Reason Roundup

Pelosi Moves Forward With Impeachment; Rand Paul Wrong on Devin Nunes' Phone Records

Plus: Trump might send 14,000 more troops to the Middle East, Pelosi wants to take free speech out of a trade deal, and more...

|

"Today, I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced this morning that she's asking the House Judiciary Committee to start drafting up impeachment articles. Watch here.


Sen. Rand Paul misleads on Devin Nunes' phone records. In an interview with Louisville TV station WHAS, the Kentucky Republican said that Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) "has been spying on Devin Nunes' phone records, has confiscated his phone records."

Nunes, a Republican, is ranking minority member on the House Intelligence Committee, which is presiding over the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Schiff chairs the committee.

"I think that's alarming that one member of Congress could be looking at the phone records of another member of Congress," Paul told the station. "Sounds to me as if it would be illegal, and I think it needs to be investigated." He continued:

If we're going to live in a world where one party can subpoena the phone records or look at the phone records of another party, that's a very worrisome world….I'm very, very concerned about the abuse of power coming from Adam Schiff.

Coming from a civil libertarian like Paul, such accusations carry more weight than when coming from other Trump sycophants. But Paul's version of events here leaves out a key detail: Schiff never set out to obtain records of Nunes' phone activity.

Some of Nunes' phone calls were unearthed as part of the impeachment inquiry, because Nunes was on the phone with a lot of folks suspected of doing weird shit involving Ukraine and the Bidens. Here's the relevant part of the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report:

Phone records obtained by the Committees show frequent communication between key players during this phase of the scheme. Between April 1 and April 7, [Lev] Parnas exchanged approximately 16 calls with [Rudy] Giuliani (longest duration approximately seven minutes) and approximately 10 calls with [John] Solomon (longest duration approximately nine minutes).

Solomon authored several op-eds suggesting that when Joe Biden was vice president, he tried to get Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired in order to protect his son, Hunter Biden.

Over the course of the four days following the April 7 article, phone records show contacts between Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Parnas, Representative Devin Nunes, and Mr. Solomon. Specifically, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Parnas were in contact with one another, as well as with Mr. Solomon. Phone records also show contacts on April 10 between Mr. Giuliani and Rep. Nunes, consisting of three short calls in rapid succession, followed by a text message, and ending with a nearly three minute call. Later that same day, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Solomon had a four minute, 39 second call.

No one went specifically looking for Nunes' phone records, and certainly not in the willy-nilly witch-hunt manner that Paul implies. But there he is, on the calls with the folks at the center of impeachment inquiry conduct.

Moreover, the phone records were requested and reviewed by the bipartisan House Intelligence Committee, not some rogue gang of surveillance-happy Democrats. And they were obtained (likely via subpoena) directly from AT&T, not via some secret federal fishing expedition blessed by the FISA court.

In Paul's interview with WHAS, he also claimed that Adam Schiff had spied on Solomon's phone records, using this to launch into some somber rhetoric about how "abhorrent" it is to live in a world "where Congress can look at a journalist's phone records."

A Democratic aide told the Washington Examiner:

The Republican minority of the three committees has had access to these subpoenaed records, and knows full well that neither Mr. Nunes nor Mr. Solomon were subpoenaed, nor were their call record.

This week Nunes filed a lawsuit against CNN for reporting on Lev Parnas' claim that Nunes went to Vienna to discuss the Bidens with Shokin, the prosecutor that Trump associates say Joe Biden tried to get fired.


QUICK HITS

Advertisement

NEXT: White Protester Steals Mic from Black Supporter of Pete Buttigieg

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. Today, I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment.

    She says, holding the paint brush from that tiny, unfinished corner of the capital.

    1. It was a total surprise turn of events!

    2. Today I am asking our chairmen to strap on the vest and take one for the team.

    3. Chairman Mousie Dung says “Go for it!”

  2. “Nancy, blink twice if you know where they’re holding you!”

    1. “Can’t blink…too much botox.”

  3. Coming from a civil libertarian like Paul, such accusations carry more weight than when coming from other Trump sycophants.

    Not so sure. Paul’s been sounding the alarm on data collection of Americans by the intelligence community in terror dragnets.

    1. other Trump sycophants …

      FFS.

      1. She is incapable of hiding her utter contempt for her readership.

        1. Do you mean the commenters here who regularly criticize Reason’s writers? Are they now synonymous with her “readership”?

          1. Not only the commenters. Her snarky “other Trump sycophants” is contemptuous of any rational person.

          2. As opposed to commentors who are comfortable with every infringement of civil liberties as long as the right people are targeted. People such as yourself.

            1. I am comfortable with any infringement of civil liberties? On what basis do you make a claim of
              what I am comfortable with?

              1. You haven’t expressed any concern, so your revealed preference is that yoi don’t have a problem with it. Just as you believe that the burden of proof is on the defendent.

                1. So, I’m like a coloring book. When I don’t say something on some subject, you can use your psychic powers to color in my thoughts?

              2. Revealed preferences are a thing

                1. “Revealed preferences” sounds an awful lot like making assumptions.

                  1. Or logical inferences.

                    Thankfully, your comments are available to be read and assessed by all

                  2. Yet you believe pod pro quo was proven despite trump never telling someone directly to attempt pid pro quo… weird.

                    1. Mistakes my opinion. Sondland gave firsthand testimony that there was a quid pro quo about the White House meeting, so that should meet your criteria for that quid pro quo. For the aid being withheld, there is more testimony to come at the Senate trial.

                    2. “firsthand testimony”

        2. Elizabeth Nolan Brown offers no support for the alleged key detail: “Schiff never set out to obtain records of Nunes’ phone activity.”

          Scott Shackford offers the far more reasonable statement “But there’s no reason to assume that Schiff was specifically targeting Nunes, and it’s unlikely that any laws were broken here.” https://reason.com/2019/12/05/devin-nunes-secret-surveillance/
          I would add to Shackford’s views that the Speech and Debate Clause issues may play a role in what may otherwise be legal.

          As Shackford indicates, the development does highlight the real-life privacy issues regarding metadata.

    2. Yes, Paul is applying the same logic to Nunes as to intelligence agencies intercepting the communications of persons of interest overseas who happened to be speaking to persons in the US. The agencies were not targeting the communications of Americans, they just incidentally were picking them up. The editorial position of Reason at the time was that that was no excuse and was a serious 4th Amendment violation

    3. Yeah 3rd party doctrine is bullshit.

    4. the phone records were requested and reviewed by the bipartisan House Intelligence Committee, not some a rogue gang of surveillance-happy Democrats.

