Reason Roundup

Rand Paul Wants Whistleblower Outed. Libertarians Want the Old Rand Paul Back

Plus: Intent "doesn't matter" on social media?, an interesting productivity experiment, prostitution arrests, PragerU's lawsuit, internet access progress, and more...

|

President Donald Trump "has great courage" and "faces down the fake media every day," said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) on Monday. At a Trump 2020 rally in Lexington, Kentucky, Paul called upon media to out the whistleblower who first raised objections about Trump's July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Paul also asked colleagues in Congress to make both the whistleblower and Joe Biden's son Hunter testify.

"We also now know the name of the whistleblower," said Paul. "I say tonight to the media, 'Do your job and print his name!' And I say this to my fellow colleagues in Congress, to every Republican in Washington, 'Step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower!'"

Ugh.

Paul's enthusiastic and near perpetual support for Trump actions continues to bum out many libertarians—who had hoped Rand would turn out more like his father, former Rep. Ron Paul—and limited-government conservatives, for whom the Kentucky senator was a bright spot back when the Tea Party movement showed promise and principles. In the #MAGA era, Paul has become one of the biggest cheerleaders of Trump-style Republicanism and a tireless defender of the president's perspective.

"Glad Rand Paul could find a purpose in Washington once it became clear that the right doesn't care about the size of government," quipped HotAir blogger and anti-Trump conservative Allahpundit yesterday. "Nothing says 'libertarian' like [checks notes] intimidating people who allege abuses of government power."

"I am seriously struggling to find consistency between the purported libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and his desire to place a lawful whistleblower in harm's way," tweeted national security lawyer and legal pundit Bradley Moss.

Even Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.)—one-third of the once libertarian-leaning Republican trio that included Rand Paul and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie—had what seemed to be a criticism of Paul's Trump rally comments. On Monday night, Amash tweeted:

Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.

Paul himself was once a more robust defender of whistleblowers and advocated expanding protections for them. Back in 2014, Paul told a Campaign for Liberty conference audience that he was considering ways to "expand the whistleblower statute to government contractors," not just employees. "We've got so many millions of government contractors that when they see something wrong, they should be able to report it without repercussions," he said.

On Monday night, Republican 2020 presidential candidate Joe Walsh called on Paul "to have the courage to immediately find the other Rand Paul," the one Walsh "used to admire." He also accused Paul of being "emasculated by Donald Trump."

"I know this is gonna piss a whole bunch of people off but Nope. I'm done with Rand," tweeted libertarian podcaster Jen Monroe. "He's no different than any other garden variety Republican."

Paul still advocates against endless and unauthorized military intervention and is willing to vote against popular but flawed legislation (he was one of only two senators, for instance, to vote against the prostitution-ad criminalizing bill FOSTA last year). But Paul is also—seemingly increasingly—willing to look the other way when Trump acts contrary to constitutional principles and trashes free markets.


FREE MINDS

A teen's joking post about taking out a hit on a high school staffer prompted Pasco County, Florida, to arrest him on charges of solicitation to attempt murder. At a press conference, Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said "it doesn't matter what the intent was. When you do it and post it on social media, the crime is committed."

Nocco admitted that law enforcement knew of no actual problem between the teen and the staff member and that they believe the teen had no intent to carry out the crime, nor the means to fork over a $100,000 payment for the hit.



FREE MARKETS

Surprising no one who has been in corporate meetings… 


QUICK HITS

  • In a tentative ruling, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Brian C. Walsh sided against Prager University in its lawsuit against Google and YouTube.
  • The popularity and quick rise of TikTok "is forcing Americans for the first time to consider living in a world influenced by a Chinese-backed social media network."
  • Not satisfied to merely convict 55-year-old Da Zhong Wang on criminal charges of permitting prostitution and revoke his massage business license, Delaware prosecutors also filed civil charges against Wang over the same conduct. He was found guilty in the state's Superior Court and the state is seeking the maximum available fine of $300,000.
  • Read Shikha Dalmia's latest column at The Week on "the real reason Kamala Harris is tanking" in the polls.
  • In the largest single-day commutation in history, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, has commuted the sentences of 527 people serving time in the state for low-level offenses.
  • Protecting and serving:

  • Let's end on a little positive news:

CORRECTION: This post previously misidentified the defendant in the Delaware massage parlor case as a woman.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: November 5, 1989

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. President Donald Trump “has great courage” and “faces down the fake media every day,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) on Monday.

    Pence, you’re fired. We’ve got a new running mate.

    1. Hello.

      So ENB is ok with the way Schiff and the Democrats are conducting the inquiry? Awesome.

      “Paul’s enthusiastic and near perpetual support for Trump actions continues to bum out many libertarians”

      Then those libertarians are unprincipled. Because what’s right is right. Not sure what Rand is wrong about here.

      The Biden’s SHOULD testify and the media is swallowing whole what’s being fed to them through leaked information from a secret process.

      What am I missing here?

      1. “Paul’s enthusiastic and near perpetual support for Trump actions continues to bum out many libertarians”

        Let’s rework this. /Pulls out crayon. Puts beanie cap on. Spins propeller. Sticks tongue in the corner of mouth.

        “ENBs enthusiastic and near perpetual support for TDS continues to bum out many level-headed individuals including libertarians – and aliens.”

        1. Man, what the fuck happened to this place. Holy shit. Eff Rand. I haven’t trusted Rand since he endorsed Romney and have been proven right over and over. His dad must be so embarrassed. What a disgrace.

          1. Sure prog, it’s everyone else.

          2. You will need to prog a lot harder if you want to take OBL’s crown.

          3. The reason he endorses people like Romney and Trump is he is a Republican. I love Ron Paul and consider him the gold standard, but he did not get far in national races because he was like John the Baptist calling out from the desert with the frauds in D.C. Rand is trying to get further and unfortunately you have to back some bad eggs for favors later. It is the game in politics.

      2. It’s not a secret process. The Republicans are in the room asking questions. It’s the same process that was used by the Republicans during Benghazi. The Republicans control the Senate Senate committee and could subpoena and question anyone. Why aren’t they doing that? Why isn’t Senator Paul demanding a Senate investigation?

        1. Pod doesnt understand the difference between oversight and impeachment.

        2. You’re trying to reason with half-educated bigots and disaffected clingers?

          Good luck.

            1. Yeah, please keep that snooty attitude percolating until November 4, 2020.

            2. The resident fuckwits here are now jerking each other off.

              Get a room, cretins. No one here wants to watch that.

              1. Maybe Pod and Rev Costco are one and the same and it’s more masturbatory?

          1. “You’re trying to reason with half-educated bigots and disaffected clingers?”

            No, asswipe, no one attempts to reason with bigoted assholes like you.

          2. At least the half-educated bigots know the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives.

          3. Lol. Captain Projection makes an appearance.

        3. Since when is Adam Schiff in the Senate, you dumbass?

          1. Rocks, the Senate has subpoena power. Why aren’t they using it?

            1. Because the case hasn’t been officially presented to them yet?

              That doesn’t stop them in practice, but it’s a good idea to wait until there are impeachment charges for the Senate to investigate those charges.

            2. Do you even know how an impeachment is executed, you dumbass?

        4. Impeachment is not oversight, and Schiff starts every single interview stating that no classified information is involved.

          Bringing sunlight to the phony whistle blower is fighting against a corrupt govt.
          How did a whistle blower, calling out supposed illegle activity between the White House and the State Dept, end up comming from the Intelligence Community Inspector General. All of steps expose corrupt govt actors. Lead by a corrupt Whistle Blower. How to expose that corruption with out identifying the Whistle Blower.

      3. The “whistleblower” comes across as more of a bagman. And if I’m to take his word seriously I need to be able to evaluate him. For instance, if his name turns out to be “Joe Biden” should I still believe him?

        1. They were never a “whistleblower”. Actual whistleblowers are alone.
          The complaint is the work of a group of people, who were enabled by significant institutional power, not only in the intelligence community, but in the Democratic Party and the commercial press.
          “Coup leaders” would be more apt.

        2. Who the FUCK are you?

      4. I don’t know. If the whistle blower provided information that might be used to support impeachment, then you should probably get their direct testimony.

        1. No, no. Libertarians now support anonymous witnesses.

          1. Oh and second hand to fourth hand as hearsay.

          2. Don’t speak for libertarians, asshole. You are as far from being one as Hillary Clinton.

            1. Fuck you prog, no one cares what you think about libertarians.

            2. Sunuch super butthurt.
              It seems that’s an existential condition for him

            3. Chipper, you’ve never been a libertarian. Why do you even pretend?

            4. is that you Sarwark?

          3. No, no. Libertarians now support anonymous witnesses.

            BEFORE THE TRIAL, DIPSHIT.. you’ve been manipulated like a trained gerbil, exploiting your low-level intelligence and tribal bigotry. A puppet AND ignorant!

            AUTHORITARIAN ASSHOLES, LIKE TRUMP, RAND PAUL … AND YOU … NOW SUPPORT THE HARASSMENT AND SUPPRESSION OF WITNESSES … DURiNG AN INVEStIGATION

            THEY USE PHRASING TO IMPLY — LIKE RAND PAUL’S SHAMEFUL FUCKING LIE — THAT TRUMP HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO YOUR DEMANDS.

            THAT is why you’re a FOOL to swallow all sorts of crazy-ass bullshit … from your tribe only,

            The 6th Amendment PROVES how easy it is to brainwash any low-intrelligence, gullible fool, with a trib

            In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

            Thus, Rand Paul is a lying sack of shit — claiming to be a “strict constitutionalist” — like the authoritarian fascism of his father.

            Okay … NOW go even LOWER, with another of your crazed diatribes … assault me for DARING to cite THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION. (SNEER)

        2. WBer says he’ll answer questions in writing. Why not start there? By the way what questions do you have for the WB?

          1. Why did you cancel Dawson’s Creek?

          2. Pod
            November.5.2019 at 9:59 am
            “WBer says he’ll answer questions in writing.”

            Hey, that’s good enough for lefty fucking ignoramuses like Pod. He’s hoping intelligent people will fall for that.
            And losing.

            1. That’s how Trump answered questions in the Mueller investigation.

              1. Pod
                November.5.2019 at 11:05 am
                “That’s how Trump answered questions in the Mueller investigation.”

                Yes, and we know who Trump is.

        3. If the whistleblower’s statements are in any way to be used as evidence in a criminal/civil case, or in an impeachment proceeding, then the person should be ID’d. Otherwise, it’s just part of information gathering.

          1. Yes. Since this isn’t a criminal/civil case, it may be case the House could have started an impeachment inquiry with no initial complaint at all. I believe they could have started it purely on hearsay.

            1. 1) what the house could have probably done doesn’t matter – they did begin the “inquiry” based on the complaint (which has been endlessly lied about, lies cosigned by mike here, and thoroughly contradicted by the released transcript)
              2) the “whistleblower’s” complaint is hearsay

              1. I’m not co-signing anything. I’m repeating aspects of the inquiry that are in the mainstream news, that keep being glossed over by Trump defenders here.

                I am always careful not to convey in any way that I know what is true. Thing is, Trump defenders don’t either.

                None of us have any personal knowledge of what actually went down.

                1. None of us have any personal knowledge of what actually went down.

                  Doctors suggest you look before you flush.

      5. Cancel culture is spreading.

      6. I’ll tell you what you’re missing here – the fact that the Dems in Congress are running a complete shitshow of a political hit job on Trump and to the extent that the GOP is whining and complaining about fairness and due process and regular procedure they’re whining and complaining that they should be allowed to take part in the complete shitshow of a political hit job. Why? They’re complainng that it’s a rigged game and simultaneously complaining that they’re not being let into the game. There’s a reason they’re called the Stupid Party. Just walk away, refuse to take part in this nonsense.

        1. Their strategy, if that’s what it is, forced the house to vote to “formalize” their process because the Rs have done a good job of framing it as unfair.

          It wasn’t necessary for the Ds to do that. But they did.

      7. “The Biden’s SHOULD testify and the media is swallowing whole what’s being fed to them through leaked information from a secret process.
        What am I missing here?”

        Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn’t know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.

      8. Rand Paul is as close to a libertarian as you can get in a big time office. If he goes 100% libertarian he will lose his Senate seat in KY. He is correct in wanting the whistleblower to be exposed to the public. Not wise to criticize the most libertarian senator in D.C.

        1. Not wise to criticize the most libertarian senator in D.C.

          Not wise to equate libertarians with a PROVEN LIAR on the Constitution. (6th Amendment)

          He is correct in wanting the whistleblower to be exposed to the public.

          SHAME ON YOU
          The Sixth Amendment applies ONLY to criminal offenses, and ONLY those witnesses in aTrial.

          IF YOU ARE ACCUSED OF RAPE, WHAT DELUSIONAL FANTASY GIVES YOU THE “RIGHT” TO
          A) Know the witnesses names, even if no trial or charges?
          B) Confront those witnesses , even if no trial or charges?

          If you are THAT easily suckered … please do not equate YOURSELF with libertarians

          Since you say Ron Paul is YOUR gold standard … then YOUR standard defends BLATANT bigotry … the KKK version of 10th Amendment ,… pretending 9A does not exist, to brainwash goobers … NO checks and balances … NO balance of power … NO Judicial Review … Only TWO co-equal branches … States have powers never delegated … we have NO defense from ANY abuse by state and local government.

          YOU DEFEND THE ABSOLUTE WORST STATIST IN AMERICA … SAYS WHAT ABOUT YOU?

          YOU defend stripping homosexuals from defending their rights under the 14th amendment before SCOTUS … the first group denied protection of constitutional rights since … SLAVES

          http://www.rawstory.com/2011/03/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

          “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

          AND HE SAYS GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF MARRIAGE ENTIRELY!!!

          Since you support government oppression of “niggers” and “faggots” … where do you stand on “Kikes, Polacks, Chinks, Spicks and Redskins”???

          I’m fairly sure of your position on Honkies, Rednecks, Hillbillies and Crackers.
          And I’m puking.

          Just defending the libertarian brand from those who shame it, and have nearly destroyed it. The libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians

    2. “Ugh” is always an effective argument.

