele dossier was used to produce the FISA warrants.

      3. “This scheme to pressure foreign govts into investigating Trump’s political opponents is all about circumventing the FBI and the normal protocols for starting criminal investigations.”

        Pod loves paperwork and large bureaucracy. Thank god for protocols. Where would be all be without the leadership of our dear CIA, FBI, NSA… so much libertarianing

        1. Please submit your problem to the central bureaucracy.
          *refer to relevant episode of Futurama to see how it works*

        2. A would think a libertarian would be concerned with those in great power having potential conflicts of interest, and possibly be in favor of governmental protocols to try to address such situations.

          Or, we can just throw all that out the window and have “L’état, c’est moi” because the guy we like is currently in power.

          1. You wouldn’t know dick about what a libertarian wants sock.

            Hint : “be in favor of governmental protocols”

            Never that.

            1. Disagree. Libertarians are not anarchists. We are OK with having a government.

              1. Never read Rothbard?

                1. I have and I’m not a fan of his views.

                  1. So you’re not a libertarian then? Sarwark? Is that you?

                    1. My real name is “Mike Laursen”. It’s right there in my handle.

                      I don’t get where you think you get the idea that agreeing with Murray Rothbard is required to be a libertarian.

                    2. I don’t get where you think you get the idea that agreeing with Murray Rothbard is required to be a libertarian.

                      There is only one way to correctly be a libertarian. Please report to your local authorities for re-training.

                    3. OK, but after the weekend. I wanna do a little statism-ing before I turn myself in.

                    4. It’s real simple everyone, you either hate the state or you don’t. The state and the non aggression principle are incompatible.

                    5. It’s real simple everyone, you either hate the state or you don’t.

                      Fine. We all hate the state. We can all hate the state together.

                      Then what?

                      Might it be the case that individual liberty in practical reality is better safeguarded by a severely limited state than by no-state-at-all, which is a condition most people feel would never last more than a few minutes?

                      Maybe it’s not “real simple?”

                  2. Any views (of Rothbard’s) in particular that you don’t agree with?

                    1. I can’t speak for Laursen, but IMHO Rothbard’s ideas were logically sound, but divorced from realism. It’s the same trouble Tom Woods has. It’s all about the abstract argumentation with little understanding of how things work in reality.

                      I think you can shorthand the trouble with “Anarcho-Capitalism” in the same basic formulation as “Anarcho-Communism.” The only actually relevant thing is the “Anarcho.” What if the “Anarcho” doesn’t result in the -ism you feel pretty sure it should?

                      Rothbard’s approach to foreign policy has similar flaws. Wishful thinking, let’s call it.

                      Anyway, the short point is, no, just because you don’t march in lockstep with Rothbard, that doesn’t mean you’re a statist who doesn’t care about individual liberty.

              2. I’ll help you out, just in case you’re not familiar with the basic principles of the liberty movement (not to be confused with any particular political party).

                If you hate the state, you’re a friend. If you don’t hate the state, you’re a foe.

                Trump is a useful idiot in that he is abrasive, crass and absurd, and he’s shown (to anyone who didn’t already know) that our entire government from top to bottom is also absurd, not to mention illegitimate.

            2. And how can I be a sock puppet when I am using my real name to post?

              1. I have no idea if you’re a sock puppet, but you’re definitely a statist.

              2. I use lots of propels real names.

              3. Mike Hihn….

          2. I do have concerns, which is why I love that Trump just stands on the white house lawn and yells about corruption. I think both parties have crooks. They should all go down. But in the fight of red vs blue, the blue team had two years and shit the bed.

            How the turntables have…

      4. “We would have never known that Trump had pressured Ukraine to start the investigation.”

        An investigation that had already begun until Biden got the prosecutor fired.

        Every time you scratch deeper, it always ends up showing a rotten Democrat at the root.

        1. I’d say it’s more like 50/50 chance of finding a Democrat or Republican at the root. But then I’m not a partisan.

          1. Lol. The lies you tell yourself.

            1. I’m lying about what?

              Are you saying that I am a Democrat supporter?

              1. You dont have to be a registered Democrat to be partisan.

                1. I’ll make it really clear. I’ve never been registered as a Democrat (I’ve only been registered as a Libertarian or independent); I only voted once for a Democrat (Obama, intended as a vote against McCain); I have run for office as a Libertarian; I am not a supporter of either the Democrats or Republicans.

                  1. Your pro government arguements say otherwise

                    1. If you aren’t completely anti-government, you are a Democrat supporter?

        2. What is your factual basis for stating that an investigation had already begun until Biden got the prosecutor fired?

      5. You say stupid things. The AG is actively investigating the origins of the Mueller investigation. He has authority to do so. We have agreements with Ukraine, Australia. and others to aid in investigation through mutual cooperation.

        Nothing you said changes these facts.

      6. Barr, as attorney general, is head of the DOJ.
        The FBI is a subunit of the DOJ…

        1. Barr claims he had no idea Trump was pressuring the Ukrainians to investigate Biden so he would have found out like the rest of us when the Ukrainian govt announced the investigation.

          1. The Ukrainians apparently had no idea they were being pressured either

            1. When did Barr announce awareness of the Ukrainian investigation and start his own investigation?

              Did Ukraine forget?

              1. You know wha the Ukraine is? It’s a road apple. The Ukraine is weak

                1. Thank god Ukraine is now the epitome of no corruption since biden pressured them to fire shokin.

                2. Ukraine is game to you???

                  I will take your board and smash it!!!

      7. Its Proper protocol to keep foreign leaders informed if your going to have the FBI investigate corruption in their government by an American unless you want your FBI agents arrested as spys.

    5. Well, it’s not like Trump could trust the spooks to provide the same service they did for Hillary.

    6. It’s so funny how you can’t decipher the difference between paying legally obtained campaign funds to a private investigator and using public funds that are controlled by congress to extort a foreign government into helping your re election campaign.

      1. It’s always innuendo with you Jeff.

        1. You really don’t know how to use that word, do you? There is no innuendo in the above comment, friend. Misusing your favorite word is a bit endearing, like a toddler, but you should eventually move on and get correct.

  10. The dumbest take the left and the media have taken on the Ukraine story is this:

    “And here was Trump, standing in front of TV cameras, suggesting once again that foreign governments should help his re-election bid by digging up dirt on the Democratic primary front-runner.”

    Oh wait that is reason. The dirt is already out. Americans have known of Hunter Bidens “dirt” since 2015. Asking for an investigation into corruption is not digging up dirt. These are the same assholes who cheered on the 2.5 russian investigation based on campaign material and the cooperation of 13 foreign governments. The same investigation predicated on a foreign CIA contact named Misfud planting the information they used to investigate Trump.

    Calling this an attempt to dig up dirt is idiotic.

    1. Reason:

      “He has a singular focus on implicating a domestic political opponent in corruption. And he’s clearly willing to leverage his office to convince foreign governments to do opposition research for his campaign, and to do it all via diplomatic backchannels.

      And he is unwilling or unable to grasp that distinction.”

      Lol… dont investigate corrupt democrats, mueller was fine – Reason

      1. Apparently, libertarians are here to PROTECT government employees who help their families make craptons of money due to their influence on the government.

        Man, I feel bad for these hacks in 2024. With Trump gone and every iota of their credibility gone…might be rough.

        1. Apparently, libertarians are here to PROTECT government employees who help their families make craptons of money due to their influence on the government.

          When has Reason ever defended Trump?

          1. They’re defending Biden pretty damned hard here.

            1. Clearly, the United States has an interest in tamping down corruption abroad—particularly when it may involve Americans currying favor, as Joe or Hunter Biden may have done. That does bear investigating.

              Define “pretty damned hard.”

      2. I’m glad there’s people here not willing to let people call themselves libertarian and also push this government loving narrative.

        TRUST THE BUREAUCRACY – Reason

      3. Reason: sockpuppet of the totalitarian Left

    2. Asking for an investigation into corruption is not digging up dirt.

      Is he looking to root out any corruption that isn’t directly related to the Bidens?