      FIFY

  4. “The State” is a messed up website.

  5. Trump considers sending 14,000 more troops to the Middle East.

    And leave our borders 14,000 men down???

  6. Trump considers sending 14,000 more troops to the Middle East.

    Chicago or St.Louis?

    1. Dearborn, I would think.

    2. Cleveland, but that’s not enough.

      1. No more quagmires!

  7. “Trump considers sending 14,000 more troops to the Middle East.”

    It would be much easier to list the things Trump is not considering.

    1. He’s not considering abolishing concentration camps, unfortunately. We’ll have to wait for a Democratic President to liberate those.

      #IMissObama
      #DemocratsDontCageKids

      1. #IMissKamala

  8. Now that 2 of my top 3 candidates (Harris and Gillibrand) have dropped out, Warren is my clear favorite. But I’m taking a closer look at Biden.

    My administration will spark the second great railroad revolution to propel our nation’s infrastructure into the future and help solve the climate emergency.

    Second. Great. Railroad. Revolution.

    I know fresh ideas like this will excite my fellow young voters!

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. Second great railroad revolution? Iron horses have no chance of catching on, might as well advocate for horseless carriages.

    2. And that’s no malarkey!

    3. I look forward to a drone railroad where a fleet of drones is constantly removing sections of track from behind the train and placing them in front of the train, all the way across the nation. Could probably get by with about one mile of track.

      1. That would certainly be less efficient than a giant loop of track that rolls forward with the train, and hence a more ideal government solution.

        1. C’mon guy. It’s all drones these days. And ball bearings.

          1. Good point, I’ll go find some gauze and 3-in-1 oil.

    4. Fuckin’ LOL, this guy; I wouldn’t be surprised if his campaign slogan becomes “Forward into the 19th Century!”

      1. That’s MID 19th century!!

    5. I’m disappointed. i was hoping for large government subsidies for high speed stage coaches or solar powered sedan chairs. If I can locate my mimeograph machine I will crank out a few pamphlets.

  9. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to remove free-speech protections from the U.S.–Mexico–Canada trade deal.

    IT WAS HILLARY’S TURN.

    1. N Korea is now one of our allies.

      1. You ain’t just whistlin’ kimchee.

    2. Are you trying to get them to team up? Cause that’s how you get them to team up. Nato Vs Comintern 2, electric boogaloo

      1. Because of idiotic europhile US foreign policy, Russia is currently aligned with China and Iran.
        1984 being the instruction manual for progressivism, they had to make Eastasia a thing.
        In theory, Russia+China+Iran shouldn’t be a sustainable alliance. Each want primacy and they’re sharing the same geographic resource bases. However, if Russia has the ability to control the arctic, China takes Africa, and Iran infiltrates South America, they can sustain together longer as they draw resources from abroad.
        The smart move for the US would be alliance with Russia, thereby checking not only China but also Europe, as well as getting 90+% of the world’s nuclear weapons on the same side.
        But, of course, that doesn’t jive with the Global Socialist plan

        1. And Putin’s puppet would be in favor, no??

          Stupid is as stupid comments.

          1. True.
            Stupid is as stupid comments

  10. “chairmen”

    Wow! How unwoke! “furnitureperson” you old bag from last century.

  11. George Zimmerman, the Florida man who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, is now “suing Martin’s family, prosecutors and others involved in the case he claims rested on false evidence, according to a copy of the suit sent to the media Wednesday…”

    Forget right to be forgotten, how about a right to forget law here so I don’t have to read anything more about this whole event.

      1. When you’re right, you’re right. And you’re right.

    1. If his claim is true, the real person on the cell phone call wouldn’t testify and would have told an entirely different story had she done so. So, they got someone else to lie and say she was the one on the call. Prosecutors knew this and put the person on the stand anyway.

      That is a big fucking deal.

      1. If true, that would be an awful example of prosecutorial misconduct that would be roundly condemned in most other cases.

        1. One of the news orgs (NBC, I think) lightened Zimmerman’s skin from his mugshot so that they could spin it as a white/black issue. If they weren’t roundly condemned for that, I hardly think that prosecutors behaving badly is going to get similar treatment. Zimmerman was designated as a scapegoat for white supremacy and the cathedrals ensured that anything in the public arena against him was justified. It’s actually a testament to how awesome his legal team was that they convinced the jury not to convict him.

          The thing is, Zimm’s not a sympathetic person. He has a record of domestic violence and overall bad behavior, and while I’m willing to concede that some of it might be due to how he was made a national pariah and the stress that came from that, re-litigating this just confirms in the minds of the Cathedral that he murdered St. Trayvon the Sizzurp Sipper in cold blood instead of in the act of defending himself.

        2. most lol

  12. “Residents at Dianagården were told they would have to leave because the toilets in the facility were 5cm too small to comply with regulations.
    However, soon after the 48 apartments were emptied, they were filled with newly arrived migrants.
    “It was later revealed that politicians planned that immigrants would instead move into the premises,” reports Fria Tider.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/political/stockholm-elderly-residents-kicked-out-apartments-make-way-migrants

    1. That’s a shitty thing to do.

    2. That’s quite a movement.

      1. That’s what happens when they’re irregular

    3. I bet they are pissed off.

      1. Depends.

        1. Are you saying this story was leaked?

          1. I’m looking at you. That’s all I’m saying.

      2. IDK, seems like the brown people are just fine with the toilets.

    4. I wonder which will happen first, Sweden elects a Trump or Sweden elects an Illhan Omar

      Watching liberal white people destroy themselves is an interesting phenomenon. I think I’d prefer the Omar route for the simple fact that it will prevent the same thing happening in the US.

      1. Ramadan in Sweden in the summer must be brutal.

    5. I’m sure somebody’s investigating this, but they don’t have much of anything to go on.

  13. I’ve never fully understood the objection to requiring IDs at polling stations to vote, but the privacy argument just took a hit.

    “In a public record acts request, Motherboard asked the California DMV for the total dollar amounts paid by commercial requesters of data for the past six years. The responsive document shows the total revenue in financial year 2013/14 as $41,562,735, before steadily climbing to $52,048,236 in the financial year 2017/18.”

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evjekz/the-california-dmv-is-making-dollar50m-a-year-selling-drivers-personal-information

    If the State of California is already selling my name, home address, likeness, etc. to the highest bidder (they were apparently selling data to private investigators looking into cheating spouses among others), then why am I concerned about the federal government checking whether I vote?