      1. I prefer Jeepers. And always close an article with a Richie Rich ‘Tee-hee!’

        I still like ENB even if she makes me squeeze the Fruity Pebbles box hard sometimes.

      2. Come on, ENB is a busy gal. She can’t be bothered with effective argument.

      3. It’s a Salon thing, you wouldn’t understand.

      4. Can’t even’s sophisticated older sister. She just graduated from college and is an intern at a non profit.

        1. (about the “ugh” not ENB, though she is on links duty at Reason… So if the shoe fits)

  2. Mexican cartel massacre: 9 Americans, including 6 children from Mormon offshoot murdered

    Just like the Camache raids were used as a reason for the Mexican-Americans War, expect this kind of violence to be used to settle much of the US Mexican Border debate.

    1. Why the hell are the drug beaners going after some inconspicuous Mormon splinter group?

      1. The Media is throwing out a mistaken identity type scenario.

        I don’t think the Cartel makes mistakes like that which will lead to US intervention and possible crack downs on the Cartel business.

        If the reason is genocide against White people, you will never hear it on the MSM.

        1. The cartel has kidnapped and killed mormons from this group before due to public statements against the cartel.

          1. I also suspect another reason is a bit of reporting, by the family, on the movements across the border.

      2. They’ve had problems with this group for decades since they openly oppose the surrounding drug trade.

      3. For the same reason the Muslim terrorists raped and beheaded the two Scandinavian tourists backpacking around Morocco to show everybody what a wonderful place the world was. If you’re stupid enough to wander around in dangerous neighborhoods, you might be surprised to find out why it’s a bad idea but the rest of us aren’t going to be too surprised.

        1. Thankfully America’s magic dirt will cure the problem once everyone in the world has the right to live here

        2. There’s a bit of difference between a couple of naïve shitlib backpackers and a polygamist Mormon community that’s lived in that part of Mexico for more than a century.

          You’re basically making the argument that “white flight” is actually a thoughtful, logical decision based on the perception that minorities tend to shit up every place they settle.

          1. Well…

          2. ““white flight” is actually a thoughtful, logical decision based on the perception that minorities tend to shit up every place they settle”

            This doesn’t hold true for minorities from countries with Confucian, Protestant and Hindu traditions, but if they’re coming out of Catholic, Islamic or Animist countries, they’re going to poo up the place.

      4. Why?
        Failure to pay protection is my guess.

        It’s not like a cartel, having usurped any other form of authority, is going to limit their profit seeking to drug running.

    2. As a fan of Shikha Dalmia, I believe the ideal libertarian response to violence in Mexico is to invite the entire population of Mexico to immigrate to the United States.

      #OpenBorders
      #ImmigrationAboveAll

      1. Brilliant.

      2. I see ‘Go to Dalmia’ and I’m all like, ‘Nope’.

    3. There’s a full on civil war raging south of the border, and now they have a President who has told the cops and the military to “let them win”. These homicidal psychopaths would kill their own mothers. There’s only two responses that I can see – legalize all drugs, or invade Mexico. I prefer the former to the latter.

      1. My friend’s wife is Mexican born and raised but now living in Canada. They visited Mexico twice a year to see her family. They stopped going because it’s way too violent now. Even her own family tells her to stay away. And guess what? They absolutely do feel a wall should be built. That’s how bad it is.

        Mexico is a failed narco-state.

      2. Sorry, but legalizing all drugs is not going to nerf the power of the cartels. That ship sailed a long time ago; even states that have legalized pot are still contending with black market dealers.

        Mexico is effectively a feudal society that is now controlled by these guys in approximately 80 percent of the country. It wouldn’t matter if every Schedule 1 drug was legalized, it wouldn’t reduce their power or authority one iota. In fact, it would probably result in greater entrenchment, because the Mexican government itself is so fucking corrupt and useless that it wouldn’t know how to engage the cartels if it was given a step-by-step pamphlet.

        And let’s face it, the reality is that invasion isn’t an option, either, unless we’re willing to commit genocide against the cartels and the communities that support them.

        1. It wouldn’t matter if every Schedule 1 drug was legalized, it wouldn’t reduce their power or authority one iota. In fact, it would probably result in greater entrenchment

          So if we legalized drugs, the cartels would become even more powerful?? That crack head Milton Friedman would probably disagree.

          1. You really believe the drug trade is the only thing keeping these cartels operating? Nothing that Milton Friedman wrote addresses jack shit about a collection of nationwide, feudal criminal enterprise that encompasses far more than just drugs.

            I’ll point it out again–they control 80% of the country, and the Mexican government is so hopelessly corrupt and compromised that the remaining 20% is practically irrelevant. Legalizing all drugs in the US isn’t going to jack shit to change that calculus. Anyone arguing otherwise is fucking clueless about how these organizations operate.

          2. The Cartels don’t just deal drugs. They have long ago moved into other legitimate businesses. So, depriving them of their drug money won’t kill them. Moreover, the cartels are not drug dealers so much as extortionists running protection rackets. They make money by people who smuggle drugs paying them tribute in return for protection from other cartels. Once you get powerful enough, that business model works on any industry. It is amazing how easy it is to get say construction contracts when you can have anyone who doesn’t do business with you killed.

            So, no, legalizing drugs will not end the cartels or help Mexico very much.

            1. Once you get powerful enough, that business model works on any industry.

              Once you get powerful enough, you become a government.

              1. ^ This. And it’s basically what the cartel is today.

              2. Yup.
                Cartels are in the business of ruling. The fact that they produce drugs is incidental to their business model.

          3. If you legalized drugs who do you think would supply them? The cartels would.

        2. With legalization comes the thought, for government, of far tax revenues. So prices for legal drugs stay high, and the black market still thrives.

    4. Saw that. Looks like we’ll be liberating the hell out of Mexico soon.

      1. Seems our only other option is to be their colony, since having borders is “mean”

        1. We could always turn them into a couple of states. Well, I guess Territories, and then statehood would come afterward.

          1. Puerto Rico hardest hit.

    5. some reports are trying to make it like they were caught in a cross fire. Its not cross fire when you rape and burn the women and children that is outright murder and not mistaken identity, simple murder. At least the media hasn’t blamed this on Trumps immigration policies yet, just give them a day

      1. Dalmia is hard at work.

    1. I recommend his book: “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ”. Other works have been written on this topic, but Stone’s book is pretty good.

    2. I sense Roger Stone is about “to go through some things.”

      After which he may become the best-dressed inmate in the entire institution.

      Although Paul Manafort might be competitive.

      1. Reverend Al: Reading your posts reminds me of a saying I once heard….

        When a dog pisses on a fire hydrant, it is not committing vandalism; it is just being a dog.

  3. Police: Man using racist slurs killed in Waffle House fight in Ga.

    Start a fight and get shot. Does not matter what color skin you have.

    1. Anybody who walks into a Waffle House and doesn’t immediately assume that the other customers are armed has probably never been to one in the first place.

      1. +1000

        Same reason Georgia does not have a bunch of robberies outside of Atlanta. Many Georgians are armed and good shots.

        People should notice that the shooter only needed 1 shot to end the fight.

        1. In Kennesaw, Georgia (a northwest Atlanta burb), by city ordinance everyone living in the city has to have a gun.

          At one point a widow on a fixed income went to the city council and told them she couldn’t afford to buy a gun. The city council bought her one.

    2. Suicide by Waffle House.

      1. By gun or by scattered, smothered, covered & chunked hashbrowns.

    3. The waffle house asked the racist to leave before the fight broke out? Impossible. I have been informed that the USA is irredeemably racist, especially in Georgia. The journalist must have gotten the story wrong.

  4. New State Department emails show Burisma talking to contacts in the State Department about the investigation into Burisma.

    “Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption. She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member). ”

    What’s that? They name dropped Hunter?!? Bonus. This occurred one month before Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-urged-obama-admin-to-end-corruption-allegations-report-says

    This after the DNC talking points that Burisma was never under investigation. Pod claiming it was in a locked drawer and not being paid attention to.

    1. Pipe down over there!

      1. This “witch hunt” is full of gas!

      2. All these accusations are just fuel on the fire.

    2. Apart from John Solomon, and the go-to conservative sites, nobody is reporting on this. Seems very relevant, if you ask me — which means that it will be dismissed as yet another “conspiracy” theory to deflect from Donald Trump’s inevitable impeachment.

      1. It’s a proof of the dishonesty of the media that Solomon isnt winning journalism awards.

    3. Oh I read that. It indicates the Obama administration and other western officials considered Burisma to be tainted by corruption and Burisma was complaining about that opinion and trying to convince the western world that they were no longer corrupt.

      1. “If we were corrupt, would be hire an upstanding guy like Hunter, Hunter – what was his last name again?”

      2. You’re reading of what the FOIA revealed proves you’re completely retarded.

    4. It’s doesn’t support your belief that Burisma was under investigation by that corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor before he was fired for not investigating corruption.

        1. “Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt,” the email added. ”

          Do you see? The Obama administration believed Burisma was corrupt. They also believed the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt.

          1. I see you were lying when you said “It’s doesn’t support your belief that Burisma was under investigation by that corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor before he was fired for not investigating corruption.”

            And I see that you’re getting desperate.

            1. Not getting
              Been desperate a while

          2. “Do you see? The Obama administration believed Burisma was corrupt. They also believed the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt.”

            Let’s get the timeline straight.

            Feb 2: Shokin seizes a a bunch of Zlochevsky’s assets as part of the corruption case.
            That same day Hunter Biden “Follows” the Deputy Sec State, who happens to be an old friend of his dad’s. He then meets with that guy.

            Just 1 month later, Biden meets with Ukraine and demands they fire Shokin.

            If you don’t think this stinks to high heaven, you are full of shit.

      1. “It’s doesn’t support your belief that Burisma was under investigation by that corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor before he was fired for not investigating corruption.”

        Is it just part of being a lefty to lie constantly? Seems it is.

        1. I’m not a liar unlike half the people here whose comments you regularly pass over to baselessly attack me. Biden helped get a corrupt prosecutor fired which led to the appointment of a honest prosecutor which put Burisma at greater risk of being investigated. Do you understand the simple logic of it?

          1. “Biden helped get a prosecutor who was definitively investigating his son fired”

            The rest is you spinning hoping to distract from the fact that Biden got a prosecutor fired to protect his son and the evidence is piling up.

          2. “I’m not a liar unlike half the people here whose comments you regularly pass over to baselessly attack me.”

            Liar responds by pointing somewhere else.
            Good going, pod…

          3. It isnt baseless. You’re fucking retarded. Despite the FOIA dump you’re claiming there was no investigation into Burisma. You completely ignore the third highest spot in State mentioning Hunter by name. You’ve ignore Hunter and Archer meeting with Kerry on March 2nd. All of this one month before Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor.

            You’re an idiot.

  5. “No joke, I need him eliminated as soon as possible,” Godfrey wrote, according to the affidavit.

    Oops. Needed one of those winking emojis.

  6. …it doesn’t matter what the intent was.

    Unless you wear a badge and you’ve shot an unarmed suspect because you’re intent was to save your own life when it was in fact never in danger.

    1. And don’t forget about the “the intent of Congress”.

      1. The internet was sexual Congress

  7. Lil Lizzie Warren promised us a meme war on November 4th. She failed to produce a single meme. So people were helpful and started a meme war account for her on Instagram with hilarious results.

    https://www.instagram.com/warrenmemesteam/

  8. Microsoft Japan gave its employees a four-day workweek (with five days’ pay), and it also made a bunch of meetings half as long. Productivity grew by 40%.

    And then fired them all for having dogged it five days a week.

    1. I dunno. Not sure if that’s such a crazy idea.

      1. Depending on your job, 15-20% of your day is farting around getting ready for work, getting ready for lunch, getting back to work after lunch, and getting ready to go home. 4 ten-hour days is more productive than 5 eights if you’re actually only doing 6 hours work in an eight-hour day and 8 hours work in a ten. Construction work especially where the first part of the day is getting out all your tools and material and getting a workspace set up and the last part of the day is putting all your tools and material away and policing the job site.

        1. Beyond that, even, I think it shifts the mentality from “this is where I spend all my time, and sometimes I work” to “I’m here to work, and then I’ll go home.”

          I’ve been able to finagle somewhat reduced work hours (I’m in my office 7.5 hours a day, including lunch), and I’m way more productive than when I was in the office 9 hours a day.

    2. Just imagine how much more productivity if there were no meetings.

    3. “…made a bunch of meetings half as long….”. If productivity really rose like that, they had/have no idea how to run meetings. If one was scheduled for an hour and the issues were covered in 30 minutes, did they keep meeting for another 30 minutes?

      1. They chatted for 15 minutes, did the 30 minutes of productivity, and then chatted another 15 minutes.

        When you only have 30 minutes, you skip the chatting. I’ve been scheduling short meeting for years for exactly this reason.

  9. Rand Paul demands media print whistleblower’s name

    It will be interesting to see how reason reacts to Rand Paul “obstructing” this impeachment of Trump. On one hand, reason wants to use Rand Paul to act like reason is Libertarian. On the other hand, reason staff consider Orange Man bad.

    1. It will be interesting to see how reason reacts

      You could get your answer by starting at the top of the page.

      1. you mean read the article?

        1. Wait, what? they have articles here?

          1. Does it count as an article when one paragraph is “Ugh.”?

          2. Propaganda does not count as journalism in my book.

            reason knows this, which is why they send in the bots like pod.

            1. Yup.
              I can’t say this enough; modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn’t know because they might reflect badly on Democrats

      2. It’s ENB. You’re new, so you don’t know reason has nothing to do with what she puts in her articles.

  10. So how would anyone else react if they were charged with a crime based on the testimony of an anonymous witness that you could not confront or question, and whose motivation you could not discern?

    1. If I was guilty like Trump I wouldn’t want anyone giving testimony and I would hide behind spurious claims of executive privilege to keep people from testifying.

      How do you resolve that contradiction? On the one hand Trump wants to expose the identity of the WB but on the other hans he’s preventing the testimony of other witnesses.