      If not, why not? Are the Bidens the only corrupt political family in the world?

      Do you really believe that this is just a corruption probe because The Donald just hates corruption that much (heading into his third year in office), but the only corruption he’s been able to scrounge up for all his altruistic efforts is that of the guy who just happens to be the Democratic front-runner?

      1. Does the crowdstrike incident have anything to do with Biden?

  11. Boehm, do another ridiculous article on the DOW Jones.

    1. For you, dumbass:

      https://fortune.com/2019/06/03/stock-market-trump-obama-sp-500/

      S&P 500 Has Performed Far Worse Under Trump Than Under Obama

      The short answer is that Trump has quite a way to go. Under Obama, the S&P 500 grew by 56.4%. The Dow Jones Industrials Average was up 50.6% and the Nasdaq, 92.9%.

      The numbers under Trump were 21.4% for the S&P 500, 25.2% for the Dow, and 34.2% for Nasdaq.

      1. Poor child porn sock.

      2. Most of the growth that occurred under Obama was in the energy sector from exploration on private and state lands. Obama limited per.its in federal lands for exploration and blocked infrastructure left and right. How is he responsible for the growth in the sector he actively sought to harm?

        1. Dumb fuck. The BLM approved more Exploration on domestic federal land than any other recent POTUS. Obama was an “all of the above” energy POTUS who even approved new Nuke plants over progressive wailing.

          You dumbasses that get your news from Fox News are consistently misinformed.

          1. “Obama was wrong when he denied Romney’s claim that the Obama administration cut in half the number of new permits and new leases for offshore oil and gas drilling. The decrease is actually more than half.”

            God you’re dumb.

            https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-drilling-denials/

            1. The Bushpig Depression slowed activity during his first term. EVERYTHING was in a rut during the Bushpig Depression.

              1. It is amazing watching you try to make a new claim with no actual evidence after so thoroughly having your original claim destroyed.

                The recession ended 4 months into Obama’s first term before he implemented a single policy dumbass.

              2. Ahahah you were wrong and now you’re deflecting you sad kid fucker lolololo

                YOU WERE WRONG AHHAHAHA

          2. Stick to child porn. You’re such a fucking ignorant mess outside of that realm.

            1. CNS is a wingnut site

              Obama Administration Announces 20 Million Acre Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore Texas

              Since President Obama took office, domestic oil and gas production has increased each year, with domestic oil production currently at an 8-year high and foreign oil imports now accounting for less than 50 percent of the oil consumed in America – the lowest level since 1995.

              You have to read BLM – not Wingnut.com.

              Oil and Gas production took off 2010-2016. We became the largest O&G producer in the world in 2015

              1. Hey the retard doesn’t understand what he posted. One permit doesnt refute the statistics on new permits, which is what I quoted.

                What part of state and private lands do you also not understand you fucking retard? That is where production took off. Do you not know how federal lands is different from state and private? My god. Take the loss. Doubling down on retardation is just silly.

              2. “”Oil and Gas production took off 2010-2016. We became the largest O&G producer in the world in 2015″‘

                Sure, largely due to fracking and shale. So whether or not it’s a good thing may depend on your environmental beliefs.

              3. “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
                October.4.2019 at 10:19 am
                CNS is a wingnut site”

                Ahahahahahah look at you and your sad fucking ad hom because you were getting crushed Ahahahahah

          3. “”The BLM approved more Exploration on domestic federal land than any other recent POTUS.””

            Does the pro-environmental crowd know that?

      3. Oh, but Obama was right there taking credit when it was flying and now?

        Wassint me.

    1. +136,000 = Right in line with the last 10 years.

      1. The rate is 3.5%. The lowest in 50 years.

        Not that I’m a believer in unemployment numbers.

        1. Absolutely. The unemployment numbers are leaving off a bunch of people as we all know.

          Point is that the bullshit unemployment numbers that Obama and Lefties use(d), is the lowest in 50 years.

          Plus, its just one more factor that exposes Boehm and other dipshits in the MSM that their predictions of markets imploding is lunacy. Their claims have nothing to do with any future market correction.

      2. What does that have to do with kiddie porn dildo?

      3. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
        October.4.2019 at 9:41 am
        “+136,000 = Right in line with the last 10 years.”

        Turd, when you are at, essentially, full employment, adding one job is not easy.
        Now, given that you are a fucking lefty ignoramus, it’s possible that concept is beyond you admittedly meager abilities to understand, or you are, again, simply lying.
        So it’s likely both, you pathetic piece of shit.

    2. “”Markets IMPLODING!””

      Meh, I’m going to hold off until I see the official numbers on Koch’s worth from OBL.

      1. Charles Koch current net worth: $58.9 billion

        He’s down almost half a billion this year. Drumpf’s tariffs and immigration restrictions have hit him especially hard.

        #DrumpfRecession
        #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

        1. Koch should have invested in US pork belly futures.

  12. As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right

    Trump Trash would say he has a Divine Right.

    Seriously, some of these deluded motherfuckers are comparing him to Jesus Christ.

    1. Really doesn’t matter what “Trump Trash” says about Trump, what matters is that it is his and his administrations duty and responsibility to investigate corruption. And that is true for any administration.

      1. Cmon, man. You can’t believe that the president just happens to be very personally concerned with supposed crimes of Hunter Biden? It’s obvious to everyone not in the thrall of Trumpism that he is on a vendetta because he is a shallow, venal prick who thinks the government runs for his benefit.

          1. “It’s obvious to everyone not in the thrall of Trumpism that he is on a vendetta because he is a shallow, venal prick who thinks the government runs for his benefit.”

            Not innuendo. Here, let me teach you something.

            in·nu·en·do
            /ˌinyəˈwendō/
            Learn to pronounce
            noun
            an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.

            example:

            Trump’s tiny hands raises some doubts about his wife’s happiness.

            That concludes our vocab lesson for today.

              1. good one! clap clap clap

            1. I thought innuendo is where one puts an Italian suppository.

    2. Where is your usual child porn link, so reason can ban you again?

      1. Child porn is the only right he actually cares about.

    3. I wonder if he has a pen and a phone.

      1. He certainly does. Remember when the reasonoids were all in a hissy about Obama’s executive orders? I sure do. Well, Trump is well on Track to put Obama’s number to shame. 125 EO’s in 3 years! Wow! I’m sure all the trumpsists in here will surely criticize him for this.

        https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders

        1. You’re losing so you of course call out “reasonoids”

          this is how everyone knows you’re a sock puppet because you supposedly sat here quietly for years but in the last few days have been motivated to post four thousand times yeah that’s totally believable

          1. I mostly lurked but occasionally posted prior to 2016. But I’m back and better than ever, baby!

            1. You’ve been posting the whole time sock. There was never anyone named “De Oppresso Liber” prior to you busting out that sock.

              this is how everyone knows you’re a sock puppet because you supposedly sat here quietly for years but in the last few days have been motivated to post four thousand times yeah that’s totally believable

              1. you just can’t get over me. I’m married. it’s time to move on.

  13. Robert De Niro Sued Former Asst. Claims Harassment, Discrimination

    Poor De Niro. He rants crazy about Trump and turns out he is gonna be taken by #MeToo movement any day now.

    I cited TMZ because that will fit in with reason staff journolistism.

    1. Nah. Should’ve cited Vox. That’s more their speed.

    2. Remember that conversation he had with that 13 year-old girl?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UneHDzMhbbw

  14. More than 5,000 inmates die in the Philippines’ national penitentiary every year.

    At least America’s incarceration industrial complex knows enough to keep its money makers alive, more or less.

  15. Trump sees how no one did anything about the hiring a foreign spy to dig dirt on him in foreign countries. So he thinks it’s ok.

    This is the problem with giving team A a pass.

    1. I suspect that’s why we’re seeing a full-on blitz right now, because Barr was digging into the production and origins of the Steele dossier starting this past spring.

      The spooks got spooked and tried doing a preemptive strike to muddle the investigation.