    Meanwhile, Ohio has found that hundreds of illegal aliens were registered to vote in 2018, and dozens of them actually voted.

    Talk about foreign interference in our elections!

      1. I wonder if Ronald Bailey is paying attention to this. Or does he still consider election fraud ‘delusional’?

        1. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/04/china-gene-edited-baby-experiment-may-have-created-unintended-mutations

          Looks like gene editing in humans may have unintended consequences. All and all, it is a tough morning for Ron.

          1. I’m not the most sentimental, touchy-feely guy out there. That being said, experimenting on children is horrific. Unintended mutations, indeed.

            1. It is. And Bailey is a well meaning monster for claiming it is ethical.

            2. That being said, experimenting on children is horrific.

              Not to mention that, experimenting on children aside, the guy set up the experiment in possibly the most sensationally unethical way possible. Dozens of naturally occurring diseases that they would’ve developed anyway that he could have attempted to cure, dozens more that are relatively benign even if he failed and he chose to hang his hat on giving them AIDS.

        2. Ronald, like most contributors, do not consider reality while pushing libertopian propaganda

      2. 350 might be enough to impact some races.

        And Ohio requires drivers license or the equivalent.

  14. Trump considers sending 14,000 more troops to the Middle East.

    Fundamentalist whack jobs are totally cool with it – they only hate us for our freedoms and culture.

  15. “The Republican minority of the three committees has had access to these subpoenaed records, and knows full well that neither Mr. Nunes nor Mr. Solomon were subpoenaed, nor were their call record.”

    Goddammit. Were the call records subpoenaed or not?

    Looks like Reason is going to join the rest of the corrupt Media with “nothing to see here folks, move along”.

    It is ironic considering how badly the were almost shafted not long ago by Senor Preet Bwahaha.

    1. The story seems to be that the call records were not subpoenaed but somehow they still have them. Reason’s account makes no sense.

      1. If AT&T voluntarily handed over the records to the House, then they wouldn’t need a subpoena, right?

        1. “The Republican minority of the three committees has had access to these subpoenaed records,”

          What’s he referring to?
          Nevermind, I’m sure I don’t give a Flying F.

        2. If they came by a miracle of the Virgin Mary it wouldn’t be by subpoena either. Sorry but AT&T breaching the trust of its customers and opening itself up to enormous liability and just handing such records over voluntarily is about as likely.

          Do you even listen to yourself?

          1. Call records for the White House and other associated staff were subpoenaed and AT&T handed them over without contest.
            These records were used to track Nunes and John Solomon among others

        3. Or if the NSA collected them illegally as they’ve been doing since 2002.

        4. And there’s the moneyshot. The ends always justify the means with jeff. He’s now ok with government abuse of civil rights as long as they use private proxies.

          Life is easy and principle free when you’re a progressive.

      2. I hate this impeachment, but I don’t see how this is specifically spying on Nunes.

        The target of their investigation was, say, Giuliani. So they subpoena his records. They are specifically spying on him. The fact that Nunes/Solomon/others were calling Giuliani is why they show up in the records. So in this case, I agree with ENB, assuming it is true that the records are not examples of spying on Nunes- assuming this is true.

        Now, I question the propriety of putting these records out there for the public. Of course, in Solomon’s case, I don’t see the problem. Most of the conversations mentioned were public record because Solomon specifically mentions talking to people like Shokin and Giuliani in his articles.

        1. I am pretty sure some of the calls were between Nunes and Solomon. So, your explanation that they just stumbled upon them while they were looking at the evil Giuliani doesn’t account for that.

          1. To be fair and leaving aside the propriety question…….is it necessarily wrong (or even bad) to know that Rep. Nunes spoke to a reporter (John Solomon) on the phone?

            To me, this looks like ‘Swamp like’ behavior. Does it look that way to you?

            1. Funny question, because I’ve seen no behavior for years that is not Swamp Like.

          2. “I am pretty sure some of the calls were between Nunes and Solomon”

            Do you have a cite for this? Because I would agree with you that I cannot see how it is possible to get Nunes and Solomon’s private conversation unless one or the other was specifically a target of a warrant/subpoena.

            Why people are shocked that Solomon was talking to any of these people is bewildering to me. He has said in his fucking articles that he was talking with Ukrainians, including Shokin, on numerous occasions. These conversations were sources for his articles.

            Even worse, it is bewildering to me that people on the left are using these associations to say that Solomon’s reporting of facts is somehow wrong. He provides original source material. Whether he is a hack or not, the facts are facts.

            1. He’s a reporter. He talks to people. The only remaining question is how he should be executed.

            2. Nope. I am wrong. Sorry about that. Your statement stands. I misread that this morning. The calls were from Soloman to Guilliani and someone else not to Nunes.

              1. Ah ok. That clarifies things a lot.

          3. I just checked the call logs listed in the Democrat’s report. The only calls involving Solomon listed there were with Parnas.

            Is there another place to see the call logs?

      3. They subpoenaed Parnas’ call records, which naturally caught whoever it was he was calling – Giuliani, Nunes, Solomon, among others. It wasn’t their phone records being subpoenaed.

        It’s similar to – but more honest than – the FBI/CIA/NSA pedantry they used with wiretapping Trump Tower – they were only there to record the possible Russians calling in and Trump and his campaign were only incidentally recorded. See, they weren’t wiretapping Trump, they were wiretapping whoever it was Trump was talking with. Merely happenstance that the people talking with Trump were simultaneously the same people Trump was talking with.

        1. thats the thought line I was thinking. If you want to investigate someone but can’t, find someone who contacts them that you can make up BS about to listen to in hopes of getting.

          We know how the game is played

          1. It’s called “contact chaining” – they’re allowed to surveil a suspect, plus everybody the suspect contacts, everybody the suspect’s contacts contact, everybody the suspect’s contact’s contact’s contact, and so on. It’s a list of about 8 billion people.

        2. Here’s the interesting thing–the presumption is that they were subpoena’d, but technically speaking, they don’t have the legal authority to do that. This is officially still an inquiry, not an investigation. If this acquisition was totally on the level, why did Schiff decline to comment on how they were obtained, given that this googly-eyed homunculus is quickly proving to be an even bigger media whore than the guy he’s targeting? Why did AT&T and Verizon hand over private information, without a smidgen or protest and without any legal requirement to do so?