      1. Trump… the guy who literally released the transcript of the call is the one hiding?

        1. That was so Trump playing “n” D chess!

          The Lefties freaked when he did it.

      2. YOU are guilty pod.

        Now lets hold a secret tribunal to determine what will happen to you.

        I am sure that you would 100% on board.

        1. Why a secret tribunal? Just consider him guilty and be done with it.

          1. Sentence first, then the verdict.

      3. “If I was guilty like Trump…”

        Claims not to be a liar, and immediately lies again.
        Good going, pod…

  11. “Read Shikha Dalmia’s latest column at The Week on ‘the real reason Kamala Harris is tanking’ in the polls.”

    This is rough. My favorite libertarian writer is criticizing my preferred Presidential candidate? Ouch!

    #IPromiseToVoteForWhoeverShikhaDalmiaEndorses
    #(UnlessItsTulsiGabbard)

    1. You’ll get through it.

    2. “”She claims her woes show that the country is just “not ready for a woman of color” to be president.””

      Has she seen any polls about Michelle Obama and the presidency?

      1. Does it matter to her that the “country” she is complaining about is the democrat party? This is a primary, you know.

    3. Longtime Trump Associate Roger Stone In Court For Final Pretrial Hearing

      The walls are closing in. If I would have known that all it took to get cretins like Manafort and Stone put in jail I would have voted for Dump a long time ago. I missed my calling and voted for Jill Stein instead. I’m sorry.

      1. “The walls are closing in.”

        Ahahahahah HE SAID IT AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  12. The popularity and quick rise of TikTok “is forcing Americans for the first time to consider living in a world influenced by a Chinese-backed social media network.”

    Or maybe not getting rid of Vine.

  13. Attorney for Flynn has already shown substantive chances to the 302 documents uses against Flynn. With the DoJ claiming some of the versions are lost she is requesting the use of a system the DoJ has that saves all edits. Many of the edits shown so far are unsigned including one by Page who would have no reason to edit the 302 documents.

    The investigation into Flynn is appearing to be an abuse of process. Why are we kidding ourselves. It was an abuse.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flynn-attorneys-demand-fbi-provide-all-flynn-interview-drafts-after-evidence-surfaces-fbi-manipulated-docs

    1. Not one person in the pundit class ever thought to think about precisely why Flynn pled guilty and then immediately began to contest it with a Brady disclosure.

      Keep in mind that, two years ago, the Blue Checkmark Brigade was blaring that Flynn would testify against Trump. Now it’s starting to look like his case might get thrown out altogether because of IC fuckery.

      1. And now they are oddly silent as this whole thing unravels. The worst has been the behavior of self proclaimed “libertarians” like Ken White and Charles Grassley who did nothing but act as purveyors of government disinformation during the entire thing.

        Matt Tiabbi has more integrity than White, Grassley, and the entire Volkh Conspiracy combined. It is really kind of scary to see how quickly people will walk away from their professed beliefs when social pressures require it.

        1. You know what the hilarious thing is? This same sort of illegal, unethical shit is why the Weatherman assholes ultimately got to walk with nothing more than a wrist slap, despite committing hundreds of real, actual bombings against various government buildings.

  14. “He’s no different than any other garden variety Republican.”

    And then..

    Paul still advocates against endless and unauthorized military intervention and is willing to vote against popular but flawed legislation (he was one of only two senators, for instance, to vote against the prostitution-ad criminalizing bill FOSTA last year).

    He is also for reducing the size of government and reducing the debt. If that was a “garden variety Republican” this country would be in much better shape.

    1. He surely did a great job when he cut taxes and the debt grew 2 trillion higher (a 10% increase for those keeping score at home.)

      Yes- garden variety Republican is precisely right.

      1. Paul wanted to reduce government to offset the tax cuts. Can you name one other Republican Senator who said the same?

          1. That’s how Ron Paul destroyed the libertarian movement. Over 60% of Americans SELF-identify with libertarian values, fiscally conservative and socially liberal … buty 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label. (Cato survey by a top independent pollster)

            That is MASSIVE FAILURE .,.. akin to a televangelist rejected by 91% of American Christians! 🙂

            Ted Cruz is among the very craziest. He’s the dumbfuck that wanted to shot down the federal government, to defund Obamacare. That is fascism. REJECTION OF FREE-MARKET OUTCOMES

            Libertarians ONCE knew to be “always be pro-liberty, NEVER ANTI-GOVERNMENT. …. WHY?

            Expanding liberty ALWAYS limits or reduces government
            Shrinking government cam achieve the OPPOSITE of free market OUTCOMES.

            See Medicaid.

            Americans have ALWAYS paid, willingly, for the uninsured, regardless of age or income, BEFORE Medicare and Medicaid.
            Repealing or slashing Medicaid is AUTHORITARIAN opposition to Will of the People and Consent of the Governed. DUH

            A large majority of Americans WOULD PAY HIGHER TAXES … IF they provided universal coverage.

            Now, THINK. If Bernie and Elizabeth are the ONLY ones claiming to provide … what people are willing to pay for … then progressives will CONTINUE KICKING OUR ASS, AS THEY HAVE FOR DECADES.

            Listen to Charles Koch, “enrich people’s lives.”

            Listen to Salesmanship 101 — used by salespeople of all ages. as young as 20.

            “You’re not there to prove your prospect wrong. You’re there to AGREE with your prospect, and show how YOUR product or service can BEST provide WHAT YOUR PROSPECT ALREADY

            THAT IS WHY LiBERTARIANS have been LOSERS for decades.

            95% of what government provides is what people want.
            How FUCKING STUPID that TODAY’S libertarians can show NO BETTER WAY TO DO ANYTHING …. NOT A DAMN THING … NOTHING on taxes …NOTHING ion spending … NOTHING on governance … NOTHING ANYWHERE.

            Here’s how STUPID Rand Paul is! He shut down the federal gummint, briefly, to protest higher spending .. TALKING ABOUT THE DEBT … THEN VOTED FOR TAX CUTS TO INCREASE THE DEBT EVEN MORE! WTF

            Says tax cuts let us “keep more of our own money.” NO LIBERTARIAN COULD BE SO STUPID. HE’S STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN … EVEN THE UNBORN! … increasing THEIR taxes and debt, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT .

            How CRAZY is it to be MORE EXTREME THAN EVEN AYN RAND?.

      2. Yes, the debt would have stayed the same and not increased by $2 trillion if we had only skipped the $400 billion in tax cuts.

        Even for you this is pathetic.

    2. Not unless the republicans control the House and have 60 votes in the Senate. The idea that you will ever see a reduction in debt or total size of government when the Dems have any significant handle on power is fucking absurd.

    3. Don’t let facts get in the way of narrative, even when the text is self contradictory!

  15. China and US ‘moving closer to initial trade agreement’ as Trump considers scrapping $156billion worth of tariffs on Chinese goods

    -China is pressuring Trump administration to remove tariffs on Chinese imports
    -China also wants US to scrap 15% tariffs that went into effect in September

    Imagine that. The MSM is distracted by the Trump Impeachment kangaroo kourt, then China starts to step up their negotiation because Trump will clearly be reelected.

    1. “Trump will clearly be reelected”

      LOL

      He has zero chance.

      1. Yup… zero chance to lose.

        1. Remember which of us has the superior track record with predictions.

          I was right about the #BlueWave in 2018.
          I’m being proved right about impeachment in 2019.
          You’ll see in 2020 my prediction of a Democratic victory looks obvious in hindsight.

          1. He hasn’t been impeached.

        2. Trump’s gonna ride the Blue Wave to reelection and GOP control of Congress.

          1. There’s something to look forward to. The entire government being the same team.

            1. Yeah scary when the GOP controls it. Republicans won’t even repeal ObamaCare when they control it.

              To show that I am fair, you are correct when Democrats control government. We got Obamacare, Social Security….

  16. As for the idiotic headline… libertarians have never demanded anonymity of an accuser, especially in regards to the IC. What a stupid premise.

    1. “Paul’s enthusiastic and near perpetual support for Trump actions continues to bum out many libertarians—who had hoped Rand would turn out more like his father, former Sen. Ron Paul—and limited-government conservatives, ”

      Nothing says limited government than letting the IC spy on Americans and the attempted overturn of an election. What are Reasons views on Brexit? The dumb masses dont know better and need to be overrulef?

      1. ” Paul has become one of the biggest cheerleaders of Trump-style Republicanism and a tireless defender of the president’s perspective.”

        Or he is distrustful of the IC and unelected bureaucrats.. you know the people Snowden complained about in the article a few links down. we get it… orange man bad.

        1. “”I am seriously struggling to find consistency between the purported libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and his desire to place a lawful whistleblower in harm’s way,” tweeted national security lawyer and legal pundit Bradley Moss.”

          Safety over openness! The libertarian mantra! Oh wait.

          1. “On Monday night, Amash tweeted:

            Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.”

            Well if Amash already knows Trump is guilty why even have a trial?? What other trials does Amash want to happen in secret? Truly a libertarian. Also why was Flake left off of this tribute?

            1. “Paul still advocates against endless and unauthorized military intervention ”

              Time to go search for the reason opinions on Syria…

          2. Do they still deserve whistleblower protection if it turns out their account is verifiably and willfully inaccurate?

            1. I was about to say. What “lawful whistleblower”?

        2. Snowden is an example of how the IC treats actual whistleblowers.

          You can rat on a guy who screwed up an investigation, or tries to hide their own incompetence that embarrasses the IC, or interferes with the goals of the IC. When the IC thinks about whistleblowers, this if the sort of person they have in mind.

          Raising concerns that the IC’s standard practices are in violation of the Constitution, well that makes you a bloody traitor.

          1. Snowden is exactly how they treat actual whistle blowers. For actual whistle blowers remaining anonymous is the last thing they would ever want. The only thing that is going to save them is publicity. Without that, the IC will destroy them.

            1. As Chuck Schumer said, they can screw you six ways to Sunday.

      1. Intel Community

      2. Brennan’s cabal that weaponized intelligence.

      3. Immigration Conspiracy.

      4. a frozen carbonated beverage

    2. Narrator: The individual behind the curtain is not a whistleblower.

    3. There is a long history of libertarians supporting protections for whistleblowers.

      1. There’s a short history of you posting here, but it’s composed entirely of you shilling for totalitarianism

      2. “There is a long history of libertarians supporting protections for whistleblowers.”

        From whom is this whistleblower being protected?

        1. That’s actually a good question. Without knowing who it is, it’s hard to answer precisely. Certainly, protection form Trump himself.

          1. He is after all, a known murderer.

            1. That was quite a non-sequiter.

              1. “That was quite a non-sequiter.”

                No, it was quite apropos; why would anyone need protection from Trump? Afraid a tweet-storm might prove fatal?

                1. Because he is the President, a position of vast power.

                  1. No douchebag, he’s asking what action Trump would take.

                    God you’re fucking trash.

                  2. “Because he is the President, a position of vast power.”

                    That’s cute.

                    1. Yeah, it’s not like he’s Secretary of State or anything..

          2. “That’s actually a good question. Without knowing who it is, it’s hard to answer precisely. Certainly, protection form Trump himself.”

            But Trump knows who the fuck this is. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. It is just not being reported, and for SOME incomprehensible Reason, ENB thinks it is “putting him in harms way” to subpoena him.

            If everyone knows who it is, then- again- what harm is there in calling him to testify publicly?

            1. Perhaps everyone who thinks they know who it is are wrong.

              1. Three sources have corroborated.

      3. protections yes, keeping their identity secret no

        1. That’s why Jeff thought he was sneaky typing “protections” that way he could defend the whistleblower but then pretend he wasn’t when it became clear they don’t get anonymity.

  17. Not satisfied to merely convict a 55-year-old woman of permitting prostitution and revoke her massage business license, Delaware prosecutors also filed civil charges against her for the same conduct.

    Double jeopardy doesn’t mean the state can’t get creative in bringing its unlimited resources to bear. Next up: federal charges.

  18. The rise of pre-crime.

  19. “…”the real reason Kamala Harris is tanking” in the polls.

    Your next attorney general.

  20. In the largest single-day commutation in history, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, has commuted the sentences of 527 people serving time in the state for low-level offenses.

    Where the SOFT ON CRIME comes sweepin’ down the plain.

    1. Now if they can take Richard Glossip off death row that would be something.

  21. Columbus, OH: Averaging 2 arrests a day, the newly formed community policing team, renamed&retrained VICE cops, have arrested 110 sex workers for prostitution

    Every Columbus victimizing crime having been solved.

    1. Need to make up revenue somehow, with Amazon not putting HQ2 there.

  22. Rand Paul is too busy on his knees to ever stand for anything.

    1. I don’t understand why some people here like him. AOC is clearly a more effective Congressional ally for us Koch / Reason libertarians.

      1. Did you get paid for your hour during the daylight savings time switch?

    2. Rand Paul does pray a lot to your Lord and Savior.

      1. Our “Lord” – you mfers are slaves.


  23. Let’s end on a little positive news:

    Between 1990 and 2016, the share of the world’s population with access to the internet rose from zero to 46 per cent. It is expected to rise to 52 per cent by 2020.

    Not counting those who will be canceled.

    1. There is no better sign that the Libertarian Moment is upon us than the majority of the world’s population having 24/7 access to funny cat memes and Japanese tentacle porn.

    2. they don’t have food, cloths, bedding or medicine but they do have internet. Dam life is good for them now NOT

      1. Most of them did have access to food, cloths, bedding or medicine before they got internet – and even more of them have all those things now. In most cases, it’s because poverty has been steadily declining for decades. In a few cases, it’s because the internet gave people access to resources that bypassed the local kleptocracy.

        Life may not be “good” for them now – but it’s damned sure better that it was.

  24. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman — who correctly predicted Drumpf would cause a global recession — praises Elizabeth Warren’s healthcare plan.

    My sense is that while Warren’s embrace of Medicare for all was a questionable political decision, she has now passed an important test: providing a plausible way it could happen without big middle-class tax hikes.

    There you have it. Another right-wing anti-Warren talking point has been debunked.