      1. This. That’s why schiff and pelosi are trying to pull Barr into the claims.

    2. Trump sees how no one did anything about the hiring a foreign spy to dig dirt on him in foreign countries. So he thinks it’s ok.

      This is the problem with giving team A a pass.

      ^ This.

      My grand hope out of this, since there’s virtually no chance any past crimes will be dredged up and prosecuted, is that we acknowledge that we’ve bottomed out on the “Lesser of Two Evils” and “Let’s Give My Team a Pass” attitudes and that we need to actually start holding people accountable and looking at some of these more Byzantine laws that pols are hiding behind.

  16. MGM will pay an $800 million settlement to victims of last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas.

    So we finally found the reason behind the shootings. MGM. It’s good to know investigators have been on top of it (apparently very silently) all this time.

  17. Hong Kong is banning masks.

    It will go as well as banning protests.

    1. yeah, if the protesters already have issues with the cops, I don’t think they’re going to comply with something that would make it easier for them to be arrested. This is probably just gonna both sides more incentive to kick it up a notch.

      1. It does give a pretext for arrest. That’s probably the purpose.

        Make more and more of their activity illegal and you have grounds to put more and more of them in jail.

        1. And with how compliant they protesters have been so far, they’ll probably just resort to more violent resistance. Both sides appear to be running out of patience.

          1. Yep.

            What will be interesting is to see who on the world stage will go against China as the violence increases.

    2. Banning masks
      *everyone suddenly is bad at applying makeup *

    3. I wonder if this includes the common practice in Asian countries of wearing a mask when you have a cold.

  18. “A different strain of the same logic has consumed the Republican Party and conservative media, which increasingly are organized not around principles or interest groups but around the interests of Trump above all else.”

    What if… and bear with my logic here… it’s in my best interest to keep him around?

  19. Amber Guyger Gets Just 10 Years for MURDER as Man Sentenced to 99 Years for Kicking a Cop

    Last week, Donnie Mills, 59, was sentenced to 99 years in prison because he kicked in the direction of a cop while officers were forcibly drawing his blood during a DUI stop.

    As Mills was being loaded onto a gurney, barefoot and angry, he swung his leg out at officer Chris Bell and reportedly kicked him in the face. Since Mills was laying down, intoxicated, had his hands cuffed behind his back, and was barefoot, the kick was little more than a light shove. In fact, officer Bell was not injured and required no medical attention.

    Kick a cop, get 99 years. Be a cop and murder an innocent man, get just 10 years. Now pledge your allegiance to the God damn flag, citizen!

    1. I didn’t know the fucking judge hugged her after sentencing. What in the living fuck? Un fucking real.

      1. Yeah, that has the appearance of bias.

        Judges need to judge, not bring a lamb to God.

      2. Wasn’t it only yesterday the commentariat consensus was everyone showing uber compassion for a murderer was moving, brave, and a shining example?

        1. From the family of the victim, sure, I guess. From the presiding judge? Fuck no. That’s over the top ridiculous. Unless this judge has a habit of hugging newly convicted murderers after she sentences them, then it’s completely out of line.

  20. Reason –
    Democrats investigating Republicans – Good!
    Republicans investigating Democrats – Bad!

    Mr. Boehm, investigating political corruption is not opposition research, but spin away. But you be you and keep carrying that water for the far Left totalitarians. It’s the libertarian way evidently.

  21. Yes, your dog really does love you.

    Then why did he die on me?

  22. Twitter Removes Viral Biden Meme Posted by Trump- Nickelback-themed video showed Biden & son meeting with Ukraine gas exec.

    This is the Lefty strategy for Election 2020. Remove Fair Use videos and memes if they don’t comply with Lefty Narrative.

    1. that’s been the lefty strategy for quite a while. Remember what CNN did to that guy who made the meme of Trump WWE’ing CNN?

    2. Is it really fair use though?

    3. Putting up a nickelback video is grounds for impeachment all by itself

  23. Normal people are aware that democrats and the media (sorry for repeating myself) used their powers to push Russiagate for two years, to no avail. It’s going to be very hard to get anyone to care about Trump’s very public revenge.

    1. Care? I’m so hoping they get their damn comeuppance. Treasonous a-holes.

  24. A recurring theme throughout Donald Trump’s presidency has been his inability to distinguish between the interests of the country and the interests of Donald Trump.

    A president using the office to enrich himself? NOW I’VE SEEN EVERYTHING.

    1. You mean big O didn’t get that $15 million ocean front mansion by scrimping and saving his paychecks?

      1. Hes only worth 100 million. He didnt enrich himself through office…

        1. Community Organizing pays that well?

  25. It finds that only 28 percent of Americans say they “often” get their news from social media. Despite that, most Americans believe social media have too much influence over what everyone else is seeing.

    Considering how many hoaxes the respectable media has tried to feed me, I don’t see social media doing any worse.

  26. Oh no, you’ve angered the Trump cultists again. Don’t you know he can do anything and it’s fine?! In fact, it’s YOU who is wrong to even suggest otherwise.

    1. ^^Check out the angry paid troll sent here.

      1. He’s not paid. He’s just a fucking lefty ignoramus who has yet to grow up.

        1. Isn’t that most of them?

    2. Sounds more like Hillary cultists.

    3. Only in idiot world does “no quid pro quo” mean quid pro quo.

      1. You always leave out the rest of that conversation. Odd tick. Might want to go to a doctor.

        1. And? I should include the mistaken interpretation of someone who has no business being involved in this in the first place that makes sense to you sock puppet?

  27. “If you buy that argument, ask yourself how you’d respond to President Barack Obama openly declaring that China should investigate Mitt Romney.”

    Is this not exactly like the Steele Dossier or am I dreaming??

    1. I guess he’d have no problems with a Trump family member with literally zero qualifications making absurd money from companies in countries his dad was running the foreign policy on.

      Wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow, apparently.

      1. Trump publicly going after Biden like this should also shed light on all the other corrupt shit going on, on both sides. I love it. Crony capitalism has to stop.

        1. “The prosecutor he [Biden] got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.”
          https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived
          One of many…

    2. Some of us would have been just fine with it – assuming Romney or some member of the Romney family actually had some sort of business dealings with China. And, you know, that’s part of the reason candidates have to file those financial disclosure forms, to make transparent any sort of conflicts of interest.

      1. I would have taken an investigation over Biden and the media teaming up to call him a racist. I don’t like the guy but damn that was some fucked up narrative building.

        1. Are you saying poor children aren’t as smart as white children?

    3. Depends on if you believe the Steele dossier was gotten by withholding foreign aid until a foreign government agreed to investigate.

      1. Well. Then it wouldnt be like Trump’s situation at all if that were true.

        1. “I would not have thought that I needed to say this,” Weintraub wrote in June.

          On Thursday, she re-upped the message and included an image of a microphone. She wrote: “Is this thing on?” She did not name Trump in the memorandum or in either tweet.

          Weintraub’s tweet came after the president said on the White House South Lawn that China “should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

          In the memorandum, Weintraub wrote that she wanted to “make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office.”

          “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,” she wrote, citing federal election law.

          https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub

          1. So you’re saying Hillary should go to jail?

  28. I’m starting to get the distinct feeling Reason doesn’t like Trump.

    1. But reason talks about Trump every day and in nearly every article.

      How is that not love?

      1. Love him or hate him, you gotta talk about him.

        Reminds me of when Dennis Rodman (IIRC) was asked about his reaction to fans booing him, replied with something to the effect that whether they cheered him or booed him, they paid to come see him and his paycheck was just the same either way.

      2. It’s kinda what every current events site is talking about. Not sure why you expect Reason not to talk about what’s in the news.

        1. Because they’re supposed to be above a bunch of shitty gossip rags?

          As you admit, I can get that at every other site.

    2. Reason has always criticized presidents. It’s actually kind of a big part of what they’ve always written about since I’ve been a reader since 2005-ish.

      1. Yes, but now they are writing mean stuff about a President that loveconstitution1789 loves.

      2. “Reason has always criticized presidents.”