          What’s even more pathetic is that Schiff got a hold of these records and the content isn’t anything more scandalous than “he called Hannity REEEEEEEEEE!!” The bigger issue here is how he got the records without any legal authority to exercise, and it’s interesting that ENB didn’t think to ask that particular question. Maybe it will come up in a later article today, but we’ll see.

          1. ENB ask that question? What do you think she is, competent? Libertarian?

      4. When a phone call occurs, is there typically only one person’s phone number involved? Or are there usually two or more phone numbers involved?

        1. Great question. Maybe there’s a tech guy on board.

        2. It depends on who the person is. Biden sometimes calls Malarkey, and it’s not clear if Malarkey has a number.

        3. One number? Only if you call yourself. WTF!

    2. Looks like Reason is going to join the rest of the corrupt Media with “nothing to see here folks, move along”.

      It is ironic considering how badly the were almost shafted not long ago by Senor Preet Bwahaha.

      IMO, the worst part about it (and Reason’s absolute shit response) IS THAT IT KEEPS FUCKING HAPPENING!

      Remember when nobody was spying on the Trump campaign and Trump was a loony old Boomer for thinking his phones were tapped? Remember *that* impeachment investigation? FFS.

    3. ENB store that Nunes’ call records were not specifically subpoenaed or targeted. He happened to show up in other people’s call records. That’s what she plainly wrote, so why mischaracterize it?

      1. And why do you mischaracterize her writing as anything other than justifying this behavior?

        1. Where did I say that she justified or didn’t justify anybody’s behavior?

    4. They were subpoena’d, but if you look at the logs available on pg. 157 of the report, Parnes called Nunes and they were on the phone for 60 seconds. We don’t know whether they actually spoke to one another or Parnes left a 60 second message.

      There are two calls made to Parnes from Nunes’ phone about forty minutes later. The first call lasted 0 seconds, the second lasted 2 seconds.

      1. What takes 2 seconds?

        Oh yeah: “Fuck you!!”

    5. Were the call records subpoenaed or not?

      Most likely, the other person on the call was subpoenaed. Nunes/Soloman themselves were probably not the target.

      It’s an important distinction.

  16. You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.

    Well, well, well. What have we here. Looks like someone doesn’t like the rapid fire truth bombs, the fully automatic assault style facts weapon I’ve been open carrying at Reason.

    1. You can only use posting techniques in use at the time the constitution was written.

      1. Which were single-shot hunting posts. It doesn’t apply to military-style assault posts, which were designed to do nothing except create lulz.

    2. Fist has a bump stock, if you know what I mean.

      1. Phrasing, phrasing, phrasing.

      2. I believe the term is “Bump Sock”. Of course there are 300 million bump socks in the comentariate, you are never going to confiscate them all.

  17. OMG! Professor Karlan’s testimony was just fantastic. I especially loved the part about how we have to fight the Russians over there so we don’t fight them over here.

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. Time for a full nuclear exchange.

      1. Russia’s attack on our democracy must be understood in the context of earlier atrocities like Pearl Harbor and 9 / 11. Nobody wants a nuclear war. However, no military option should be “off the table.”

        1. I want sharks with frikin laser beams on their heads!

          1. Will dolphins with bombs do?

            Look it up

            1. Are they at least ill-tempered?

            2. +1 Day of the Dolphin.

            3. Fuck you, dolphin!

    2. Well that horrible czar did things to my ancestors…and those darn christian peasants in the Ukraine just didn’t like getting exploited. Things were going great until Stalin kicked my “sect” out of the politburo…

      The russia obsession is really obscene…sorry but no immigrant group coming to America has a right to turn our historical noninterventionist policy into settling old scores in the old world…

      Secular, socialist and hyper focus on one’s own group defined these Russian expats…and it has gotten many Americans and foreigners killed..

  18. I know we’re all used to it by now but it’s still pretty crazy there’s no political penalty to be paid for just pretending the facts are completely different from what they are anymore. https://t.co/rhVsNbBofT

    — Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) December 4, 2019

    I know, right?

    1. I concur.

      1. I have a plan for that.

        1. That’s plan, Papillon.

    2. Perhaps some sort of penaltax…

  19. By all means ride the ship to the bottom Nancy.

    1. Yeah, we’ll see how far that radioactive uranium football goes after Skeletor gives it a good punt.

  20. I still get Reason emails. I hear there is a Webathon going on. I thought I’d break my self-imposed exile just this once to tell Reason to to to Hell; no soup for you.

    Learn to code, motherfuckers.

      1. Perfect.

    1. It turns out that not only did Epistein not kill himself, his dead banker died by non-suicide last month and Epstein’s New Mexico property still hasn’t been searched.

      Who cares? That’s just a corrupt ruling class full of rapists. Go on covering what is really important, the persecution of poor little Crackhead Hunter Biden who can’t be guilty because he is a Democrat.

      1. You’re missed, Johnny

      2. You are so missed Johnny.

      3. +100

    2. Huh. Another right-wing radical doesn’t like the direction Reason is heading.

      In other news, dog bites man.

      1. Nothing says right wing radical like objecting to one side obtaining the phone records of your political opponents and then selectively leaking them to reveal the sources of a reporter they don’t like.

        You called it dumb ass.

        1. cytotoxic fully supported Samantha Power illegally unmasking hundreds of Americans in the process of getting Bad Orange Man. It’s almost like he’s an unabashed radical left wing Democratic party shill.

          1. Maybe you should ask this cytotoxic fellow about what he/she supported in the past. I frankly don’t know much about the whole Samantha Power issue. Perhaps you could point me to an authoritative source on the matter.

            1. Jeff is cytotoxic?

              That tracks actually.

              1. I’m not cytotoxic. I don’t even know who this person is.

                What is this obsession with trying to assign socks and prior personalities to everyone?

                1. Only a guilty person would defend themselves in such a manner.

                2. It’s a way of deflecting because the alternative would be to actually consider what you are saying. And that might lead to no longer believing that Trump is a swamp drainer embattled by the Deep State, the Republicans are the allies of libertarians, and the Democrats are worse than the Republicans.

                  1. Or maybe it’s just true.

                  2. Any close reading of our posting styles would show that Chemjeff and I aren’t the same person. That hasn’t stopped the accusations so why bother engaging with them at all.

                    1. I did not post the above comment.
                      In the above comment, the “ell” in “individualist” is actually a capital “eye”. Copy/paste the name into Word and use Courier New font and you will see that.
                      So some asshole is socking me. Classy.

                    2. “So some asshole is socking me”

                      Mike Laursen.