    #LibertariansForWarren

    1. He’s so full of shit and out of his mind he’s actually a danger to himself.

      What a fucken piece of work.

      Conscience of a liberal my ass. More like a progressive dip shit.

    2. At this point Krugman should give his nobel back. Hes been wrong on everything since he won.

    3. A 42% sales tax sounds very reasonable. Nobody will notice.

      1. Certainly no one in the middle class.

  25. It’s always fascinating – and amusing – to watch an ostensibly libertarian publication argue that intelligence officials of the US government should be allowed to remain anonymous whilst they seek to undermine the duly-elected president of the United States.

    I mean, who can libertarians trust more than the FBI/CIA/NSA?

    Libertarians in 1969: “The US intelligence agencies are undermining our freedoms!”

    Libertarians in 2019: “Those honest, hard-working career bureaucrats of the US government would never lie to the American people!”

    It’s as if COINTELPRO never happpened.

    1. HEY! reason has an Orange Man to take down!

      1. “Sure, the US intelligence establishment has repeatedly lied to us over past decades, and yeah, they have a loooong history of meddling in domestic and international politics, but we can TOTALLY trust them to be honest this time!”

        1. This glosses over the bumbling idiocy, the passive loss of lives, as well as the active taking of lives involved with at least 2 of the 3 named agencies.

          Sure, the FBI and CIA have lied, cheated, stolen, and murdered people at home and abroad over the past several decades but Trump is way worse because he spends money.

        2. But enough about Trump appointing Gina Haspel head of the CIA – she was Brennan’s protégé and soundly vouched for by all the best people, including Brennan, Clapper and Comey. You just can’t get any higher recommendations than that.

          1. Wow you even bring your TDS into this discussion.

            Trump hired Hspel, so star chambers and kangaroo courts are OK.

        3. If anything you’ve undersold it.

    2. Reason magazine is a joke.
      Probably no better tool for turning people away from libertarianism than this publication

      1. Then why do you spend your time at the Reason website every day?

        1. Just to piss you off, hivemind

        2. Why do you spend your time nut hugging them? They have Koch money for that, they don’t need your sockpuppet.

          1. I have explained before. I want other libertarians, especially ones that are new to the Reason website, to know that the readership is not a bunch of Trump apologists. The general public confuse libertarians and conservatives enough already.

            I have noticed that since I have become more active here other libertarians have been standing up more to the pro-Trump “mean girls” contingent here.

            1. Right, you think you’re the gatekeeper of libertarian thought.

              That’s so far beyond pathetic its back around the other side.

              Not to mention you’re straight up bad at it.

            2. “I have noticed that since I have become more active here other libertarians have been standing up more to the pro-Trump “mean girls” contingent here.”

              Nope. Quite the opposite actually.

              1. Is anyone else laughing at how pathetic Mike thinking is a hero and the thought police is?

                “I’ve galvanized resistance to Trumpism here at Reason, and I’ll make sure any newcomers to this blog that I don’t care that ENB shits all over is PROTECTED FOR THOSE NEWCOMERS DAMMIT!!!”

                LOLOLOLLOLOL

                1. “When the actual author uses “ugh” as an argument, this place is a blog so no biggie fuck new people thinking libertarians are vapid twats, , but otherwise IT’S HOLY GROUND AND I’M THE CLERIC”

                  AHAHAHAHAHAHAH GOD YOU CANT EVEN MAKE UP A DECENT LIE ABOUT YOUR MOTIVATIONS AHAHAHAHJA

            3. Holy delusions of grandeur Batman!

            4. You literally admit your purpose here is orange man bad. Hilarious.

              Please tell us again how government bureaucrats are sanctimonious and never be bad.

            5. I have noticed that since you, Mike Laursen, have become more active here, there are a fuckton more progtard sockpuppets spewing Donk bullshit talkingpoints at the pro-Trump “mean girls” contingent here.

            6. “My only purpose in being here is to bitch about the president if I catch somebody agreeing with him” – t. Mike Laursen

              What the fuck, man…

            7. If I want to hear ORANGE MAN BAD bullshit I’ll go to literally any other website that’s not openly conservative or libertarian, which is 99+% of them. The fact that you think you need to spew that shit here shows how fucking stupid you are.

  26. At a Trump 2020 rally in Lexington, Kentucky, Paul called upon media to out the whistleblower who first raised objections about Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

    The first politician to pander at a political rally and it’s sent me into a tailspin.

  27. I think if he were actually a real, um, whistleblower, then Rand would be all over protecting him… but I think everyone except the mainstream media – who’s in the tank for the dems – has outed the “whistleblower” as just another deep state toad who’s trying to obstruct the lawfully elected president.

    Rand Paul actually has the principles to understand that the ends don’t justify the means. Hell, I thought that was a big point of Reason’s whole philosophy, but I guess not even Reason is immune from TDS.

    1. What is your definition of a real whistleblower?

      1. Someone with actual first hand knowledge of actual misbehavior by a government official.

        It does NOT include a gossip-monger with no more than second hand rumor, who is upset in his little mind that government policy is not what he would pick himself.
        It definitely does NOT include a political operative trying to void a free election.

        1. If someone who did have firsthand knowledge came to this whistleblower, and the whistleblower passed the information along I’m not sure it is fair to characterize that as “gossip”.

          1. “If someone who did have firsthand knowledge came to this whistleblower, and the whistleblower passed the information along I’m not sure it is fair to characterize that as “gossip”.”

            Gossip.

          2. And yet, it is.

          3. How do you define gossip?

            1. My understanding is that the whistleblower is part of a management/reporting chain in a bureaucracy, so it’s not all that out of line for that person to have received reports and passed them along.

              1. Your understanding is wrong like everything else. Did you even bother to read the RCI report on him? The WB has been involved in multiple attempts to “get trump” including lying about putin ordering trump to fire Comey. Where I come from that is a pattern of lying. This is why he needs to come forward. There has been an active resistance whose primary issue is policy disagreement. The unelected bureaucrats are not our leaders despite what you think.

        2. Oh, yeah. And WHY didn’t the actual ‘primary’ sources file complaints? They were there and saw/heard nothing worthy of complaint. Yet the media orgasms over the gossip-monger.
          So we have three to five people with actual knowledge who saw nothing worthy of comment, and one political operative who provides a made up account as an excuse for the democrats to start an investigation.
          Sound familiar?

  28. Major new Drumpf scandal!

    All the available evidence indicates that Trump invented his claims about al-Baghdadi “whimpering” and “crying.” We shouldn’t get used to this…

    Everything about this operation stinks. First we learn Drumpf failed to inform Pelosi about it. Now we learn he’s fabricating details to smear a Muslim?

    #LibertariansAgainstIslamophobia

    1. You’re on a good role roll today, OBL!

  29. Being a “whistle blower” doesn’t and never has mean you are entitled to remain anonymous. In fact, it means just the opposite. The point of having the status is to prevent your bosses from retaliating against you for being one. That necessarily implies your bosses know you have made such a complaint and they cannot retaliate against you.

    The idea that a “whistle blower” should remain anonymous is absurd. It is also an attack on transparency and the integrity of the government. This guy says something happened, the Congress and the public have a right to know who he is and hear what he has to say.

    1. The idea that a “whistle blower” should remain anonymous is absurd.

      *** rising intonation ***

      What if it’s a dog whistle?

    2. Also love that nobody seems interested in that NSC guy’s history. Or why he felt i necessary to wear a uniform to the hearings since they do not wear them, ever, at the WH.

    3. The best way to protect someone from retaliation is to allow them to remain anonymous.

      The whistleblower isn’t even a key witness in the inquiries, so why is it so important to out the person?

      1. “The whistleblower isn’t even a key witness in the inquiries”

        You are breathtakingly stupid

      2. The best way to protect someone from retaliation is to allow them to remain anonymous.

        No it isn’t. If their bosses don’t know they are whistle blowers, then they can’t be held accountable for retaliation. That is the number one way retaliation claims are denied; showing the bosses didn’t know they were a whistle blower.

        The guy who becomes a whistle blower is already disliked. That is why he blows the whistle. So, the first thing that is done when they file such a report is to put their bosses on notice that he did. The whistle blower wants that because that means he can claim retaliation if they do anything to him. I have never seen a case where a whistle blower wanted to remain anonymous. It goes against the entire purpose of having whistle blower protection.

        Mike, you are completely ignorant of this matter. You need to try and learn something instead of just spewing talking points.

        1. You make a good point. Still why would there be a reason to expose a whistleblower beyond the person’s management chain?

          1. Because there is no law that says he is entitled to anonymity and the issue has become a Congressional issue. You can’t use his report as a basis to do something and then refuse to let the members of Congress and the public hear him testify. If members of Congress want him to testify, he should have to testify. His being a whistle blower doesn’t entitle him to immunity or to be able to refuse to testify in front of Congress if requested.

            They are trying to impeach the President based on his word. It defies all credulity to claim that doing so without the public and Congress ever hearing the person making the claim testify and be questioned in public is in any way a legitimate process.

            1. The part where you say they are trying but impeach Trump based on the whistleblower’s word. That statement would make more sense if there weren’t any other witnesses being examined.

              1. “…That statement would make more sense if there weren’t any other witnesses being examined.”

                That statement might make sense if the other witnesses were other than more gossip-mongers.

              2. It makes perfect sense. Just because there are other witnesses doesn’t mean this witness gets a pass.

                1. Since the whistleblower wasn’t a firsthand witness to anything, and was passing information others reported to him, I’m not sure there is much actual value in calling him as a witness.

                  1. IE, he’s of no value to begin with. Yet here we are.

                    1. So – maybe the whistleblower isn’t as central to the case as Trump & Co. are pretending?

                    2. Yes, exactly. He is not central to the case.

                    3. Shouldn’t use the word case. It is currently an inquiry.

                    4. Except Dems and the media made him that in the first place.

                      So he was important until he wasn’t.

                    5. Except Dems and the media made him that in the first place.

                      They publicized his existence and used that as the basis to launch the investigation, yes. If anyone tries to hang actual articles of impeachment on anonymous second-hand testimony, it will be political suicide.

                    6. Yet here we are.

                    7. Have you been paying attention to the leaks circle… 22 of the witnesses put of 25 are purveyors of 2nd hand info.

                    8. So, according to your accounting there are three first-hand witnesses.

              3. “look over here!”

              4. There are no ‘other’ witnesses at all.

                Because there ARE NO WITNESSES.

                The whistleblower heard something about the call from somebody.

                The witnesses WERE ON THE CALL.

                They APPROVED THE TRANSCRIPT.

                Which implicates no one in anything.

                Do you not get it?

                Like every single other Democrat/Leftist/Media plot to unseat Trump there is no ‘there’ there.

            2. You can’t use his report as a basis to do something and then refuse to let the members of Congress and the public hear him testify.

              Not just *can’t* you shouldn’t be able to. Congress is the authority which is being invoked when the whistle is blown. Asserting that they need anonymity from Congress implies that Congress is suspect and insisting that they should get it implies that there’s a higher authority that can/should grant it.

              It’s rather nakedly unelected state officials invoking their own power.

              1. insisting that they should get it implies that there’s a higher authority that can/should grant it.

                What does insisting they shouldn’t get it imply?

                1. That consistency and principles matter? That the right to face yoir accuser is fundamental to the American system? Now are you going to hide behind the sophistry that claims that this isn’t a criminal proceeding?

                  Nothing says “free minds” like hiding information and trusting hard core partisans in government. Welcome to the new wokatarianism. It’s progressivism with slightly fewer regulations but just as many star chambers and death by character assassinations.

          2. “…Still why would there be a reason to expose a whistleblower beyond the person’s management chain?…”

            something, something face your accuser something.

            1. Of course, but can we also acknowledge the great power imbalances that led to the idea of protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. It can’t be a totally foreign concept to everyone here.

              1. You keep saying “protection” like it’s the same thing as anonymity.

                He gets one, not the other.

              2. “Of course, but can we also acknowledge the great power imbalances that led to the idea of protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.”

                Felled by a tweet-storm?

            2. That doesn’t apply until it goes to the Senate for trial. And even then – it doesn’t legally apply since an impeachment trial is not a potential violation of rights (no one has the right to stay in elected office)

              Before that stage, it is all politics – and revealing a name of a whistleblower at that stage is obscene. It is pols sacrificing that person’s future to their games.

              1. Before that stage, it is all politics – and revealing a name of a whistleblower at that stage is obscene. It is pols sacrificing that person’s future to their games.

                That is idiotic. This person made the claim. They have no legal right to anonymity. You are asking the House to take actions on their word. They should have to say it under oath and be subject to questioning over it. It is obscene not to. Just because “its politics” doesn’t make ignoring any rules of transparency or not making any effort to find the truth okay.

                And you could say that any person who testified is risking their career. So, by your logic the entire thing should be done anonymously. What is so special about this asshole versus any other asshole who testifies?

                1. They have no legal right to anonymity.

                  Of course they do. That is why the R’s are jumping up and down demanding that someone else release the name. If they had no legal right to anonymity at this stage, then their info would already have been made public – R’s own the exec branch and are on that subcommittee that’s gotten the testimony – and they would currently be in the midst of being torn apart.

                  Just because “its politics” doesn’t make ignoring any rules of transparency or not making any effort to find the truth okay.

                  See. That statement is politics too. This is not an actual legal process. It is a surrealist painting by Magritte. A Gilbert & Sullivan operetta. Now maybe you are trying to paint the next scene as R’s being the holy sober defenders of THE LAW and transparency in government and making efforts to find the truth. Since I personally don’t find any of that remotely credible for the actual real-world R’s, I insist that you get off the damn stage trying to explain the next scene and just let the play unfold as it will.

                  1. No they do not. We settled that below. He has no claim to anonymity at all.

                    And as far as your second paragraph, you just admitted my point that the whole thing is a farce. The fact that you admit that and think that is okay just means you are a lunatic not that I am wrong.

                    1. We settled that below. He has no claim to anonymity at all.

                      No you didn’t ‘settle’ anything. And he obviously damn well does have a claim to anonymity which is why Rand Paul can say – We also now know the name of the whistleblower,” said Paul. “I say tonight to the media, ‘Do your job and print his name!’