        Yep. You could count on a story regarding the POTUS about every second issue of the magazine.
        That’s all that need be said.

  29. “Trump Brazenly Suggests Ukraine, China Should Do Opposition Research for His 2020 Campaign”

    Researching corruption is now oppo research. Nice to know.

    Libertarians FOR Hunter Biden now at Reason.

    1. It can be both corruption investigation and digging up dirt on one’s campaign opponent at the same time, you know.

      1. Doesn’t all that spinning make you dizzy?

        1. I’m tempted to give out the ironic comment of the day award here, but it’s so early still. This is a contender, to be sure.

          1. this is how everyone knows you’re a sock puppet because you supposedly sat here quietly for years but in the last few days have been motivated to post four thousand times yeah that’s totally believable

            1. conspiracies EVERYWHERE!

              1. Feel free to refute any of it. The other possibility is that Trump turned you into a troll who is obsessed with this comment section. You suddenly feel compelled to post here day and night.

                That’s worse than sockpuppeting.

                1. Refute what? You never provide any evidence or citation. What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. –another free lesson for you today.

              2. “”conspiracies EVERYWHERE!””

                The Hillary Clinton defense.

      2. Digging up corruption should always be the goal, no matter the benefit. To assume he is doing this SOLELY for his benefit is laughable.

        1. I agree. But then it is also laughable to be a Trump apologist and disregard the possibility he is partially doing it for his own benefit even though he may have also have civic-minded reasons for seeking an investigation.

          1. No Mike, fuck you. It isn’t apologia to look at the full court press by leftists and the media to cast unobjectionable behavior as treason and wonder what the fuck is wrong with you people.

            1. Trump isn’t accused of treason. He is the subject of an impeachment inquiry. (An inquiry that I personally think will probably fail, by the way.)

              I’m not a supporter of the Republicans or Democrats. Just a neutral observer watching the war between the two major parties from the side lines.

                1. Retarded, leftist troll, what’s the difference?

                2. OK, some guy accused him of treason.

                  I’ll be more specific. Congress has not officially accused Trump of treason. Congress is conducting an impeachment inquiry.

              1. “I’m not a supporter of the Republicans or Democrats.”

                You are when you run interference like you are.

                1. “Run interference”?

                  1. “Run interference”?

                    Question the Team Red narrative.

          2. So what if he is? Does the fact that it benefits Trump mean that Biden should not be investigated? That makes no sense.

            No one has given a coherent explanation why this is wrong other than some version of “because foreigners”.

            1. There is a long-established ethical precedent in good government that any official with a potential conflict of interest recuses themselves from direct involvement in investigations or judgements.

              I’m not saying that there is a history of either major party following that precedent while in the Oval Office.

              1. “There is a long-established ethical precedent in good government that any official with a potential conflict of interest recuses themselves from direct involvement in investigations or judgements.”

                The issue is that BIDEN DID NOT DO SO. That’s the ENTIRE problem. And Trump is the dick for asking about it?

                1. Wow, I cannot believe I have to actually say this out loud, but: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” I thought we all learned that in Kindergarten.

                  1. Consistent application of rules is the only way to make the rules just.

            2. That is because soliciting something of value from foreign nationals violates campaign finance laws. Whether that makes sense intuitively or not and whether or not one agrees with the statute.

          3. I’m curious how you see any civic duty motivation in Trump asking various world leaders to investigate the Bidens, investigate Warren, and investigate various aspects of the Mueller investigation? It seems obvious to me that he is doing all of those solely for his own benefit.

            1. this is how everyone knows you’re a sock puppet because you supposedly sat here quietly for years but in the last few days have been motivated to post four thousand times yeah that’s totally believable

              1. I’m a sock puppet for a hollow earth elder of zion. You got me dead to rights!

                1. No no lurked for years then suddenly lost your mind and posts 1000 times a day makes more sense.

                  I mean, if that’s what you want people to believe…

            2. It seems obvious to me that he is doing all of those solely for his own benefit.

              The question is, so what?

              “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”

              1. “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government” …. -George Washington, in his Farewell Address

                And it is illegal. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

                1. What foreign influence took place?

          4. “I agree. But then it is also laughable to be a Trump apologist and disregard the possibility he is partially doing it for his own benefit even though he may have also have civic-minded reasons for seeking an investigation.”

            I am saying it does not matter. If he roots out corruption for civic-minded reason or just to troll the libs…he STILL is doing a good thing.

            WHY he does it could not possibly matter less.

            1. Why he uses the apparatus of government to illegally solicit campaign contributions from foreign governments does not matter, you are right.

              1. What’s the dollar amount of the campaign contribution he solicited?

                1. The relevant question is whether opposition research is a thing of value. Since campaigns routinely pay good money for that kind of service, it plainly is. The dollar amount goes to the penalty.

                  1. So does that mean Hillary’s going to jail?

      3. And? It’s not like the Clinton-supporting House Democrats are now investigating Trump because they had a Road to Damascus conversion about the unacceptability of corruption in the White House. It’s self-interested political motives in trying to influence the next election all the way down on both sides.

  30. So, here is the first Trump quote of the Reason Roundup:

    “As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!”

    What word of that is not correct?

    1. The Con Man is extorting those countries to concoct evidence of a debunked Conspiracy Theory in order to harm a US political foe.

      1. When was it debunked? The Ukranian prosecutor says Biden is full of shit. And Hunter did get a REALLY nice deal with China after flying there on Air Force Two WITH his dad.

        1. Ukraine said there was not a shred of evidence against Biden, you idiot.
          https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-prosecutor-general-joe-biden-hunter-biden-are-not-under-investigation

          fuck off, I’m not arguing with dumbass conservatives who get their news from Hannity

          1. the daily beast? Why not buzzfeed or huffpo? Or perhaps Jezebel?

          2. No, you fuck off ya pedophile.

          3. “Ukraine said there was not a shred of evidence against Biden, you idiot.”

            Hmm, it was, I should note, NOT the prosecutor Biden got fired. I guess his plan worked well, eh?

          4. Um, yeah pedo, because Biden torpedoed the investigation.

            Does stepping on your dick this much keep you from using it to rape children?

          1. That say uninvestigated because Biden torpedoed it, not debunked.

      2. What’s a conspiracy theory? About Biden? HE BRAGGED ABOUT IT AT THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS.

      3. “The Con Man is extorting those countries to concoct evidence of a debunked Conspiracy Theory in order to harm a US political foe.”

        You should seek help for those voices in your head, you pathetic piece of shit.
        Did you pay off your bet yet?

      4. Hey, SPB, when you reply to my comment I expect you to answer the question or fuck off or are you distracted by your perversions?

    2. Not so much a specific word, just the fact that he is actually an elected President.

    3. “What word of that is not correct?”

      Doesn’t matter. Trump said it.

      1. It’s been thoroughly debunked – all the best news sources said Biden had only the purest of intentions when he threatened to withhold financial aid from Ukraine. There was no national security threat nor any violation of the separation of powers as there was when Trump threatened to withhold financial aid from Ukraine. Once the NYT and CNN debunk a story, there’s no need to investigate it any further. In fact, insisting on investigating it any further is yet one more example of Trump undermining our most sacred institutions – namely, the NYT and CNN. Impeach the motherfucker!

        1. Is holding an opinion even when contradictory evidence comes out a good thing?

          1. No so why are you doing it?

              1. See? You lurked for years but suddenly feel compelled to post loel that all day long?

                You really want to go with Trump drove you crazy?

    4. The part where he didn’t say, “But I have a clear conflict of interest here, so I am going to hand the investigation over to an independent investigator.”

      1. You’re literally saying he shouldn’t investigate corruption nor engage in any behavior that makes him look good because he has an upcoming election.

        What the fuck is wrong with you?

        1. I literally said he should recuse himself from direct involvement in any investigation where he may have a conflict of interest. That’s (supposed to be) pretty standard practice in government.

          1. These guys collectively forgot the meaning of “conflict of interest” the second they gave donnie a pass on divestment.