                    3. Smells like Tulpa.

              2. Can’t be, Cytotoxic’s every 2nd and 3rd words were “fucking retards”. He promised Hillary would win or he’d eat his own ass or something like that. Must be shoulders deep by now. He’s missed.

                1. In his own way, Cytoxic was the craziest person ever to post on here. He was at once a complete open borders radical and neocon pro interventionist. According to him, every Muslim in the world needed killing until the moment they crossed the border into the US where they became perfect, hard working Libertarians.

                  1. Like I said, he’s missed.

                    1. He was an interesting crazy and fun to have around until Trump. Like so many people, Trump just broke him. By the fall of 2016, all he could do was go on about how big Hillary was going to win the election. I think may have had some kind of a breakdown when Trump won instead of Hillary.

              3. He outed the sock like 2 years ago but he’s doing the Hihn maneuver where he just doubles down every time he’s called out on it. It’d kind of sad.

                1. Mike Laursen is also a cytotoxic/chemjeff sock, as is De Oppresso Liber, just FYI.

                  1. Over on glibertairans, Playa called it immediately, and it’s been known for years which is why jeff never goes there anymore.

              4. Was cytotoxic this persistently stupid? I’ve forgotten.

                1. Trumpsters be hopelessly addicted to wacko conspiracies.

            2. You outed this sock literally like 2 or 3 months after you started it, retard.

              1. I have never used a sock here at Reason.
                It is just a lie to claim that someone else is my sock.
                This is just ridiculous garbage coming from people who have nothing to add to the conversation here except puerile insults.

                1. The pathetic thing is that it doesn’t even work as an insult. Say it were true that everyone here who says anything negative about Trump is one person using sock puppets — so what?

                  1. The idea here, I suspect, is to try to minimize the criticism of Trump by attempting to claim that it is only one troublemaker stirring up shit and creating a false sense of the degree of opposition to Trumpism, as opposed to several independent people with legitimate criticism.

                    1. Ok, so the accusations about you “two” are so obviously and completely true.

                    2. I don’t respond to any of the sock puppet stuff because it’s simply pathetic.

                    3. I agree, your sockpuppeting is pathetic, and not worth discussing. So stop and it won’t be a subject of discussion any longer.

        2. I’m talking about Johnny Longstorso’s general position, not this specific issue. Johnny always seemed to me to be a person who was far more anti-Left than he was pro-anything. That’s the radicalization that I’m talking about. To throw away any semblance of position or principle or policy, and just focus all your energy on “destroying the Left”. It’s ultimately self-defeating. Okay, “destroy the Left”, but then what?

          That happens among radicalized left-wingers too, who don’t care who is elected as long as it’s someone who will “destroy the Right”, but, this being Reason, we see far more of the former than the latter here on these comment forums.

          1. I’m talking about Johnny Longstorso’s general position, not this specific issue. Johnny always seemed to me to be a person who was far more anti-Left

            While that ad hominem is interesting, I dont see why anyone should care.

            1. It gets tiresome and boring to hear, day in and day out, OMG THE LEFT. I don’t miss it. We have enough of it already here.

              I would rather talk about ideas rather than listen to that “malarkey” every day.

              1. So, the fact that you engage in so much OMG THE RIGHT means you need to go away to make the place better?

                Ok. Bye.

                1. Got him.

                2. I’d be fine if i never saw another

                  “And here come the Trumpaloes”

                  or

                  “And here come the Reason Republicans”

                  ever again, but I doubt the person you’re talking to has the self awareness to realize he is describing his own behavior.

                  1. He pretty much proved that you are correct.

                  2. Dunno, I kind of like the ‘clingers’ refrain, and the ‘open wide’, since it shows that Rev is a brainless automaton.

                3. We don’t have nearly enough OMG THE RIGHT around here. We need more. There is far too much Team Red bootlicking in these forums. For years libertarians were portrayed as “Republicans who smoke pot”. Finally when that is starting to change, here comes all of these Republicans coming here to say “no, no, libertarians need to get on the Team Red train!” Libertarians ought to stand apart from the nonsense of either team, and not just be a mere appendage of either Team Red or Team Blue. I think that has been a pretty consistent message of the folks of Reason and that is one I can fully support without reservation.

                  1. “We don’t have nearly enough OMG THE RIGHT”

                    When you asked, somewhat obtusely, what was ment when I said “you mark yourself by the battles you choose”

                    That’s what I meant. You are transparently not what you claim to be, and think it isnt obvious to the world simply because you lie about it.

                    1. Why, because you think being opposed to the right-wing automatically makes me a left-winger?

                      This place is overwhelmingly filled with right-wingers and Team Red apologists. When did libertarianism become defined as a mere appendage of the Republican Party? Why should that be?

                    2. For future reference when I said you were a liar that was your cue to stop talking to me.

                  2. You’re perfectly free to nurture your delusions that the commentariat ranks are filled by Republicans, but there’s only a couple of them I think that actually self-identify as Republicans. The rest of them are merely the devout faithful of the Cult of Our Lord and Savior Donald J Trump and if He were to self-identify as a Democrat, a Whig, a Communist, or a Teletubby, by Donald, so would they.

                    1. As opposed to the “everyone who disagrees with me is in the Trump Cult Cult”. You are the president of that or is it Grand Vizier?

                    2. It’s amazing how delusional the Cult of Anti-Trump is.

                      They can’t ever seem to figure out that Trump won because he followed the people, and so long as he continues to lead FOR THEM they will continue to embrace him in that position.
                      Trump is popular because he listens, not because he dictates.
                      “Make America great again” is an appeal to the agency of the audience, not an exultation of Trump.

                    3. The reality is far simpler. Trump is not a perfect god. But, he also isn’t “the worst President ever.”

                      Reason has slipped into the camp of slowly, but surely, decrying Trump as “the worst President ever.” And, to get there, the road is being paved with obtuse leftist talking points and, oftentimes, the implicit endorsement of outright anti-libertarian positions so long as those positions are used to skewer Trump.

                      Yet, when Reason writers are criticized for slipping into the camp of absurdity, leftists like Chemjeff jump into the fray to defend their positions, while claiming they are neutral, down-the-middle libertarians. This is why Chemjeff gets abused so regularly.

                    4. See, there you go. Arguments that criticize Trump are derided as “leftist talking points”. So, if you agree with the argument, that must mean you’re a leftist! Easy peasy!

                      Here is a clue. Reason regularly publishes articles about the harmful effects of Trump’s trade war. Are those “leftist talking points”? Is it a “leftist talking point” to make an argument that has merit, that some leftists happen to also agree with as well?