                      He is NOT anonymous to Rand Paul. In all likelihood, his name is known by close to all the R’s in Congress. If he had no legal claim to anonymity at this stage, his name would now be public. It wouldn’t be up to Rand Paul to pretend to order the media around like he’s their fucking boss.

                    2. So you’re saying that Paul doesn’t have free speech rights? Amazing how furiously you’re fighting to hide his identity.

                  2. I know the original gossip’s name. You know, the one who worked with Schiff?

                    Eric Ciaramella.

              2. “That doesn’t apply”

                If impeachment is actually a political process, it sure as fuck does, otherwise you’re explaining why you violated due process, and no, “that doesn’t happen until the Senate hearings” won’t convince anyone it was a good idea not to adhere to due process and legal standards just because you technically didn’t have to.

        2. No it isn’t.

          Actual lawyers who work with whistleblowers disagree. The most effective protection for a whistleblower is to maintain anonymity.

          Of course I understand that the legal market environment is brutally competitive between actual lawyers v people like you who play lawyer on the Interwebs. So this could just be a ruse.

          1. the only whistle blowers who don’t want their name know are those who speak against the Clintons, Heck you don’t even want to be a third removed relative of said whistle blower.

          2. Hey dumb ass. That is a site about whistle blowing in the private sector not the government. Two totally different laws and systems. It is talking about people who report their employers’ criminal activity to the SEC or the government. Yeah, in those cases, the government doesn’t want to tell the employer that one of their employees has ratted them out.

            Here we are talking about where a government employee reports his section of the government to another section of the government. It is all the same organization. They don’t get anonymity and there are a long list of legal protections they get by becoming a whistle blower. So, the supervisors are told. They have to be told for the reasons I explain above. Moreover, there is no law or regulation that prevents their supervisor from being told.

            So, why don’t you just shut up and stop embarrassing yourself here.

            1. Lololol he totally shit the bed on that one ahahahahahhaaj

            2. hahaha. Am I threatening your lucrative business as a dog impersonating a lawyer on the Interwebs? Are you trolling for clients here?

              And yes they DO get anonymity unless/until the investigation passes certain stages because the OIG/OSC is not allowed to release identifying information to anybody outside the OIG without the whistleblowers permission. The reason for the whistleblower protection (which has only existed since 2012 so no real reason for anyone to believe Rump will comply with that law) is not to eliminate the anonymity but to ‘reassure’ whistleblowers of faster investigation/changes if they go public.

              If the whistleblower believes this current kerfuffle is all just politics and won’t ever get to even a full House vote, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to go public and huge risk for them in doing so since they will be torn apart like a baby in the middle of a pack of pit bulls. And partisan asswipes like you would absolutely applaud that part of the show.

              1. And yes they DO get anonymity unless/until the investigation passes certain stages because the OIG/OSC is not allowed to release identifying information to anybody outside the OIG without the whistleblowers permission. The reason for the whistleblower protection (which has only existed since 2012 so no real reason for anyone to believe Rump will comply with that law) is not to eliminate the anonymity but to ‘reassure’ whistleblowers of faster investigation/changes if they go public.

                Whistleblower protection has existed for decades not since 2012. The Whistle blower Protection Act was passed in 1989. What you are talking about is an PPD that Obama signed in 2012. PPD 19. That applies to people in the IC or who have access to classified information. Here is the PPD.

                http://www.va.gov/ABOUT_VA/docs/President-Policy-Directive-PPD-19.pdf

                There is nothing in there that says anything like what you are talking about. What PPD 19 did was set up a process for people who were claiming reprisal for being a whistle blower. It doesn’t give whistle blowers anonymity. It has nothing to do with the initial process. it is about people who allege retaliation.

                I am happy to explain this stuff but I will only do so if you will listen and at least try and be trainable.

                1. It’s amazing how the same idiots keep repeating their incorrect interpretations because Vox told them something. All jeff sock accounts, pod and now free have posted or discussed the wrong laws.

              2. “And yes they DO get anonymity”

                Incorrect.

          3. The fact that you not only got that completely wrong but had to be smug about it, is just awesome. Thanks a lot for making a complete fool of yourself and giving everyone on here a good laugh. Bravo!!

          4. “Actual lawyers”

            Well the actual law doesn’t care.

          5. So, then bosses can fire them because they are unaware that they are whistleblowers?

            Then what is the point of protections?

      3. The whistleblower is WHY THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

        But I forget that the NEW Libertarianism is to defer to the IC. Because they have the best of intentions…

      4. Are you getting paid to spew this idiocy or are you actually this fucking stupid?

  30. Between 1990 and 2016, the share of the world’s population with access to the internet rose from zero to 46 per cent. It is expected to rise to 52 per cent by 2020.

    And by 2025, 50% of *those* are expected to have had their personal data compromised.

  31. Regarding Rand Paul:

    I haven’t really been following the impeachment stuff, but doesn’t Rand Paul’s statements telling the media to print the whistle blower’s name, paired with his prior stances favoring increased protection of whistle blowers, indicate that he doesn’t really see this whistle blower as worthy of protection? Maybe he doubts that the whistle blower is really doing it out of a patriotic duty and might be a partisan. Maybe he knows something about this that we don’t. It could be that he simply has done a 180 and doesn’t give a shit about whistle blowers because of Trump.. but that seems to contradict everything he’s ever stood for. It would make more sense if there was something else going on that is influencing his thinking on the subject.

    The article seems to assume that Rand Paul is just reflexively protecting Trump and that his thought on the matter simply ends at “must protect Trump.” ENB never really contemplates that he might have a different view on this, which gives me the impression that she’s a shallow thinker on the subject. Maybe I’m missing some context.

    1. The protection afforded whistle blowers is against retaliation not being anonymous. There is nothing inconsistent about Paul’s position.

      1. That’s fair. I don’t think Rand Paul is being inconsistent either. ENB is asserting he is, and I think she hasn’t thought through her position, as indicated by her juvenile “ugh” before she presents her views on the subject.

      2. teh purpose of teh whistle blower laws are so they can come out in public and be protected. to bad it didn’t protect those that Obama arrested for whistle blowing but hey projection from those who do to those who don’t

    2. I could’ve sworn we already knew about a couple “whistleblowers” and they turn out to be Obama officials and CIA agents…

      I’m not sure why ENB is pushing “rollover and let us smear you” as a viable position

      1. “I’m not sure why ENB is pushing “rollover and let us smear you” as a viable position”

        That’s fair. I’m not “sure” either but I think we all have a good idea.

    3. Personally I thought it had been established a while ago that when it comes to Trump, ENB’s thinking is as shallow as a reflection pool.

  32. Rand Paul supports Trump? So what, plenty of people do who don’t like Trump or even agree with a lot of his policies, mainly because the alternative is so glaringly worse. I have a feeling Rand Paul made his choice after his Progtard neighbor attacked him. It doesn’t really matter what one side thinks when the other side believes the crime of your continued existence should be fixed by physical violence.

    1. “It doesn’t really matter what one side thinks when the other side believes the crime of your continued existence should be fixed by physical violence”

      The left, fully out in the open about stripping our first and second amendment rights, would gladly beat you into submission.

      1. And I’d gladly like to see them try. I don’t live in a place where the cops help Antifa.

    2. (raises hand)

      I don’t like Trump, didn’t vote for him, and won’t vote for him. However, I agree with about half his policies, think about a quarter of them are pointless, and the remaining quarter are damned stupid. Compare to his political opponents, though, where half their proposed policies are damned stupid, a quarter are mind-bogglingly stupid, and the remaining quarter are only pointless.

      1. I agree 100% on that, with the exception that I think I will vote for him in 2020. I didn’t in 2016, but unfortunately, if my choices are between “sometimes stupid and sometimes ok” and “always stupid and usually evil”, I’ll vote to prevent the second one.

  33. “Paul’s enthusiastic and near perpetual support for Trump actions continues to bum out many libertarians—who had hoped Rand would turn out more like his father”

    Spotting weasel words is a high school level exercise.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word#Forms

    And if you think Amash, who committed political suicide over his hatred of Trump, is an excellent example of “many” libertarians who are bummed out because Rand isn’t more like his father . . .

    Rand Paul voted against a Senate bill in 2016 that would have cut $772 billion from Medicaid–because of what it didn’t do. I denounced him for it at the time, but then I also denounced his father for voting against NAFTA.

    In fact, Rand Paul voting against cutting $772 billion in spending from a socialist program–because Kentucky is highly dependent on Medicaid and was going through an opioid epidemic–was a lot like his father voting against NAFTA–to fend off the threat of Ross Perot’s appeal to independent and conservative voters in Texas. Selling principles down the river out of political expedience seems to be a family tradition–not that I’d expect anything more from any politician.

    You know what isn’t necessarily unprincipled at all?

    Challenging the news to identify the source of a false allegation of a quid pro quo made by a secret operative within the CIA–which many Democrats Nancy Pelsoi and Adam Schiff are citing as a reason to overturn a presidential election.

    Pretending false allegations made by secret CIA operatives is sufficient evidence to overturn a presidential election is about as qualified as unprincipled as anything needs to be.

    1. Don’t we already know his name? Eric Ciaramella?

      Coming to a supposed libertarian publication to read articles in favor of the FBI and CIA is not something I want to get used to.

    2. Weasel words generate clicks.

      The most important goal in writing disposable internet trash is generating clicks.

      I’m feeling like a cynical asshole this morning.

      1. While true in the short term, look to the long list of progressive internet media that lived and died by the same sword.

        Deadspin, Buzzfeed, Vox, Vice, all circling the drain.

        Eventually people stop clicking because they know what they’ll get before they even click

      2. It didn’t used to be disposable trash.

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

        —-Lanny Friedlander

        Reason Magazine.

        Issue 1, Volume 1, May, 1968

        It stayed that way for at least 40-45 years. There are still writers here who work that way. I don’t always agree with everyone, and sometimes I disagree with Bailey, Doherty, Sullum, Walker, et. al. vehemently.

        But, yeah, there are other writers mixing their belligerent assertion and contradictions into the soup these days, and, yeah, that sometimes makes the shit we see here like everywhere else.

        Yesterday I linked to a Gallup poll showing that Americans’ trust in the media is trending down towards where it was in 2016, when Trump was elected. News media properties continue to struggle against the flood of new media that’s available to consumers these days. One of the ways to differentiate themselves might be on quality. I’m just sayin’.

        1. +100

          yup. reason became more popular BECAUSE it was one of the few media outlets that worked on principles rather than some political narrative.

          That is how I found it.

    3. Ken…..does anything in the statutes defining ‘whistleblower’ (which I deny this bureaucrat actually is), require anonymity for the person making the allegation?

      I do not think there is a legal requirement for anonymity. If there is not, it simply shows much of the media cast their lot with Team D. So much for being guardians of democracy.

      1. There is absolutely no legal requirement or entitlement for this guy to remain anonymous.

      2. There are principles that journalists defend in terms of not revealing their sources. We didn’t know who Deep Throat was at the time, but he was mostly showing Woodward and company where to look for evidence and whom to interview. Deep Throat was the map to the treasure rather than the treasure itself.

        They want us to believe the allegations of a CIA operative whose allegation so far–regarding evidence of a quid pro quo–have turned out to be bogus.

        Disregarding his testimony at this point doesn’t require any degree of faith, but if they actually want to impeach the President over this “whistle blower’s” unproven allegations, they better have more than what they have now. Protecting the identity of informants may be a principle of journalism, but NOT overturning a presidential election on the basis of anonymous sources, whose evidence has turned out to be factually incorrect, is a principle, too.

  34. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.2 billion

    Still stagnating in the $58,000,000,000 to $61,000,000,000 range. Because of the high-tariff / low-immigration #DrumpfRecession.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Actually, your figures show he broke out of the $61 billion range.

      1. Whatever. He’s only up $1.79 billion this year.

        Not. Good. Enough.

        Koch / Reason libertarianism exists to promote a rapid increase in the net worths of people who already have tens of billions of dollars. Not to watch them add a pathetic one or two billion each year. Mr. Koch would be at $70 billion or $80 billion in a Hillary Clinton economy.

        #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

  35. Also, “ugh” should never, ever, be printed in a serious publication. Save that shit for your twitter feed and text messages. Elevate your craft. Be professional.

    1. Serious publication?

      LOL

    2. It’s a blog entry.

      1. A blog entry that comes off like a bratty teenager wrote it. Great.

        1. Don’t disagree about ENB’s writing style.

        1. Save2K said, “Save that shit for a Twitter feed.” A blog is about the same level of journalism as a Twitter feed.

          1. Ah, you’re retarded.

    3. “ugh” is for bloggers that are trained in livejournal and spergy facebook posts. Not journalists.

      1. Or a journalist, when she is writing a morning roundup blog entry rather than a serious piece of journalism.

        1. Good to know we can always count on you to set the bar as low as possible.

  36. I think you meant:

    Between 1990 and 2016, the share of the world’s population with who’s every movement, thought and interaction is tracked by government and corporate actors around the world rose from zero to 46 per cent. It is expected to rise to 52 per cent by 2020.

  37. “…Ugh…”
    Seek help.

  38. Follow the money:
    The market does NOT like uncertainty, but that’s limited to factors which affect the market, not some victim of TDS whining about the walls closing in, for instance. It’s a pretty sure bet that impeachment would affect the market, given unkowns about the new occupant of the office:

    “Dow hits record high amid U.S.-China trade optimism
    The Dow is now up nearly 18 percent for the year.”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/dow-hits-record-high-rises-more-100-points-amid-us-n1076126

    There’s a lot of money saying Trump isn’t going anywhere.

    1. They’re saying he’s not going anywhere this quarter. 😉

  39. “WASHINGTON—U.S. and Chinese officials are actively considering rolling back some tariffs to clinch the partial trade deal under negotiation, according to people familiar with the talks.

    “If there’s a deal, [removing] tariffs will be part of it,” a senior administration official said late Monday.

    . . . .