            1. You’re also literally saying anything he does that impacts anyone else that is involved in any way in any election is impeachable. You’re THAT stupid with this.

          2. Mike, they’re hitting him for COMMENTS he can’t recuses himself from speaking wtf how do you not see what is happening

          3. Do you think Trump’s going out investigating?

            He’s just trying to get the corruption Biden bragged about on video investigated. Maybe use the videotape upon which the vice president bragged about committing a crime for something more than a meme generator.

            He’s not directly involved at all.

            1. The accusations are that he tried to pressure one or more foreign governments into investigating for him. It has been argued that may be unconstitutional and/or a violation of election laws. There is an impeachment inquiry in Congress looking into the accusations.

              I didn’t make the accusations, I’m not an expert on the constitution or election laws. I’m just an impartial, non-partisan observer of the whole mess.

              There are several commenters here at Reason lately that go beyond being impartial to being Trump apologists, overlooking and dismissing any possibility of wrongdoing on his part. One commenter, loveconstitution1789, regularly posts ASCII art that says, “Trump 2020!!!”, pretty clearly indicating that he is an enthusiastic Trump supporter.

              1. Yes, but the accusations are ludicrous.

                The transcript that Trump released in their faces was more than enough evidence of that.

      2. Hmm, let’s think that through.

        Everybody in the US government’s executive branch, by the Constitution, works for Trump. So would any private investigators hired by Trump. Which means the only available fully-independent investigators are those working for foreign governments. Which means, if Trump is ethically obligated to seek out independent investigators, Trump is ethically obligated to ask foreign governments to investigate.

        Now, I’ll grant that foreign governments that rely on us for aid are not quite as fully independent as ideal. That would suggest picking investigators working for a country that is too big and powerful for America to intimidate, and preferably one which has rocky relations with Trump. And the request for their assistance probably should be made publicly in the press, so he can’t include any quid-pro-quo with the request.

        Which is to say, by the standard you just promulgated, Trump as an ethical matter should go to the press and announce that he’d like China to investigate the alleged Hunter Biden corruption.

  31. Damn, I have to take back all the shit I’ve said about Hillary Clinton – turns out she was right about the FBI investigation during the campaign being nothing more than the FBI rigging the election for Trump. Who knew that investigating a politician is nothing more than opposition research?

    But wait…..wasn’t Trump also under investigation? And didn’t the FBI seek help from foreign governments to aid their investigation? Isn’t Trump in fact right now under investigation by his political opponents in the House? Where is the outrage over this obvious election interference? If Trump can’t investigate a political rival, than neither can the Democrats investigate a political rival, can they?

  32. “If you buy that argument, ask yourself how you’d respond to President Barack Obama openly declaring that China should investigate Mitt Romney.”

    Well, if any country knows dog abuse…..

    1. Lololol

      And honestly, go for it. Fuck that squish Romney.

  33. “Before the day was out, CNN had reported that Trump raised the prospect of China investigating Biden during a phone call with Chinese trade officials in July. In the same call, Trump reportedly promised not to condemn China’s crackdown on Hong Kong.”

    CNN and “reportedly”. This isn’t going to end well.

    1. “Oh, very well. Trump *allegedly* promised.”

      1. Well, the uncle of my wife’s hairdresser knows a guy who swore it was true.

      2. No, no – “reportedly” is correct – CNN reported it. If CNN hears a rumor that Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and then ate him, it’s perfectly correct to say that reportedly, Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and then ate him.

        In fact, here you go: “Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and then ate him.”

        Now CNN can honestly report that reportedly, Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and then ate him.

        1. “Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and then ate him”

          At least Trump is doing his part to fight climate change

  34. “When the minimum wage increases, employers often cut non-wage benefits such as flexible leave, health insurance coverage, tips, and employee discounts, according to a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank.”

    Unfortunately David Koch passed away before he could realize his vision of a United States with unlimited, unrestricted immigration and no minimum wage. It’s up to us surviving Koch / Reason libertarians to make his dream a reality.

    The good news is that our open borders agenda has gone mainstream, so we’re almost halfway there. After all, polls show more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.” It’s just smart politics for the next Democratic President to implement open borders. From there I’m confident we can also convince Democrats to abolish the minimum wage.

    #OpenBorders
    #NoMinimumWage
    #BillionairesKnowBest

  35. I guess Trump is not supposed to snark on Twitter.

    1. Well yeah, he might look good and it’s an election year. So quid pro quo. Or something.

  36. “Good luck getting a ride at Los Angeles International Airport after October 29”

    Open question: I’m not familiar with Uber or Lyft practices in L.A. Are the cars marked or identified in some way? Otherwise, how is a car picking up a “friend” going to be stopped?

  37. The SF voters decide to tax ‘big everything’ to pay more bums to show up here; $250m/annum just ain’t enough!
    So PG&E is trying to raise utility rates in SF to cover the costs of the tax increase, and the the city politocos are not happy to see the voters having to pay for the tax increase they voted for:

    “City Attorney Dennis Herrera is opposing the prospective Prop. C rate hike, calling the request “inconsistent with (commission) policies and not just and reasonable to San Francisco ratepayers” in a protest letter he sent to the commission.”

    He’s a proggy imbecile, but still, how is is not ‘just and reasonable’ for those who voted for the tax to pay for it? Should customers in other cities be forced to cover SF’s idiocy?
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-wants-to-raise-rates-to-offset-San-14490865.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    1. These progressive politicians actually seem to believe that Big Business can be hurt without harming consumers or employees or both. That they are simply hoarding vast pools of cash that can be tapped at will. They may be legitimately insane or too moronic to have authority.

      1. Pretty sure Herrera thinks there’s an orchard of Jackson trees at PG&E’s headquarters.
        SF politicos are, in general, DUM-dumb, but he’s near the bottom.

  38. The [mask] ban applies to all public gatherings, both unauthorized and those approved by police. Lam stressed it doesn’t mean the semi-autonomous Chinese territory is in a state of emergency.

    “It’s just practice for the forthcoming ban on excessive makeup.”

  39. Trump should not try to cajole Ukraine into investigating Biden’s previous activities cajoling Ukraine into doing something as they are the same thing. So if what Trump did was corrupt then what Biden did was corrupt. If what Biden did was not corrupt then what Trump did was not corrupt and this is a scandal about nothing.

    That is, if you maintain that Trump’s actions are equivalent of Biden’s actions.

  40. If I were Trump’s strategist at this point . . .

    I’d advise President Trump to refuse to cooperate with any House investigation until they hold a vote on whether to impeach the President.

    Sure, we’ll make the Attorney General or anyone else available to testify–the moment the House initiates impeachment proceedings. Until then, it’s executive privilege this, executive privilege that–and it is not by any means clear to me that stonewalling this non-impeachment proceeding in that way is unconstitutional.

    There are two interrelated reasons why Nancy Pelosi hasn’t put a bill of impeachment up to a vote yet.

    1) She doesn’t have the votes.

    2) She’s afraid that if she makes representatives vote for impeachment in swing districts where Trump is popular, it’ll cost the Democrats the House come 2020.

    The most likely explanation is that both of those things are true, and if I were Trump’s strategist, I’d say it’s time to call Pelosi’s bluff.

    If she calls an impeachment vote, and she comes up short, then the issue will be over–as far as the voters are concerned.

    If she calls an impeachment vote and she has the votes then two things happen:

    1) The impeachment proceedings move to the Senate, where it dies at the hands of the Republicans.

    2) The Republicans can start targeting vulnerable Democrats in the House who went on the record and voted to overturn the 2016 election.

    Making this go faster is to Trump’s advantage.

    Dragging this out is to Pelosi’s advantage.

    Trump should refuse to comply with this witch hunt until it becomes a legitimate impeachment hearing, and refusing to do so will make that legitimate impeachment hearing end sooner rather than later.

    I appreciate that the president’s executive privilege is often abused, but just because executive privilege is often abused, doesn’t mean it’s never legitimate. Executive privilege arises naturally from the separation of powers. If the framers had wanted to put Congress in charge of diplomacy, they would have done so. The executive requires the flexibility to discuss matters of state with the heads of government in other countries–and if Congress were supervising the president’s phone calls to other countries, it would be overstepping the powers they were delegated in the Constitution.