                      You just don’t think Reason’s arguments against Trump’s policies have merit. That’s fine. But that’s different than “leftist talking points”.

                    5. Poor Chemjeff is a Lefty talking point AND hates everything about Trump.

                  3. It’s mind boggling that what you just wrote would be controversial with commented hanging out at a non-partisan libertarian website.

                    1. Too many of the people posting here are not only not libertarians, but want to deliberately sabotage libertarian ideas.

                    2. At least you finally admitted it.

                    3. Calling Reason non-partisan is absurd.

                    4. silky, admitted what?

              2. Tiresome and boring to hear, day in and day out? Pot, kettle, black.

          2. I’m anti-murder and don’t feel I need to fill the void with anything in particular.

          3. you just said it was okay for AT&T to release the personal information of their political opponents

            If that’s not the most blatant leftist shit I’ve ever heard i don’t know what is.

            1. I didn’t say “it was okay”, I was hypothesizing whether that would be a way for the House to obtain the records in the absence of a subpoena. Could you at least read what I actually write? You can’t even read what I write without filtering it through your stereotypical caricature of me.

              1. And if you had any libertarian in you then you would be absolutely pissed off at that being the case.

                But alas, here we are. Don’t worry Jeff, they’ll come after you after they get the evil right wingers. But not before the truly woke.

                You’ve got nothing to hide, right?

                1. I would need more information before I get my outrage boner going. Such as how those records were actually obtained in the first place.

                  1. It’s odd that you’re perpetually lacking just the right information to get your outrage boner going on any issue that involves Democrats, but you have priapism on the basis of conjecture when it involves Republicans.

                    1. It’s not odd at all how you continually lie about me.

                    2. He’s only quoting you. If you want to admit you’re lying, well…

                    3. No, he’s lying about me.

                    4. By quoting you?

                      L O L

                    5. The lie here is that I supposedly believe every salacious conjecture about Republicans. Which is not true in the slightest.

                    6. He didn’t say that tho.

                2. Historically, people like Jeff are the useful idiots first thrown up against the wall.

                  The right-wingers are heavily armed and are unlikely to go so quietly into the night.

        3. And it is darkly hilarious when this whole proceding is predicated on the notion that an official abusing his authority to dig up dirt on political opponents is a great wrong.

          1. You mean like Nixon?

            I mean I would rather Nixon got articles of impeachment for his illegal expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia, but it is what it is.

      2. by direction you mean the gutter?

      3. Huh, another progressive doesn’t understand why more people won’t get on board with abandoning all principles in the pursuit of power.

        In other words, chemjeff.

        1. Tell me, Skippy, does it bother you at all how swiftly Team Red has abandoned all previous pretense of principles, now to endorse whatever comes out of Trump’s mouth?

          How would you describe that?

          1. Don’t care, politicians are politicians. Might as well care about waves breaking or bears eating Salmon. You sound like a rube.

  21. http://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/agenda-2030-translator-how-read-uns-new-sustainable-development-goals


    Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere
    Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
    Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
    Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
    Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
    Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
    Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
    Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
    Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
    Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries
    Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
    Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
    Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
    Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
    Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
    Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
    Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

    1. *big dreamy eyes* It all sounds wonderful!

    2. Sounds good – what did you say your name was – Warren something?

    3. Focusing for the moment on the goals themselves, in a vacuum and absent any particular scheme or strategy to implement those goals, what about them do you find specifically objectionable?

      For example, do you object to: “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” ?

      1. Eww. Those words are so mushy.

      2. “Focusing for the moment on the goals themselves, in a vacuum and absent any particular scheme or strategy to implement those goals, what about them do you find specifically objectionable?”

        That anyone would waste their time listing such stuff.
        You’re welcome, from Mr. Obviousman.

      3. Focusing for the moment on the goals themselves, in a vacuum and absent any particular scheme or strategy to implement those goals,

        I.e. stripping them of all the problematic stuff.

        You’re… something.

        1. But this is a big part of the issue here. A goal like “people ought to be well fed and not go starving” should be something that everyone with any semblance of a moral conscience should be able to agree on. But only one side is talking about it, and of course it’s the statists who wish to bring about authoritarian plans to implement all of those goals. Perhaps those of us who favor liberty shouldn’t let Team Blue hijack the entire conversation on issues like poverty, and should promote a vision of what reducing poverty might look like implemented in the absence of coercion and authoritarian nonsense.

          1. “But only one side is talking about it”

            Only one side is wishcasting, which you see as a problem. Got it.

            1. Who on the right side – broadly defined – is even engaging in a serious discussion on issues of poverty, health care, the environment, education?

              It’s bumper sticker slogans (“get government out of health care!”) and OMG SOCIALISM fearmongering instead.

              We know what Team Blue wants for health care. What does Team Red want to see for health care?

              1. One side isn’t wishcasting enough for you, I told you we got it.

                1. It’s not “wishcasting” to have a serious discussion on an issue.

                  1. It is when you are “Focusing for the moment on the goals themselves, in a vacuum and absent any particular scheme or strategy to implement those goals”

                    1. No, that is called having a serious discussion ON THE ISSUE without getting into the weeds on a particular plan or policy.

                    2. No, its called wishcasting.

                      Good day.

                    3. No one disagrees that hunger is bad idiot.

                    4. Then why is it, that the only people who seem to show up to the conversation on issues like poverty, are left-wingers?

                      Left-wingers: We need more government spending on food stamps!
                      Right-wingers: No no no no no, that’s SOCIALIZM

                    5. Because they have better things to do that play with their proverbial puds discussing things everyone agrees on?

                      Also

                      “Right-wingers: No no no no no, that’s SOCIALIZM”

                      So here we see that you were lying, and it is notctjat thdy dont show up, its that they say things you dont like.

                      Here’s how that ACTUAL convo goes

                      You “hunger is bad”

                      Normal people “it sure is lets try to end it, where do we start”

                      You “STOP TALKING ABOUT SOLUTIONS!!! (you actually did this. No really, i will quote it if you make me)”

                      Normal people “then whats the point of these discussion if not to find solutions?”

                    6. Yes, I object when the “answer” from Team Red is caterwauling about socialism. That is an ignorant non-answer. Besides it’s not like Team Red is in favor of ending the welfare state either. If food stamps are “socialism” then both Team Blue and Team Red are fully on board with it.

                    7. “Yes, I object when the “answer” from Team Red is caterwauling about socialism”

                      So youre sayng you didn’t even read the post you responded to.