    The “phase one” pact would include Chinese purchases of American farm goods, rules to deter currency manipulation and some provisions to protect intellectual property and open up Chinese industries to U.S. firms, officials have said. “

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-consider-rolling-back-tariffs-as-part-of-initial-trade-deal-11572924715?

    This puts pro-trade capitalists in a funny spot. If Trump doesn’t manage to get this deal done, it’ll makes me more likely to support him over Hugo Chavez clones Sanders or Warren–because neither one of them has any intention of freeing up trade with China. I’m hoping that fact is making the Chinese more eager to sign a deal with President Trump, too. If they don’t make a deal with President Trump, they may not get another one until Sanders and Warren are satisfied that every Chinese worker is paid on par with Americans and the LGBTQI+ community in Xian Xiang is being well-treated by the Communist Party.

    On the other hand, if President Trump makes a deal, it may open him up to criticism by Sanders and Warren in rust belt battleground states, where people continue to support Trump, in no small part, because he followed through on his promise to have a trade war with China. I know those rust belt blue collar workers are doing really well in terms of unemployment, the labor participation rate, and steady gains in wage growth for unskilled labor, but I’m not sure they attribute that to Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts like they should. They may think it’s all about the trade war.

    I hope President Trump’s “America First” instincts will come through. I think he really believes that getting this trade war out of the way will be good for the U.S. economy, and he has willingly taken political risks doing what’s best for the United States rather than his own reelection before (see the withdrawal from Syria as an example). However, everybody from Steve Bannon to somewhere to the left of his daughter must be telling him right now that being in a trade war with East Asia plays well in Peoria.

    If and when Trump manages to secure a better deal with China than we had before, watch for Reason writers to condemn him for it. If and when Trump manages to secure a better deal with China than we had before, I’ll be thrilled to confess that I was wrong and Trump was right–if it means an end to the trade war. I’ll still think it was a bad risk, but if we foolishly bet our economy on a roll of the dice, I’ll be glad if we win.

  40. I don’t care if they expose the ‘whistleblower’ or not but how are you going to impeach a guy based on anonymous unverifiable information? Seems ludicrous. If you want to impeach, you gotta testify what you know. That’s pretty basic if you ask me.

    1. They’re going to drag this out as political theater as long as possible, while hiding everything except what they want their media mouthpieces to divulge, in order to hurt Trump in 2020.

      And Reason will chew up and spit out the same bullshit their progressive buddies pump out because they hate Trump

      1. “They’re going to drag this out as political theater as long as possible, while hiding everything except what they want their media mouthpieces to divulge, in order to hurt Trump in 2020.”

        Wasn’t the vote last week to make the hearings public? Or was it a vote to maybe vote on whether the hearings should be public?
        Whatever, according to pod and our other resident TDS victims, it was the beginning of the end for Trump!

        1. “Wasn’t the vote last week to make the hearings public? Or was it a vote to maybe vote on whether the hearings should be public?”

          The terms were set that they can selectively interview in public and private as they please

    2. By voting to impeach him, that’s how.
      They can vote to impeach for spitting on the sidewalk. It is the trial in the Senate that actually counts.
      I would like to see the Senate go ahead and vote ‘not guilty’ now, so the House can get back to the people’s business. You know, budgets, deficits, and all that trivia.

  41. The popularity and quick rise of TikTok “is forcing Americans for the first time to consider living in a world influenced by a Chinese-backed social media network.”

    Hunh? I don’t have to use TikTok much less any other social media network.

    1. I doubt TikTok will continue to rise in popularity if they start telling U.S. teens that they can’t say what they want on the platform unless it is approved by the communist party in China.

      This is a non-story and a non-issue unless journalists want to start covering the data privacy angle.

  42. “I know this is gonna piss a whole bunch of people off but Nope. I’m done with Rand,” tweeted libertarian podcaster Jen Monroe. “He’s no different than any other garden variety Republican.”

    Of course he is. He’s one of the best in the Senate on many of the issues libertarians care about.

    This person is just bitching because he is supporting his party’s presidential candidate which is what party members do. This is just politics, not libertarian vs. non-libertarian. It’s a big difference.

    1. ooooooh podcaster Jen Monroe is upset.

  43. My favorite part of Trump Seasons 1-3 has to be all of this political theater being shown for what it is: reality TV. It’s all such grandstanding bullshit and “BREAKING NEWS.”

    Sevo makes a great point, the market gives no fucks about the “impeachment inquiry” as we again approach an all time record high. And most people don’t care either, it’s business as usual.

    The CIA invented the term “propaganda” and I’m glad they are now sending out “whistleblowers” to continue to entertain us and make the 2020 election look close.

    Democracy dies in Primetime

    1. I’m more of an issues guy and I’ve completely tuned out of the impeachment inquiry. I don’t even read articles about it, its just so boring and nothing is really going to come out of it. I feel like every minute I spend informing myself on it is wasted time since it won’t matter.

      I suspect a lot of Americans feel the same way I do.

      1. ^ This. The butthurt on both sides is entertaining, but that’s about the only value in it.

        1. Almost as entertaining as seeing how hypocritical libertarians have become.

      2. I was interested in the story for a while when it looked like there might actually be something, but the longer it dragged on the more apparently it became that it’s all bullshit political maneuvering for the 2020 election.

        I mean, it’s still interesting to watch Congressional Democrats cut their own throats in slow motion but it couldn’t be any more obvious that Democrats realize that their field of potential Presidential candidates are so awful and terrible that a major deflection from them needs to exist.

        Seriously, every single moment they’re talking about impeachment is a moment they’re not talking about how utterly unelectable Warren and Bernie are, and how clear it’s become that Biden has some serious emerging mental problems.

        It’s not just sheer hate for Trump, although that’s obviously a factor, it’s also because Democrats know that Progressivism doesn’t actually sell to most Americans.

  44. Rand Paul Wants Whistleblower Outed. Libertarians Want the Old Rand Paul Back

    I prefer him how he is, which is the same as he was. Part of being a whistleblower is putting your name to your claims.

    1. If those project veritas goofs actually provide evidence for something we don’t already know for once, this would be the perfect time.

      CNN is biased? who knew?
      Planned Parenthood sells body parts and mutilates children? DUH!

      Tell us something we don’t know, because no one believes that guy committed suicide

      1. “It depends on your definition of ‘suicide’.”
        – Anon

      2. You see the military dog handler the other day on the news who ended his segment with “Epstein didn’t commit suicide? Everyone knows its a cover-up, and everyone wants to know the truth.

    2. Three years ago was in the middle of the Presidential Campaign. The fact that ABC killed it means that Epstein didn’t lead to any Republicans. He was damaging to Democrats and Democratic donors or ABC would not have killed the story.

      1. Epstein and Bill Clinton had a relationship. Bill rode Lolita Express to that fuck island multiple times.

        That was bad new for Hillary during Election 2016. No fucking way was that going to comes from the Propaganda team for the DNC.

        1. If memory serves, Trump had some connections to both Clinton and Epstein as well. Just saying. It seems that in this one area, it wasn’t worth lighting the Clintons on fire just to smear Trump, which is curious.

    3. Trump is right: the Fake News Media are the enemy of the American people.

      1. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  45. Read Shikha Dalmia’s latest column at The Week on “the real reason Kamala Harris is tanking” in the polls.

    Without clicking I am going to guess that it is because everyone is racist and has nothing to do with her history as a prosecutor, lies/distortions, and generally distasteful demeanor.

    1. Fuck it I’ll take the hit. Be right back.

    2. Actually, the article argues the exact opposite, quite literally.

      Its a good article.

      1. He’s right. It’s not bad. No really.

      2. IT’S A TRAP!

      3. Dalmia is mostly only terrible when it comes to her immigration articles. She’s not a complete dunce, but when she is it’s staggering idiocy.

    3. I clicked and was surprised…your summary is about the exact opposite of what Dalmia states. Probably one of the best Dalmia articles I’ve read. Specifically, since Harris claims that racism and sexism is what is costing her Dalmia asserts that would then mean she thinks that her Dem constituents are sexist and racist since they are the polled. Not a good look to attack your base.

  46. President Donald Trump “has great courage” and “faces down the fake media every day,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) on Monday.

    One of those statements is true.

    1. Fortunately, it’s all a single statement.

      1. Only a complete racists would examine a statement in English by using the rules of English grammar.

    2. Since Rand is alt-right, as created and justified by his father, and Trump was a psycho liar about who started the violence in Charlottesville … it all fits

  47. Since Congress is in an investigating mood, I’d like to see an investigation into the matter of unconstitutional payments being authorized by Congress to Ukraine.

    There is no clause in the Constitution that permits this. Surely a number of members need to be expelled over this.

  48. Uhhhhhhh, the so-called “whistleblower”
    has already been outed: he’s a far-left Deep State twerp named Eric Ciaramella.

    Yes, I realize most people don’t know this yet, but most people are kind of stupid and ignorant,

    1. Ten bucks says his name comes up in the IG report and that he ends up getting indicted by the whole Barr investigation. Think about it. Who do you use as a “whistle blower”? You use a guy you figure is about to be indicted by Barr so that when he is you can claim that the indictment is just Trump going after his political enemies.

      As a side note, Ciarmella is some skinny beardo with a constant smug look on his face and a low testosterone problem. Why do these people always live down to the worst stereotypes?

  49. Uhhhhhhh, the so-called “whistleblower”
    has already been outed: he’s a far-left Deep State twerp named Eric Ciaramella.

    ALIE

    AND NOW … IGNORANT

    Yes, I realize most people don’t know this yet, but most people are kind of stupid and ignorant,

    Yes, I realize the stupid and ignorant (Trumpard)s have NO CLUE that every major point of the whistleblower has been confirmed, many several times, by sworn testimony from a variety of witnesses, many from the Trump Administration)

    1. Shut up Hihn. None of it has been confirmed and has been contradicted by everyone who actually heard the call. Go tell lies to people who will believe you.

      1. “every major point of the whistleblower has been confirmed,”

        And Eric Ciaramella isn’t the leaker.

        He lies (or doesn’t know) about Ciaramella being the leaker, but then thinks we care about his take on the leak.

        1. And Eric Ciaramella isn’t the leaker

          BLEW IT!!
          PROVE HE’S A FAR-LEFT DEEP STATER … THAT HE WAS BORN IN KENYA …AND TRUMP DID NOT CAMPAIGN ON A 60% TAX CUT FOR HIMSELF (AND A TINY SLIVER OF THE 1%).

          He’d have been a billionaire … already loopholed out of the corporate income tax …then added a 15% top income tax rate for himself! What’s YOUR top income tax rate? 🙂

      2. COMMON KNOWLEDGE – UKRAINE AID WAS FROZEN BEFORE THE PHONE CALL! Are you related to Ken Schultz?

        None of it has been confirmed and has been contradicted by everyone who actually heard the call. Go tell lies to people who will believe you.

        While you were off the planet: Or watching Fox News (same thing) …

        “Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president and was alarmed, testified that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript.

        ****”The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.”

        Technically that’s even CRAZIER than the whistle blower!
        Do a google search for Vidman’s name. Then select “videos” and count how many REAL news sources reported it.

        While you were napping TODAY ….

        “WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

        The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union … confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

        ” more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that ((Ukraine)) needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

        … Mr. Sondland testified last month that he was only repeating what Mr. Trump had told him, leaving open the question of whether he believed the president..

        Rats
        Sinking ship

        Now, at the top of your lungs, scream “DEEP STATE.” and “TRUMP HAD THE RIGHT TO SHOOT THAT GUY ON FIFTH AVENUE; STOP TRYING TO REVERSE HIS ELECTION!”

        Anything else?

    2. “ALIE”

      AHAHAHAH YOU LOOK SO STUPID IT’S TOTALLY TRUE LOLOOOL

      1. So cringe inducing, you could almost smell his pee stained diaper.

    3. I’m surprised the staff didn’t take away your internet privileges after your break a couple nights ago.

      1. “You can calculate the worth of a man by the nature of his enemies…”
        -Gustave Flaubert

  50. You may have heard that Pacific Gas & Electric is in bankruptcy court–because the state’s environmental regulations, etc. make it impossible to adequately maintain their equipment, and that led them to killing innocent people over and over again. Now, there’s no way they can guarantee that the next windstorm won’t blow overgrown forest into their power lines without California changing the way it regulates such things, and there’s no way PG&E can afford to continue to distribute power to the people of California if they have to pay out all the money they owe to the families of the people they killed. And it’s not just the people they’ve killed in the past that they have to worry about. The fact is that their power lines will continue to start fires and kill people for the foreseeable future, so not only does Pacific Gas & Electric need the State of California to bail them out of all their liabilities now, they also need Sacramento to pass a law limiting their liabilities for all the people they kill in the future.

    What to do?

    Well, some really smart people in local government have been thinking it over, and they came up with a new solution I don’t think anyone’s ever thought of before–they want the government to take the company over and run it themselves!

    “Under the coalition’s buyout proposal, bonds worth as much as $50 billion would be sold to finance a buyout of the big utility, whose territory spreads across 70,000 square miles of Northern and Central California. Customers would repay bonded indebtedness through their monthly energy bills.

    A customer-owned utility would set its own rates but would be subject to safety rules set by federal and state officials. Profits from utility operations would be reinvested in the utility’s gas-and-electric networks, not paid out to shareholders as dividends. The utility paid out roughly $7 billion in dividends in the past decade, Mr. Liccardo said, whereas “a model that aligns financial interests with the public interest of our communities is deeply desired by all of us.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-mayors-join-campaign-to-make-pg-e-a-cooperative-11572955201?

    Actually, this “solution” has been tried millions of times by millions of people, and it always ends in tears.

    How will investing profits in the company change California’s laws that make it practically impossible to distribute power without killing people?

    If you ask a question like that, you must be a stupid redneck–and you probably voted for that xenophobe, racist, rapist, Trump, too, didn’t you?

    DIDN’T YOU!

    1. The article is behind a paywall, but I noticed it talked about turning PG&E into a cooperative. Interesting, there’s absolutely nothing about being a cooperative that necessitates the government getting involved. In fact, close to 60% of the U.S. landmass is served by rural electric distribution cooperatives buying power from generation and transmission cooperatives. These are all member-owned companies not owned by the government.