    If they want to do this as part of an impeachment proceeding, then they need to initiate an impeachment proceeding. It’s as simple as that.

    1. They need to wait to ensure that the political theater continues through election season.

      1. The costs are all associated with Democrats in the House of Representatives going on the record with their votes–so they won’t take a vote until they have no other choice.

        The President complying with their subpoenas simply gives them more of a reason to drag this out and not take a vote. Meanwhile, there are legitimate separation of powers issues associated with their subpoenas–which is what legitimate executive privilege is all about.

        Make them take a vote!

        They can get all the information they want as soon as they start impeachment proceedings, but you can’t initiate impeachment proceedings without taking a vote. Isn’t the Constitution clear about that?

        1. I totally agree about pushing the vote. It’ll be the Green New Deal of Articles of Impeachment

    2. The most likely explanation is that both of those things are true, and if I were Trump’s strategist, I’d say it’s time to call Pelosi’s bluff.

      I could see Bannon advising this. I don’t think Trump’s current advisors have his asymmetrical way of thinking, though, outside of, maybe, Stephen Miller. Most of them seem to be very basic bitch Republicans.

    3. It’s not an impeachment proceeding, it’s merely an impeachment proceeding inquiry. Or an investigation into the possibility of perhaps launching an impeachment proceeding inquiry.

      It’s a trial balloon for impeachment, floated simply for the sake of the media. A show trial balloon, if you will.

      It’s like if they were to ask Trump, “Isn’t it true that on June 7, 2002, you were arrested in Grand Rapids, Michigan for sodomizing an 8-year old boy with an 12 ounce stick of Hickory Farms summer sausage?” See, they’re not making a formal charge, they’re just asking a question.

      1. Yes, and because there’s no charge, the president can invoke executive privilege for questions about his legitimate activities as the executive.

        Didn’t I make that clear?

        When they start an impeaching proceeding, he will be obligated to comply with their subpoenas.

        Congress has no authority to monitor the president’s conversations with other heads of state.

        Did I not make that clear?

      2. I am starting to think that they are never going to vote on impeachment much less actually pass any articles. I think you are right that it was a trial balloon. It has gone tits up pretty quickly. The public isn’t interested in it and Shiff having to admit that he knew about the complaint before it was made has I think fatally wounded it. They still might try impeachment but I think it will have to be with something other than this.

      3. “”Or an investigation into the possibility of perhaps launching an impeachment proceeding inquiry. “”

        Sounds as solid as their evidence.

  41. “We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! … We have to get rid of the babies! … We need to eat the babies!”

    If aliens have indeed come down and they’re trying to take us over one by one, Body Snatchers style, the smart thing to do would be to start with the demographic that hates humans the most: radical environmentalists.

  42. IMPEACH THE CON MAN!

    Got to go to work Peanuts. I actually have a job. I don’t lay around collecting SSDI like all the Trump Trash here does.

    1. “Got to go to work Peanuts.”

      Turd, if you’re five minutes late, the broom and dustpan will still be there for you.
      Try to earn enough to pay off your bet.

    2. Damn right, Mr. Buttplug!

      #PoorPeopleVoteRepublican

    3. Boss man caught you fooling with the computer again.

      1. Lololol “I need to make next week’s closing schedule, get the fuck off my computer and go clean the fryers”

    4. Making child pornography isn’t a job you sad fucking pedophile.

  43. I knew Trump’s cult would be out in force and, as always, miss the obvious. Even if the corruption were not a delusion in his disintegrating mind, it’s not his job to seek foreign cooperation. That would be the State Department or intelligence community, depending on the issue.

    For now, watch the self-impeaching President continue setting new levels of corruption.

    Obama was born on Hawaii. Crowdstrike is not owned by a wealthy Ukrainian. Trump won the Presidency by 39,000 voters, in three states combined. And Democrats are stupid enough to blow a slam dunk election.

    1. Fuck off, you pathetic excuse for humanity.

    2. He’s the head of both the State Department and the IC, dumbfvck

    3. It’s not his job to seek foreign cooperation. That would be the State Department or intelligence community, depending on the issue.

      Does TheLibertyTruthTeller really not know that the State Department and our intelligence services all serve under the president?

      1. Do they serve under the president or under the president’s reelection campaign? It’s hard to tell nowadays.

    4. Dumbfuck Hinsano doesn’t know how the executive branch works.

    5. “it’s not his job to seek foreign cooperation”

      Lol wut? Sense motherfucker. Make some.

  44. Yes, your dog really does love you.

    OK, now do cats.

  45. It is so nice to see Reason writers coming out as PRO corruption and abuse of power, but only for Democrats. Honesty is resfeshing in the Era of Trump.

    1. Were you around here during the Clinton and Obama presidencies? Reason had plenty of criticism for both.

      1. I was and that’s nonsense, comparatively. Stop fucking lying.

        1. “Fucking lying”? Maybe I just have a different perception.

          1. About you lying? OK. You’re still objectively lying though.

            1. Unless you’ve got some metric like number of articles published critical of each President, and have actually gone back and counted each, it’s only your perception, not objective truth.

  46. Poor guy has to do the dirty work himself because he doesn’t have the unlimited retinue of sycophants, cut-outs, and media hand-puppets like Obama and Clinton do.

    1. “Poor guy has to do the dirty work himself ”

      Whose fault is that? You stop paying your minions their wages for weeks for no good reason and they bite back eventually. Revenge is a dish best served cold say the Italians.

      1. Yea, I agree. You should pay your debts. He does pay his minions out of his own pocket. They don’t work for the government or media like his opponents do.

    2. “unlimited retinue of sycophants”

      *Looks around*

      I think he’s covered there.

      1. Retard here thinks everyone not on Team Blue is automatically on Team Red.

        1. I thought we were libertarians, no?

  47. if biden committed crimes in other countries that is in Americas interest if it helps trump thats bidens problem

  48. While Reason wrings their hands and tut tuts, maybe they should monitor Judicial Watch and see what they’re digging up.

    1. Judicial watch? You might want to find a better source of information.

      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

      1. Perhaps you should find a better fact checker. From your link.

        “”They primarily target Democrats such as the Clinton’s, Obama and climate scientists as they label climate science, “fraud science.” Judicial Watch has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, with a “vast majority” of their lawsuits dismissed.””

        It doesn’t mention anything about all the lawsuits Judicial Watch filed against the Bush admin. This so called fact checking site is purposefully omitting work done by them that does not fit the anti-democrat narrative.

        Seriously. Search Judicial Watch sues Bush admin and decide for yourself.

        1. It seems they were mostly concerned with Cheney’s inflation of Haliburton’s share price? Sounds like republican infighting over someone getting screwed trying to short haliburton. I was not aware of their lawsuits against Bush/Cheney, though. Thanks.

  49. I have a friend who is a Republican legislator. He’s a good guy, and in every way the opposite of Trump. He’s pro immigration (his parents were immigrants), has great outreach to the Latino community, is border line libertarian and is concerned about budgets and spending and has actually read Mises, etc., etc.

    But he is Team Red and has fooled himself into drinking the party line koolaid. He’s been tweeting out that Trump has done nothing wrong because all he is doing to asking foreign governments for help in investigating corruption. He’s studiously oblivious to the fact that what is happening is that he’s asking a communist dictatorship and a Russian puppet state (and who knows who else?) to dig up dirt on his personal political rivals.

    This is narcissism run amok. Eric is right, Trump is unable to distinguish between his own interests and that of the nation.

    1. Russian puppet state? Why did Russia have to invade their puppet?

      1. Why is the puppet buying missiles to fire at the puppeteer?

    2. “…He’s studiously oblivious to the fact that what is happening is that he’s asking a communist dictatorship and a Russian puppet state (and who knows who else?) to dig up dirt on his personal political rivals.”