                      Because you just proved him right.

                    8. It’s rich that the guy whining about the lack of a “serious” conversation about hunger pretends that he opposes the welfare state. What passes for libertarian in this rag fought tooth and nail against any welfare reform, which is why you defend them so vigorously.

              2. Poverty: Market Capitalism
                Health Care: Market Capitalism
                The environment: Market Capitalism
                Education: Market Capitalism

              3. There’s that little thing called capitalism and free markets. I understand your confusion because that doesn’t involve massive state-run programs, but it actually works much better than your statist plans.

          2. “A goal like “people ought to be well fed and not go starving” should be something that everyone with any semblance of a moral conscience should be able to agree on. But only one side is talking about it, and of course it’s the statists who wish to bring about authoritarian plans to implement all of those goals.”

            Which is the entire point of stating such goals.
            Power.
            That is all

            1. So even stating a goal like “people shouldn’t starve” is a corrupt act with corrupt motives. Got it.

              1. It is when it accompanies a supranational global governance agenda that involves obliterating national sovereignty, but then you know that which is why you’d rather have a non-discussion about how you imagine things to be instead of how they actually are. Of course you’ve come out 100% in favor of supranational global governance and oppose the very concept of national sovereignty, so I don’t know why you have to continue acting like a little pussy ass bitch and pretend otherwise.

                1. This is paranoid twaddle.

                  THIS is part of the irrational paranoia that I object to on Team Red.

                  They won’t even discuss poverty, because if they do, they think they’ll turn into socialists!

                  1. But we can read his post and see that you are lying about what he said.

                    Is this always how you post, or just what you’ve been doing today?

                    “THIS is part of the irrational paranoia that I object to on Team Red”

                    Nah, its just a convenient distraction from the stupidity of your previous lies.

                  2. Yes, those team blue guys aren’t real socialists even though they self-label. No, they just want the good parts of socialism, as you do, and not the bad therefore they CAN’T be guilty of that. Even though they are explicitly calling for a complete government takeover of healthcare, that’s not REAL socialism. Even though they want to control all eneegy production and distribution in this country because someone private will still have title to the production (but under complete government controlling regulation) that’s not REAL socialism–even better it’s fascism.

                    No, somewhere someone be allowed to run a coffe shop and maintain private control so that alone innoculates against REAL socialism.

                    1. Okay so let’s have a conversation on what is “real socialism”. Is it pure Karl Marx “state ownership of the means of production”? Because if that’s the case, then no, neither Team Blue nor Team Red are “real socialists”. Is it “any government program of any type whatsoever”? If that’s the case, then EVERYONE’S a socialist, libertarians included, except the complete anarchists. So what is your standard for “real socialism”?

                      What BOTH Team Blue AND Team Red support are various shades of social democracy – social welfare paid for by the wealth generated from capitalist enterprises.

                      See how easy that was?

      4. yes. who the fuck does the ensuring fuck that.

      5. Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

        Pure authoritarianism for a bs, failed hypothesis. Everyone should object.

    4. A pony? Didn’t see it there.

    5. I’m not seeing a single thing in there about me being able to take the money I’ve earned and investing it in a nice vibrating recliner, a giant TV, a pizza, some liquor, and enjoying these things between the times I’m doing my earning.

  22. Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret

    The hospital groups … argued in the lawsuit that the rule will not accomplish the administration’s aim of helping consumers avoid surprise bills.

    “We have a First Amendment right not to tell you fuckers what we’re going to charge!”

    1. To the cheers of the Reason ”””””libertarian””””” cohort.

  23. “The Problem With ‘Hey Guys’”
    […]
    “A broad coalition of English speakers—teachers, retail workers, ice-cream scoopers, and plenty of others—is grasping for a more inclusive greeting.”
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-problem-with-hey-guys?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    I know it’s one of my major concerns. How about you guys?

    1. How do these guys come up with this stuff?

      1. Because these guys are nuts.

    2. OK, how about, “Hey, Guys and Gals!”

      1. Why not just “Hello, fellow kids.”

    3. All y’all to become official greeting.

      1. to become?

    4. And yet, “Hey Boyfriends” would probably pass the mustard, please.

    5. Yo, bitches!!!

      Works for me.

  24. //Some of Nunes’ phone calls were unearthed as part of the impeachment inquiry, because Nunes was on the phone with a lot of folks suspected of doing weird shit involving Ukraine and the Bidens.//

    You would have an easier time begging for money on your knees, as you are accustomed, than by posting this nonsense.

    At this point, the only people that would even think of donating are Chemjeff and Laursen, and we all know they don’t have jobs.

    1. And are likely the same person.

      1. No shit?

        1. Plenty full of shit, if you must know.

    2. I will gladly pay you on Tuesday, for some weird shit today.

      1. “This is your third free weird shit this month. You have two free weird shits remaining. Donate today and become a VIP member!”

    3. Yeah you’re right. Better that Reason just turn out anti-Left pro-GOP screeds just like every other place on the right-wing blogosphere. That way Reason could really distinguish itself!

      1. Do you realize how you mark yourself by the battles you choose?

        1. What do you mean?

          1. What part wasn’t clear?

            1. If you mean that I am a constant critic of all the Team Red backslapping around here, then I don’t mind wearing that label at all.

              1. As long as you understand that it means we know you’re lying about your political affiliation.

                1. So what do you think is my political affiliation?

                  And why are you so insistent of trying to pin some label on me? Why can’t you just examine the arguments that are presented?

                  1. That’s the point you keep missing

                    You’re pinning the label on yourself.

                    1. No, that is the inference YOU are making by trying to cast disagreements in the context of only two sides.

                      Believe it or not, I don’t object to all right-wing ideas. For example I fully support the right to keep and bear arms. I support generally lower taxes. I’m not thrilled with the idea of abortion (although I would not go as far as some of these red states in trying to ban it).

                      What I do object to, is the right-wing victimhood complex, the unreason, the radicalization of “Destroy the left!”, “Here comes Civil War 2, boys!”, the xenophobia, the casual bigotry, the abandonment of principle in favor of utilitarian arguments like “use their rules against them”, and above all, the cultish behavior that they are displaying towards Dear Leader Trump. That is what I mainly object to on the right nowadays.

                      How does that make me a left-winger? I don’t support single-payer, I don’t support the Green New Deal, I don’t support higher taxes, I don’t support higher spending, I don’t support “free college”, I don’t support much of anything on the Team Blue wish list.