      The cooperative business model is a fascinating and, in my opinion, a fantastic development in the capitalist system.

      However, converting PG&E into a tax-exempt 501(c)(12) probably won’t be that popular with California’s voters.

      1. oddly PG&E did start as a cooperative in a small mining town, it just grew too big. PG&E recently returned some of its original hydro power back over to the local water supplier who are now thinking of making it a local electric utility. I hope something like that happens all local generation and utilization so that we have control again not Sacrmento

    2. The moral of the story here?

      Not only would Sacramento hand the people of California a bill for $50 billion rather than let PG&E cut down overgrown forest, Sacramento is also figuring out how to compensate all the people whose families will die in the future because they refuse to let PG&E cut down overgrown forest, too.

      They’re basically saying, “Yeah, we’re setting aside so much to pay the families of the people who burn because of PG&E’s power lines–but that’s the price of saving our forests from logging!

      These headlines are like uncovering a study by a car company comparing the cost of a recall vs. the cost of just paying out the families of the dead. This should be enraging people.

      1. They’re basically saying, “Yeah, we’re setting aside so much to pay the families of the people who burn because of PG&E’s power lines–but that’s the price of saving our forests from logging!

        Ford Motor Company did the same kind of thing regarding the design of the Pinto. Saying “we are okay with people dying and have budgeted for it” used to be a bad thing.

        1. They throw engineers in prison for that.

          There are laws that prevent government entities from choosing civil engineering contracts on the basis of cost–for that very reason. They don’t want you figuring people’s lives into the financial equation.

          1. Yes, an engineer who is doing this would go to prison for a very long time. But it shows beyond all doubt that environmentalism is a cult. Even when it results in harming the environment and killing people, they still won’t back off of their beliefs. If that is not a cult, then nothing is.

            1. A death cult. Always has been and always will be. The universe wants to kill you. Nature wants to kill you. The most pro-human thing you can do is get OUT of nature.

              1. I read an article just today on how there are ‘too many people’, essentially just rebranding Paul Ehrlich even while his predictions never came to anything at all.

                So, yes, a death cult. Progressivism hasn’t changed much in over 100 years.

    3. They probably would have saved money by just cutting down the trees and letting the state sue them, rather than pay out tens of millions for loss of life compensation.

      1. The trees are so much more important to them than the people.

        And its billions.

        The Camp fire alone killed 85 people and burned down 18,000 buildings. PG&E estimates that the liabilities on that one fire alone will cost them $30 billion.

        If the government wants an operating electric utility in California, they’ll have to pony up that $30 billion. That’s the cost of keeping the company solvent after their liabilities.

        A libertarian capitalist might suggest that the bankruptcy court should auction PG&E’s assets off to the highest bidder, but no one in their right mind would pay to own PG&E’s distribution assets right now. They’re a liability waiting to happen. The forests they go through are so overgrown because of California’s environmental regulations, it’s just a matter of time until the wind blows more brush into their lines and starts another fire. That’s why they had to shut power off to millions of people over the last couple of months every time the wind kicks up.

        It’s a liability. No one in their right mind wants to own those assets until the State of California gives the utility to right to trim the forests around their power lines. Power cannot be distributed safely because of those environmental regulations. The distribution lines because of that liability are worth less than zero.

        30% of California’s voters voted for Trump in 2016. I don’t understand why my fellow Californians would continue to vote for Democrats after being treated this way. The Democrats in Sacramento are monsters.

    4. because the state’s environmental regulations, etc. make it impossible to adequately maintain their equipment, and that led them to killing innocent people over and over again

      That’s the PG&E narrative. No other utility in the state is having these problems, and the problems happen more in scrubby areas than in forested areas.

      I’m not even convinced that PG&E is has been actively prevented from trimming back trees – they recently changed their own policy on how far back to trim vegetation to prevent fire.

      Forest management regulations need to be rolled back, for sure, but PG&E also needs to sink some capital into maintenance.

      But on your general point, I think you’re correct that the state taking over PG&E doesn’t mean the maintenance gets done or that the vegetation gets cut back – it just grants full sovereign immunity to the utility.

  51. What if…
    Those alleging “ Abuse of Power”
    are abusing power??

    1. Who will abuse the abusers?

      1. Annie Lennox?

    2. Democrats *and* Republicans abusing power is business as usual in Washington, D.C.

      1. ^ This.

        The disease of partisanship is deciding you need to side with one of these groups of shitstains.

  52. Rand is trapped. His base is largely the alt-right which was hatched from the mouth of his father,

    Don’t forget, Rand shutdown the government over spending increases, citing his concern for deficits.

    Then voted for tax cuts with nearly TWICE the deficit impact!
    I never saw his reason (never looked). I HOPE Rand is not one of those alt-right doofuses who say “tax cuts let me keep more of my own money” … iWTF? I’s money STOLEN from your own kids and grandkids if not matched with spending cuts. DUH
    Adding taxes and debt to your own kids … without their vote or approval. What a parent/grandparent .. even screwing the unborn.

    When HIS President campaigned on paying off the entire debt … in 8 years. Instead, Trump has added ALMOST as much new 8-year debt (CBO 2024 forecast) than Obama added AFTER 8 years, Thank you Rand Paul (/sarc)

    1. Not totally true. Your children can move to another country or hedge against inflation with their savings. Debauching the currency appears to be inevitable to pay off the national debt but your children will be better off in the future individually if you individually pay fewer taxes now.

      1. WOW! Self-deportation!
        But that would mean a huge tax increase, so ….
        And increase the burden o all the remaining Americans.

        So, you are one who “justifies” tax cuts with no spending cuts.
        You sold me! WE can simply repeal ALL federal taxes and add a few quadrillion dollars of new debt. No problemo!

        Ooops. You ignored the higher interest expense.
        I’ll stay libertarian! 🙂

        1. It’s not my debt. It’s not our debt. it’s THEIR debt.

        2. You’ve never been libertarian, shitstain.

          1. *smirk*

            The prime value for libertarian is … NON-AGGRESSION. We never launch personal assaults

            My campaign for state insurance commissioner, Libertarian Party, Washington State, where I had been Executive Director of the state party.
            http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000905&slug=4040641

          2. *smirk*

            The prime value for libertarian is … NON-AGGRESSION. We never launch unprovoked assault, physical, verbal or print.

            See this quote from me, cited by Center for a Stateless Society , which means, umm anarchist. https://c4ss.org/content/21470
            From the WASHINGTON LIBERTARIAN, which I also edited as the State Director.

          3. *smirk*

            You obviously have no clue what libertarian even means!.
            Our core value is NAP, the Non-aggression Principle … which means we never launch unprovoked assaults (physical, verbal or print) … which are so common on your Authoritarian Right, as you’ve proven here. Yet again

            Check the web archive of my published writing. The sections on … Taxes … Health Care … Education … Federal Deficit/Budget.
            http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

            Especially “Reinventing Federalism” — where EACH state’s voters would structure their own federalism, decide which “safety net” programs to FULLY control both management and funding, the rest 100% federal. Currently,with such programs run from two or more levels of government, NOBODY can be held accountable. That’s intentional.

            This would shift the incentive to better management and spending cuts, for their own state’s voters. THAT is what we libertarians SHOULD still be promoting … competing governments … instead of clever slogans from atop an Ivory Tower.

            Every ten years. voters would choose again, state vs federal, forcing each level of government to compete for what they seek most – power.

            Any questions? On any of the many topics?

          4. *smirk*

            You obviously have no clue what libertarian even means!.
            Our core value is NAP, the Non-aggression Principle … which means we never launch unprovoked assaults (physical, verbal or print) … which are so common on your Authoritarian Right, as you’ve proven here. Yet again

            Many of your fellow authoritarians sneer at that, claiming I’ve said that “words are weapons of force.”
            To allay their ignorance, I’ve collected these:

            Verbal aggressiveness is viewed as a skill deficiency whereby an individual lacks the verbal skills required to deal with normal disagreements and everyday frustrations.”

            Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

            Cyberbullying> The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

            StalkerPerson who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention.

            psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
            2. Many Trumpsters
            3. Many authoritarians, both left and right

            I shall soon add you to the Rogue’s Gallery of Reason Thugs
            I’ve already granted you two paases. This is Strike Three, you’re in
            Several listed thugs say this is my “enemies” list, making me the aggressor … instead of them … by laughingly claiming “proud to be on the list” (of assholes) … which is why I’ve included the “psychopath” definition.

            And … NOW YOU KNOW WHAT A LIBERTARIAN IS!

      1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        Did I trigger Precious Snowflake again?

        YOU want to control what readers can think and read.
        Authoritarian

        I post FACTS … with LINKS … so people can judge for themselves. Don’t really give a shit if they agree or disagree.
        Libertarian.

        PLEASE continue helping me show the difference.

        Will THIS trigger the snowflake?

        1. @TheLibertyTruthTeller Please fuck off and die Hihn. We know who you are you scum sucking asshole, you only post FACTS and LINKS to sites and other places that confirm your positions i.e. leftard fringe sites. No your the one that is triggered, only SJW fags can be triggered, nice try, leftard. With your response YOUR the one that is triggered, faggot.

          1. We know who you are you scum sucking asshole, you only post FACTS and LINKS to sites and other places that confirm your positions

            THE SUPREME COURT!

            leftard fringe sites. … nice try, leftard.

            THIS is what you “replied” to

            Check the web archive of my published writing. The sections on … Taxes … Health Care … Education … Federal Deficit/Budget.
            http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

            Especially “Reinventing Federalism” — where EACH state’s voters would structure their own federalism, decide which “safety net” programs to FULLY control both management and funding, the rest 100% federal. Currently,with such programs run from two or more levels of government, NOBODY can be held accountable. That’s intentional.

            This would shift the incentive to better management and spending cuts, for their own state’s voters. THAT is what we libertarians SHOULD still be promoting … competing governments … instead of clever slogans from atop an Ivory Tower.

            Every ten years. voters would choose again, state vs federal, forcing each level of government to compete for what they seek most – power.

            Any questions? On any of the many topics?

            I just PROVED you wrong.

            After triggering you — into a FAR nastier unprovoked assault than any triggered liberal I’ve seen.

            Behold the thuggery of the Authoritarian Right.
            Says freedom loving libertarians are scum-sucking assholes, leftards and faggots.

          2. THIS is what libertarians are

            https://reason.com/2019/11/05/rand-paul-wants-whistleblower-outed-libertarians-want-the-old-rand-paul-back/#comment-7999646

            You obviously have no clue what libertarian even means!.
            Our core value is NAP, the Non-aggression Principle … which means we never launch unprovoked assaults (physical, verbal or print) … which are so common on your Authoritarian Right, as you’ve proven here. Yet again

    2. Rand shutdown the government over spending increases

      Ok. Right.

      Then voted for tax cuts

      Right.

      with nearly TWICE the deficit impact

      The level of taxation takes priority over the level of spending which takes priority over the deficit. Is this difficult to understand?

      1. The level of taxation takes priority over the level of spending which takes priority over the deficit. Is this difficult to understand?

        I understand — do you? –that you, like Rand, don’t give a shit about the debt … stealing from your own children … increasing their financial obligations …. EXACTLY AS I SAID.

        I’ll try to dumb this down. Starting with a $1000 deficit, compare $100 higher spending vs a $100 tax cut.

        HIGHER SPENDING
        $1,000 deficit + 100 higher spending = $1,100 deficit

        TAX CUT
        $1,000 deficit + 100 tax cut = $1,100 deficits

        $1100 = $1100. Is THIS difficult to understand?

        How ’bout this?
        Thomas Jefferson said you have NO RIGHT to increase the debt … by even a penny … an ANY future generation. Was HE too stoopid to understand you?

        (Basically, NO debt rollover. ALL new debt must be fully repaid within 20 years.

        He was in France during the Constitutional Convention, sent a lengthy letter to Madison ,… having greatly expanded the “consent of the governed” principle. Short version.

        Earth belongs to the living. NO generation has ANY right to bind ANY future generation … on anything … using two examples, debt and a government.

        So … where in HELL do you have ANY right to make ANY commitments on ANYONE, in ANY future generation … solely to line your own pocket? .
        Is the question difficult to understand?

        THAT is a critical boundary, between libertarians and authoritarians. Why not join us, on the freedom train. Your own descendants will profit IMMEDIATELY.

        Or remain a looter. Your choice.

  53. ‘Step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower!'”

    Ugh.

    I’m told by a very reliable unnamed source that they overheard someone else talking about a phone conversation in which ENB admitted to being a poopy pants. Unfortunately I’m sworn to secrecy about the name of this courageous individual.

    1. oops, messed up italics there

    2. Ugh, I heard she wants to face her accuser. Ugh *rolls eyes*

  54. >>Paul’s enthusiastic and near perpetual support for Trump actions continues to bum out many libertarians

    I’m no card-carrier but maybe Rand dislikes (R) and despite the “many libertarians” sees T as an (R)-bulldozer

  55. What is really interesting is the twists and turns the Republicans will go through to avoid addressing the accusations being made against President Trump. They have talked about process and now moved back to talk about the whistle blower, an individual who was irrelevant the minute the WH released the transcript notes. What Rand Paul and other Republicans will not talk about is was there a quid pro quo and if one was offered what are the consequences?

    1. There is nothing interesting here. There is only the same boring leftist trolls telling the same tired fucking lies. No one gives a shit that Trump told the Ukrainians it was okay to stop the Biden kids from robbing them blind. And no amount of lying and spinning is going to change that.

      1. What do you mean when you say, “told the Ukrainians it was okay…”?

    2. If the Dems are going to advance his testimony as evidence, the R’S can impeach him. The Dems, by insisting that the testimony of their witnesses is relevant to the hearing, put them all in play.

    3. “What is really interesting is the twists and turns the Republicans will go through to avoid addressing the accusations being made against President Trump.”

      If you’ve seen evidence of a quid pro quo, please link to it.

      Otherwise, you’re full of shit.

    4. Moderation….You stated: What is really interesting is the twists and turns the Republicans will go through to avoid addressing the accusations being made against President Trump.