      First, you’re full of shit regarding “Russian puppet state”, aside from which, so what?
      And then, why should he not seek dirt on his rivals? Do you think they are avoiding any sort of ‘investigation’ of Trump?
      WIH do you think this whole circus is about, if not a fishing expedition to find *anything* they can on Trump?
      Are you really this stupid, or is this an advanced case of TDS?

      1. “why should he not seek dirt on his rivals? ”

        Because he’s familiar with the fate of Nixon, hounded from office in disgrace.

        1. Or Hillary, who people like you still pine for.

          I know, apples and more apples…

          1. “Or Hillary,”

            Hillary is not, never has been president.

            1. That’s a pretty sweet dodge of his point lolol

              1. Not a dodge at all. If Trump wants to follow the likes of Nixon or Hillary on the road to political palookaville, keep digging. Appealing to the Chinese for help will only speed the journey.

            2. Hillary not being President is proof that God loves us.

        2. That’s was a breaking and entering problem, not a dirt problem.

          1. It was a getting caught red-handed problem.

    3. “He’s studiously oblivious to the fact that what is happening is that he’s asking a communist dictatorship and a Russian puppet state (and who knows who else?) to dig up dirt on his personal political rivals.”

      And?

      I’m supposed to blanche at this because…?

    4. Newsflash, your friend is right and you are wrong. Trump is investigating corruption. All the evidence shows that the whole Russian and now Ukraine charges were set-ups. Tough shit if exposing that hurts Dems and helps Repubs and Trump.
      You seem to be fine with Democrat skullduggery. Enjoy your wallow in filth.

  50. > We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! … We have to get rid of the babies! … We need to eat the babies!

    A member of the Wokerati goes off script and forgets to sugar coat it for the masses.

  51. Reason Brazenly Suggests Ukraine, China Should Ignore Biden Corruption

    1. Can you point to where Reason said that?

      1. Oh, you were parodying the headline. OK, that’s kinda funny.

  52. Why you think all your friends get their news on Facebook

    Not one of my friends does, and very few of my close friends have facebook accounts.

  53. It finds that only 28 percent of Americans say they “often” get their news from social media.

    ~100% of Journalists get their stories from Twitter.

    1. “100% of Journalists get their stories from Twitter.”

      I don’t think so. Sometimes Twitter can be a source to follow stories that are developing but without journalists covering it on the ground. You may have found that coverage of events in the middle east, like conflicts in Syria, Yemen or Gaza is rather spotty. Twitter can be useful, but you need to be even more skeptical than you would with traditional journalists.

  54. Politicians taking bribes and kickbacks is normal in China and Ukraine. Why do you think Americans are so anxious to do business there?

    1. So it’s OK that Biden helped his son do so. It’s just how things are done. Right? That’s how it works now?

      1. I don’t think mtrueman said that.

      2. “That’s how it works now?”

        Fathers now help their sons. It was only a few years ago when this was not the case.

        1. To be fair Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama only had daughters.

          (What’s up with that, anyway? Is it like the deal where there are a lot of left-handed Presidents.)

          1. “What’s up with that, anyway?”

            I suspect Obama had a secret son who was half Kenyan, half Muslim and half Marxist..

            1. I think that was Bill Clintion’s son.

  55. “Trump Brazenly Suggests Ukraine, China Should Do Opposition Research for His 2020 Campaign”

    Oh, come on. It’s just “dry humor”, like AOC’s assertion that the world would end in 12 years due to climate change.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7022561/AOC-insists-claim-world-end-12-years-climate-change-dry-humor.html

  56. T owns you guys so hard.

  57. A different strain of the same logic has consumed the Republican Party and conservative media, which increasingly are organized not around principles or interest groups but around the interests of Trump above all else.

    I guess we disagree on whether the country has an interest in not allowing ginned up fantasies of Russian collusion to remove a President for purely partisan motives.

    1. Anyone who isn’t willing to throw out all normal rules of law and political process to get rid of Trump is just part of his personality cult or something and has no principles.

      This is actually what these people think.

  58. Can we get more Yang coverage? Guys got a couple crap ideas but the media hates him so of course I’m a fan

  59. I was just wondering: why would Trump need 2020 help from Ukraine or China? Isn’t he Putin’s puppet? Hasn’t Putin got the whole thing taped up, or has Putin lost his mojo?

    This brings to mind one of the things that’s going to make the story hard to sell to many Americans. It’s the way Democrats lurch from one story to the next: Russia! 25th Amendment! Stormy! Emoluments! Ukraine! etc. It’s an incoherent mess. It’s not just “the boy who cried wolf”; it’s “the boy cried wolf cougar rattlesnake dragon Godzilla”. There may be some truth in some of their allegations, but they’ve kicked up so much dust it’ll be hard to distinguish.

    1. That is the problem, they have no coherent narrative. The same people who shopped around a dossier that was created by a British Intelligence agent based on information he got from Russian intelligence agents are now claiming Trump should be impeached because he asked for foreign governments to look into alleged corruption by Joe Biden. Do they think the public just forgot about all that? The shamelessness of it all is pretty remarkable.

      1. The same people who shopped around a dossier that was created by a British Intelligence agent based on information he got from Russian intelligence agents are now claiming Trump should be impeached because he asked for foreign governments to look into alleged corruption by Joe Biden.

        Not only that, but alleged corruption within the departments of his own executive branch. I’m not really surprised that Chuck Schumer essentially admitted this when he pointed out, on the record, that the CIA and FBI have multiple means of destroying anyone they want to be taken out.

        The current Senate Majority Leader admitted, in public, that these organizations operate as a shadow government that is so unaccountable they can remove their own boss if they feel like it. He basically confirmed every crazy hippie conspiracy theory from the 60s and 70s, and no one batted an eye.

        Fuck, if it’s that bad, maybe it’s good that this is all coming out, because it’s going to utterly trash these law-enforcement orgs’ reputation on the right. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next Republican president nukes the DHS out of sheer spite.

  60. A different strain of the same logic has consumed the Republican Party and conservative media, which increasingly are organized not around principles or interest groups but around the interests of Trump above all else.

    You guys aren’t even trying any more.

    Anyone who’s been paying attention to the GOP and conservative media would see that its full of ‘neverTrumpers’ and people bitching about how Trump flailing around is ‘making waves’ and making conservatism look bad, and would he please stop so we can get back to appeasing the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party and cash our paychecks in peace?

  61. And why shouldn’t Trump think he can ‘use Ukraine and China’ to do his oppo research?

    As this very magazine pointed out only yesterday – this is simply business as usual. Why would Trump not think he’s entitled to do the very things you’ve given passes on for his predecessors?

    1. There are folks arguing that it is a violation of the constitution and/or election laws. Doesn’t mean others haven’t done the same, doesn’t mean the impeachment charges will stick, doesn’t mean the whole affair won’t make Trump even more popular, but that’s the legal beef against him.

  62. Can anyone actually explain how wanting information is wrong?

    1. Because people that have weaponised information now fear that information will be weaponised against them.

  63. Irony: The whistleblower is guilty of more federal crimes than Trump is. He lied about never speaking to the Intel committee before submitting his complaint.

    1. It’s also a little strange that after 8 years of virtually ignoring Obama’s stance on aggressively tamping down and prosecuting leaks that they went ahead and reduced the burden on whistle blowers under Trump. A little late, one might think.

      I honestly wonder how many whistle blowers there would have been in the prior administration under the new rules. I also wonder how long the updated rules will survive an incoming administration that isn’t Trump.

      I’m unsure if loosening the guidelines for whistle blowers is a good thing or not. It definitely makes it more likely people will blow a whistle, but it also makes the sound of blowing a whistle get lost in all the wind.

  64. “Political interference” has now been defined by Democrats as an amorphous category of generalized misconduct that encompasses engaging in any conduct that may, directly or indirectly, potentially influence a prospective American voter. Under this newly crafted standard, it is an abuse of power – that is, an impeachable abuse of power – for a sitting President to coordinate, negotiate, or discuss with any foreign nation the prospect of an investigation or inquiry that may, in due course, reveal information about a prospective political candidate that may be perceived as “damaging.” It would appear to be the case that this standard even brings within the ambit of impeachable conduct the commencement of any investigation that, ultimately, yields actual evidence of criminal activity.

    From this initial application we can see that the very concept of “political interference” is deliberately made limitless. In principle, anything that benefits a President running for re-election, including anything that would alter public perceptions, can conceivably be said to be a case of “political interference,” assuming that the “benefit” can, in any way, be said to have been derived, in whole or in part, due to the President’s relations with a foreign state. Improving economic ties with a trade partner nation and taking credit for improved relations – interference? Securing a treaty? Cooperating in military exercises? Mutual aid? Sharing intelligence? “Political interference” can plausibly include everything a President, in the course of exercising his duties, does that pertains to a foreign country. Dining with dignitaries? Interference! “What were they talking about anyway? And why? Well, that’s an abuse of office if I’ve ever seen one! What kind of American President cooperates with foreign representatives?”

    The entire notion of “political interference” is an absurdity, a parody of the criminal legal process; a deliberately inverted and decidedly standard free foundation for unbounded partisan persecution. Having failed – repeatedly, at that – to identify any substantive laws that President Trump is alleged to have violated, Congressional Democrats have resorted to attempting to criminalize, through the impeachment process, every conceivable policy disagreement with the executive branch, provided that they can first, as a preliminary matter, tar the process with the indelibly evil stain of “foreign” influence. Under the guise of preserving “national security,” another limitless construct with no discernible meaning, everything President Trump did, does, or will do, is impeachable.

    An unbounded law, to be certain, is nothing more than lawlessness. A standard without limits is not a standard at all. In their efforts to remove Trump from office, by any conceivable means, the Democrats have planted the seed of civil discord; and they have planted it deeply, such that the peaceful transition of power will, in the future be nothing more than a distant memory. If elections and the electorate are no longer factors in assessing the legitimacy of a presidency, what is left of the republic?

    Democrats are playing with an existential fire, and they seem to have absolutely no qualms about it.

    1. You have voiced what I have thus far failed to put into words.

      With the investigation into election interference, the Russia probe, and all the talk about “collusion,” what exactly is the criminal act? They say things like, “foreign country meddling in our election!” and, “Trump’s collusion is literally a threat to our democracy!” (as if we are all supposed to believe the US is and always has been “a democracy”). But how has anyone meddles in the election? Are we talking about actually getting into our voting systems and changing the election results or…. Russian people simply giving their opinion on the candidates running? What is the word collusion even supposed to MEAN???

      But with this latest action about the phone call to the Ukrainian president, I think that the substance of the accusation, whether ill or well founded, is a bit different. Here there is the possibility of trump using his political power to influence another party into something that could potentially be construed as for trump’s own advantage. In this case bribery could be the charge, and that would indeed, unlike most of the other accusations, be constitutionally impeachable.

      1. “Here there is the possibility of trump using his political power to influence another party into something that could potentially be construed as for trump’s own advantage.”

        The problem with this standard is that *anything* a President does, while in office, can be construed as conferring an “advantage.” In the context of elections, an “advantage” appears to be synonymous with the development of a positive public perception among the electorate toward the President, or the development of a negative perception toward his political adversaries. In principle, there does not appear to be any reliable means of differentiating the pursuit of legitimate “national interests” from the pursuit of “personal advantages” since achieving national policy goals – such as rooting our corruption, or exposing it – makes the President look good and, if the President looks good, it is to his “advantage.”

        The standard that the Democrats are keen on foisting upon the executive branch appears to be: “If it helps people view Trump favorably, it’s impeachable.” I’m not sure that is a standard anybody can accept on its face, nor one that the Democrats would ever accept as legitimate if the roles were reversed.

        Bribery has a very specific legal definition and, at least under federal criminal law, requires that the transfer of something of value be made *directly* to a public official to induce an official act, among other things. Even accepting the speculations with respect to Trump’s call with Zelensky as fact, manipulating the transfer of *congressionally approved* funds to a foreign *state* as opposed to a foreign *official* does not, as a matter of law, constitute bribery.

        On the other hand, if Trump wrote a personal check to Zelensky, which was accepted by Zelensky in his capacity as a private individual, on the condition that Zelensky launch an investigation using the organs of the Ukrainian state, that could constitute bribery in the constitutional, if not strictly criminal, sense. However, these are not the facts we are dealing with.

        Foreign policy disagreements are not, and should not be, the basis upon which to impeach a sitting President. At a minimum, the conduct in question should be *clearly* criminal, or at least very close. In my opinion, a President should not be impeached for something that he could not otherwise be charged were he standing in the shoes of an average private individual.

  65. “But it’s obviously inappropriate, completely at odds with a constitutional system.”

    It’s always so ironic that the people who say things like this (recently Nancy Pelosi and the dems) are the ones who, on all matters regarding the constitution, appear to be utterly clueless. Never do they care to expand this bold, intelligent-sounding statement. Nope, it’s just “our constitutional system” whenever something needs to happen.

    None of this is intended to suggest that 95% of what our government does is NOT unconstitutional.

  66. Is all of this impeachable conduct? That’s for Congress to decide. But it’s obviously inappropriate, completely at odds with a constitutional system that makes the president the head of state but not the state itself, and probably illegal.

    It is in no way impeachable, illegal, or immoral for POTUS to ask foreign governments to help in the investigation of corruption. That doesn’t change just because the people being investigated happen to be running for office.

    Oh, and Republican senators are already normalizing it.

    They don’t need to “normalize” what is already normal. We want candidates to find dirt on each other and publish it. And they have been doing it for ever.

    1. Does Reason feel that, should the House pass articles, that all Senators running for President should be removed from the jury in the Senate?

    2. “We want candidates to find dirt on each other and publish it. And they have been doing it for ever.”

      This was a point of contention during a discussion I recently had with one of my Democrat colleagues. He argued that digging up “dirt” is categorically impeachable and, moreover, the veracity of the “dirt” is irrelevant. In other words, facts do not matter because Trump is evil. And, he even argued that, in the event an investigation uncovers evidence of an actual crime on the part of Biden, Trump should *still* be impeached.

      By all means, let them investigate each other; let the mutually destructive volley of investigations overtake their priorities. Let our politicians strive to uncover among their society every morsel of evidence that resembles anything even thinly approaching corruption. I have no problem with that. Not one of them will be left standing and I would wager, after a few tumultuous transitions in the balance of power, our politicians will realize that their platitudes of holiness and aggressive prosecutions have destroyed the only reason they ever possessed for entering into politics in the first place – that is, for the corruption. And, once that occurs, it will be back to business as usual.

  67. Am I the only one baffled how Trump could go from being “Putin’s cock holster” to working closely with a regime Putin disdains and none of the zealots seem to bat an eye? It makes, literally, no sense.

    1. Forget it Jake, it’s Trumpatown.

  68. I have a few days off coming up and I’m pretty sure my wife is going to “Brazenly Suggest” that I clean out the garage. I know I should but was hoping China would just do it for me or else I’m going to stop buying their stuff.

    I see that the North Korea situation is going well. They have this new submarine. I think the strategy should be to persuade them to put in windows and use it as a tourist sub to see all of the reefs and fish and stuff. Think of the profits Kim you dolt! You already have some great beaches, gnarly waves for surfing. Cmon you are sitting on a gold mine here.

  69. Except Trump is correct. If there is corruption involved. It is his duty not only to root it out but to correct it if possible. Ukraine especially was a fairly straightforward case. Biden’s involvement meant that a company that hired his son didn’t get prosecuted. Even if it was a legitimate act, it was shady as all get-out. Trump gave full blessing to investigate the company, fixing the prior corruption.

    As far as the China issue, I haven’t found any trustworthy sources for data (for Ukraine, I only accept evaluations of Biden’s actions from before Trump got involved). However, it seems to be a similar situation.

    The standard people are laying is becoming a catch-22. An anathema to justice.

Please to post comments