      Ok, I’ll bite. Name the accusations.

      I’ll address one right now: Quid Pro Quo. I hate to break this to you, but it is absolutely legal and has been done by every POTUS since 1789. Hell, even Congress gets in on the act. You think all those contributions are given in the expectation of nothing in return? Really? Quid pro quo is as old as the Republic. It is not merely a stretch to call illegal….it is contorting.

      1. In this case, it matters a lot what the nature of the quid pro quo was. That is, it matters that it was basically seeking the Ukraine to give Trump a present of a non-monetary contribution to his campaign — free opposition research.

        1. The nature of the quid pro quo is really a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? Your assertion that POTUS Trump was basically seeking the Ukraine to give Trump a present of a non-monetary contribution to his campaign — free opposition research could just as easily be interpreted as POTUS Trump asked Ukraine to look into who fucked with our 2016 elections, and who are those people connected with.

          Impeachment worthy? Not a chance.

          Look, if you want the guy removed from office, you’ll need clear and unequivocal evidence to bring to the American people. We’ve been waiting three years, and there is bupkis.

          1. First, what he did is EXTORTION. See the Hobbs Act.
            And bring yourself up to date on what MAJOR witnesses have stated … under oath.

            I summarized MY view of the two most explosive ones on this page.
            https://reason.com/2019/11/05/rand-paul-wants-whistleblower-outed-libertarians-want-the-old-rand-paul-back/#comment-7998855

            Personally, I’d impeach him for his INSANE BULLSHIT on who launched the violence in. Lying to defend violence and aggression by fucking nazis and white nationalists, is certainly a high crime or misdemeanor.

            At a personal level, Jared and Ivanka are Jewish for chrissakes.

            1. Seek help for your mental illness.

              1. Right-wing THUGS run around insulting people … for the same reason they’ve burned books and censored everything.

                Plus they”re IGNORANT, and that’s all they can do!
                When he DID say something moyte … HE GOT HIS ASS KICKED
                AS PROVEN HERE
                https://reason.com/2019/11/05/rand-paul-wants-whistleblower-outed-libertarians-want-the-old-rand-paul-back/#comment-7999384

                NOW THE THUG IS PUNISHING ME FOR KICKING HIS ASS, AND EXPOSING THAT STUPIDITY

                NOW THE WHINY PUSSY SAYS THE HOBBS ACT DOES NOT EXIST! … COWARDLY EVASION OF AN INCON-VEEEEEEEN-YENT FACT.

                *** Also a total dumbfuck on Charlottesville! PROOF!
                ***Now Finrod defends VICIOUS ASSAULTS by neo-nazis and white supremacists (vomit

                See part 2

                1. Part 2

                  Initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking with clubs, against peaceful protesters
                  “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
                  Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
                  Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

                  Next, PROOF Trump is a lying sack of shit;

                  1. Part 3

                    The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie… as the snotty punk he is.

                    “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

                    Next: FINAL PROOF THAT TRUMP’S A PSYCHO

              2. 4 men charged in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’

                Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization “Rise Above Movement.” …

                “These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California,” U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

                “They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies.”

                Scan this thread.  Trump’s not the only psycho on the alt-right.

          2. It’s not *my* interpretation. I’m repeating a common interpretation that Trump defenders here keep acting like they have never heard before.

      2. OK, if what President Trump did was acceptable have the Republicans argue the case. The fact that they are using other routes as defense suggests they have a poor case. Or rather they feel it is a poor case. By the way you are suggesting quid pro que are acceptable and yet the President has said he did not put forth one. So your argument should be the President did not put forth a quid pro quo and if he had that would be perfectly legal. I don’t agree but that would be the better argument.

        1. Team R has nothing to argue. They are not the ones making the accusation. The onus is on Team D to make their case. So make it.

          My point: Quid pro quo is perfectly legal. This happens every fucking day in Washington DC. And pretty much every town in America. There are many, many times where choosing a policy will advance US interests and also be beneficial politically. That is not illegal Moderation, that is just good politics layered on top of foreign policy.

          So….name the accusations, please.

          1. It’s called extortion. A federal crime. The Hobbs Act.
            And Trump does NOT have any right to shoot anyone on Fifth Avenue, because “the people elected me.

            Anything else?

    5. as there a quid pro quo and if one was offered what are the consequences?

      Yes to the quid pro quo. But the Hobbs Act applies to Trump and provides up to 20 years in prison. Forget all the Constitutional stuff, what he did was … extortion. Plain and simple

      Simple version: Federal law makes it a crime for ANYONE to demand or threaten another party to obtain something of value

      This link will update you on most of the key issues that Trumpsters say never happened.
      https://reason.com/2019/11/05/rand-paul-wants-whistleblower-outed-libertarians-want-the-old-rand-paul-back/#comment-7998855

      1. Wow.
        You really are a special kind of stupid.

  56. “Libertarians Want the Old Rand Paul Back”

    Would that be the same Rand Paul who stated unequivocally in 2010 that he is not a libertarian? That Rand Paul there?

    1. Yeah, Rand Paul has always been somewhere on the spectrum between a libertarian and a conservative. Any libertarian who expects him to be consistently libertarian is setting himself up for disappointment.

    2. There’s a lot of folks ’round here that seem to think he was lying when he said that.

      1. Lying is just as bad. But he’s clearly the alt-right.

    3. MY GOD! MIKE HIHN HAS NOT SEEN THOMAS KNAPP IN DECADES
      GOOD TO SEE YOU STILL DEFENDING LIBERTARIANISM.

  57. Rand Paul is a Trumpist who occasionally throws a crumb to libertarians.

    1. How about this, “Rand Paul is an opportunist”.

      1. Better ==> Rand Paul is a politician.

    2. Rand Paul is a Republican who is likely creating an ally with Trump for 2024.

      Whomever Trump endorses for 2024 will likely lead any pack of GOP contenders.

      1. He’ll be in jail.

        1. If you weren’t so fucking stupid you’d be funny to point and laugh at.

          1. I think he IS funny to point and laugh at because he is so consistently fucking stupid.

  58. Any self-proclaimed libertarian who still thinks Rand Paul is a libertarian is calling the man a liar. He was very publicly declaring, years ago, that he wasn’t.

    This obsession with describing a self-avowed conservative as “libertarian” is idiocy.

  59. No, libertarians want the old Reason back.

    1. YES! The libertarian one

  60. Rand Paul talks tough, and loud, when pushing journalists to reveal the name of the whistleblower.

    But what is stopping Rand Paul from revealing the name of the whistleblower?

    Other than being just another all-talk, showboating, right-wing pussy.

    1. Idiot Rev calls someone else all-talk.

      Irony went out back and shot itself.

      1. Idiot Rev calls someone else all-talk.
        Irony went out back and shot itself.

        Your authoritarian thuggery has been detailed at the following link, along with the PRIDE you have in launching so many unprovoked assaults

        https://reason.com/2019/11/05/rand-paul-wants-whistleblower-outed-libertarians-want-the-old-rand-paul-back/#comment-7999646

      2. “Irony went out back and shot itself.”

        Let us pray the Rev follows suit.

        1. …and takes all the HIHNSOCKPUPPETS with him.

  61. Did Kentucky Libertarians just help a Democrat to win the governorship of that state? Or did they just make the Democrat’s winning margin a little smaller?

    1. Why should anybody care?
      Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal … for over fifty years. For all that time we’ve known that Left-Right = Zero. A growing majority now agrees.

      Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
      Republicans want government out of you wallet and into your bedroom.
      So liberty gets fucked either way.

  62. This libertarian prefers Rand II.

    1. You’re in the alt-right wing. along with the neo-nazis and white supremacists?

      And anti-gummint, NEITHER pro-liberty nor pro-people?

  63. This is such BS. No libertarian should be siding with the unelected bureaucracy shadow government that spies on Americans such as Donald Trump, and now is trying to oust him for daring to challenge their authority and change the policy direction. A true whistleblower situation would be different. In this situation Donald Trump is the true whistleblower.

    1. Educate yourself on WHY whistleblower laws were passed.
      Then TRY to educate Donald J Trump
      THEN expand your news sources beyond Fox, Infowars. Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc.)

      1. You’re a fucking moron

  64. Rand Paul believes that some influence is better than no influence, unlike his father who was known as “Dr No” but should have been known as “Dr Impotence” since he never got a single thing accomplished. He authored no successful legislation to limit the government and failed in every attempt to stop government expansion.

    Yes, it was nice to hear Ron Paul advocate liberty and rail against the Fed, but in the final analysis, he accomplished nothing. The Fed was never audited nor will it ever be.

    I was a Ron Paul delegate and I don’t regret a minute of it, but facts are facts. Nothing came of his candidacy and nothing remains of his movement. In the the end, RP’s best accomplishment is his homeschooling program.

  65. I see that many here agree with me. Doing some good is far better than b*tching and whining your whole life.

    1. Absolutely. Libertarian purity is a philosophy not the real world where others also get a vote and a say. And the others have won far more elections and have far more in office. We need to take wins along the way and move some issues in our direction.

  66. By “whistle blower” Reason means bottom feeding, deep state, democrapic operative. Fuck you “Reason” if you seriously believe this dirt bag Adam the fag Schitt and the other butt fucking criminals are trying to drag out to do in a duly elected president but “Reason” doesn’t give one shit about that. These fucking “libertarians” think its OK for a unelected body who operates on black budgets and violates the constitution daily i.e. “the deep state” to keep lying because they want to appease the leftards they go with to cocktail parties.

    1. Behold the mentality of the Authoritarian Right.

      1. In competition with the Communist Left.

        1. PROVE MY POINT
          Only authoritarian LIARS , ike you, are PSYCHO enough to say Democratic Socialism = Communism.

          Are Denmark and Sweden communist gulags? :–) 🙂

          Now make an even bigger ass of yourself and tell us who is advocating ANY aspect of STATE communism?

          Meanwhile, your BLATANT FASCISM is revealed.
          YOUR CONTEMPT for self-rule
          Your REJECTION of the right of people for form a government, by consent of the governed.

  67. The liberatarian purity test is a losing philosophy. Libertarians are having their ass handed to them. Amash resigned from his committee and is now an independent. His libertarian voice weaker than ever. Paul has the ear of the president. Backed his withdrawal from Syria and prison reform. What has Amash accomplished. Time to learn that libertarians do not have majorities and can get nothing or go for victories that are possible.
    Trump for all his faults is getting us a more libertarian leaning judiciary than any candidate that could have possibly become president. Now let’s get some more elected to the house and Senate.

  68. Rand Paul is actually libertarian
    Thus Reason opposes
    I’m surprised they still publish Stossel

    1. Rand Paul is an alt-left statist — like his father — shameless suckups to the Christian Taliban.

      CALLED FOR NATIONWIDE TENT REVIVALS TO FIGHT THE “THREAT” … MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

      SPONSORED A FEDERAl BILL TO BAN ABORTION AT CONCEPTION — SHITITNG IN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS — WHILE ALSO SAYING .STATES SHOULD BE IN CONTROL.

  69. “Libertarians Want the Old Rand Paul Back” wrong. all libertarians (the ron paul kind) all went maga. and “we” dont want the old rand paul back, he is just fine. also note the current libertarians are loser open borders legalize-pedo scumbag druggie losers that basically throw electionts for leftists/bolsheviks now. dont speak for libertarians, ‘reason’

  70. Is the whistleblower really a whistleblower? Did he/she make the complaint with input/coaching from Adam Schiff? Is this just Schiff being a clever attorney finding a way of hiding his phony source? All valid questions to ask.

    1. TRUMP defrauded … OUR VETERANS with a fundraiser … them THE SLIME pocketed the money

      https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-donald-trump-ordered-pay-2m-collection-nonprofits/story?id=66827235

      President Donald Trump ordered to pay $2M to collection of nonprofits as part of civil lawsuit

      President Donald Trump has been ordered by a New York State judge to pay $2 million to a group of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement in >a civil lawsuit stemming from persistent violations of state charities laws.

      The payment is the final resolution to a case brought by the New York attorney general’s office after the Trump Foundation held a fundraiser for military veterans during the 2016 campaign.

      The televised fundraiser took in nearly $3 million in donations that were dispersed on the eve of the Iowa caucuses as directed by then-campaign chief Corey Lewandowski.

      The two million must be paid by President Trump himself for breaching his fiduciary duty to properly oversee the foundation that bears his name.

      “I direct Mr. Trump to pay the $2,000,000, which would have gone to the Foundation if it were still in existence, on a pro rata basis to the Approved Recipients,” Judge Saliann Scarpulla wrote.

      The lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general accused President Trump — along with his children, Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka — of conflating charity with politics, repeatedly using charitable donations for personal, political and business gains, including legal settlements, campaign contributions and even to purchase a portrait of Trump to hang at one of his hotelsThis was a civil vredic for repeated criminal actions. Guess what’s next.

      Remember, Trump was the first President EVER forced to pay a $25 million settlement … for FRAUD … while in office.

      What kind of SCUM screws veterans charities and nonprofits … to enrich himself …. and his campaign … by FRAUD?

      Look for MANY more crimes and/or lawsuits, as Trump is forced to provide ever mote financial records.

  71. REAL Libertarians – like myself & Rand Paul – believe in CIVIL RIGHTS!

    1. A Brennan placed CIA Officer in the White House [anyone remember, oh, CHURCH Commission AND the CIA is auto-illegal to operate within the Republic of the United States???] to make a false ‘whistleblower’ report based on gossip and hearsay : non-evidence in any legal hearing.

    2. The author obviously loves the Koch Bros. $$$ in the Reason checks.

    3. Just because the author HATES Trump doesn’t mean Trump has no Civil Rights!

    4. There was no “this for that”. Period. For all the dimwits, that is what Quid Pro Quo means!

    5. How dare Reason sanction that Big Bureaucracy rotting the US Government is “Libertarian” by squashing Civil Rights of POTUS & DEFAMING [demonstrably FALSE statement to injure a person publicly….] Sen. Dr. Rand Paul when he calls for the US Constitution to be adhered to?!?!?

Please to post comments