                      You and others are the ones who are drawing unjustified conclusions like “since he is always attacking Team Red, that must mean he’s on Team Blue”. No, I’m someone who is just thoroughly disgusted with Team Red at this point and what they have degenerated into.

                    2. I didn’t read that because its just more self serving nonsense when your actions are transparent and make your motivations plain.

                    3. No one believes you and your actions make them right to behave that way.

                    4. Sad to see so many people trapped in the Team Red/Team Blue false dichotomy.

                      I’m not on Team Red and I’m not on Team Blue either.

                      Some people just can’t handle that level of complexity.

                    5. You sound like a schizophrenic blaming everyone else because they arent schizo like him.

                      Yes yes, everyone else is the problem.

                  2. “Why can’t you just examine the arguments that are presented?”

                    You first.

                  3. The writers at Reason routinely engage in Team Blue backslapping. Many of the commenters call them out on it. You consider the call outs to be Team Red backslapping, that you then proceed to call out, without ever criticizing the writers of the articles for their obvious partisan talking points.

                    You comment solely to counter criticism of the inane leftist stupidity that has taken a foothold on this “libertarian” site.

                    That is how we know you are leftist that pretends to be a libertarian. It’s not difficult.

                    1. The writers at Reason routinely engage in Team Blue backslapping.

                      Here is the problem right here. As a general rule, THEY DON’T. But from the context of Team Red, not completely vilifying the left is equivalent to coddling them.

                      For example, when Ron Bailey writes an article on climate change, with a phrase like “climate change is a problem”, he inevitably gets dragged for even that innocuous of a statement in the comments section. Evidently, even *acknowledging* climate change is “Team Blue backslapping”!

                      You know what would be “Team Blue backslapping”? Endorsing the Green New Deal. Has anyone at Reason done that? Has anyone at Reason even come close to that? No.

                      I am GLAD that Reason is presenting issues in contexts other than the tired boring two-party duopoly.

                    2. “As a general rule, THEY DON’T. But from the context of Team Red,”

                      Everyone else is deluded, not you. Sure bud.

                    3. Give me a few concrete examples of what you would regard as “Team Blue backslapping” here at Reason.

                    4. “Impeachment Report: Democrats Accuse Trump of Soliciting Ukraine to ‘Benefit His Reelection'”, Binion, 12/03/2019

                      “The House GOP Impeachment Report In Brief: Democrats Are Bad, Trump Is Good”, Binion, 12/03/2019

                      “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Right to Oppose This NYC Mega-Development”, Britschgi, 12/03/2019

                      “Republicans Struggle To Find a Coherent Defense During Trump Impeachment Hearings”, Binion, 11/25/2019

                      I’m not going to bother with the 2nd page of the “latest” articles.

                    5. Those don’t count because.

                    6. Okay, let’s take this one for example:

                      “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Right to Oppose This NYC Mega-Development”, Britschgi, 12/03/2019

                      Did you actually read the article, or did you stop when you read AOC’s name? The article is saying that the proposed project is a bad idea because it makes no economic sense and would inevitably require government subsidies in order to make it work. Which is not the reason why AOC is opposing the project. The article in no way endorsed AOC’s rationale for opposing the project. You see this as “Team Blue backslapping”? See this is part of the problem. “Cheerleading for Team Blue” is seemingly defined as not denouncing them at every turn. It is ridiculous.

          2. He means you’re a fucking idiot.

            1. Sure, whatever, Mr. “Rational libertarians are actually Republicans”

              1. No, you’re right, they’re leftist Democrats … and you. GTFO.

      2. On one hand, I want realistic libertarian ideas published… because principles.

        On the other, get woke, go broke, is an interesting tactic that keeps me coming back to post, despite the obvious circling of the toilet that will eventually require me to find new leftist apologists to entertain me

    4. NUNES MAN BAD

  25. “Solomon authored several op-eds suggesting that when Joe Biden was vice president, he tried to get Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired in order to protect his son, Hunter Biden.”

    Suggesting? Suggesting? WTF?
    There is video of Biden himself bragging he not only TRIED, he SUCCEEDED at getting the prosecutor fired (quid) in order to get authorized funds (quo).
    Nothing to see here, no chance I could get impeached the day after I take over (I mean take office) in 2020.

    1. The Democrats used a secret subpoena to monitor the phone records of their opponents. Then they selectively leaked those phone records to reveal the sources of a journalist whose reporting they don’t like.

      Reason now has the nerve to say that Paul is wrong to be upset about this for reasons that are unclear to even the most careful reader.

    2. WTF indeed.

    3. You didn’t address the “… in order to protect his son, Hunter Biden” part of the quote.

      1. Just loke you missed the part where trump said there was a quid pro quo. Jist an oversight, I’m sure.

        1. I assume you meant to say “Trump said there was NOT a quid pro quo”. He said that after the story became public.

          1. Right, normal people go around saying there was no quid pro quo every day. I know I do.

            You think Trump was even familiar with that term before someone accused him of it?

            1. You just underlined my point.

              1. Reading comprehension a challenge for you?

                1. You are right. I misread what NotAnotherSkippy was saying. I apologize for that. By “Just [like] you missed the part where trump said there was a quid pro quo” he meant that Biden publicly bragged about a quid pro quo, while Trump has not.

                2. Well, not using those exact words, anyway.

      2. Which of course changes nothing.

        1. It changes everything. In one narrative he is just carrying out Obama Administration policy with broad international support. In the alternative narrative he is protecting his family’s corrupt interests. That’s a big difference.

          1. Just a happy coincidence!
            (hand wave)

  26. Some of Nunes’ phone calls were unearthed as part of the impeachment inquiry, because Nunes was on the phone with a lot of folks suspected of doing weird shit involving Ukraine and the Bidens.

    Hey remember when Reason was against warrantless wiretapping without caveats making exception for alleged dirty furriners? Ahhh but that was back when Bushitler was persecuted the muzzies. It’s totally different in this case, because Ukraine blew up 3,000 innocent Americans in the largest attack on US soil. Oh wait, that was actually the muzzies. Oh well. Orange Man Bad.

    1. An American doesn’t lose his 4th Amendment rights because he is on the phone with a dirty furriner. I guess reason missed that memo.

      You really have to be fucking kidding me with this shit.

      1. An American doesn’t lose his 4th Amendment rights because he is on the phone with a dirty furriner.

        Look, you unpatriotic terrorist-supporting punk, I didn’t support expanding and extending the PATRIOT Act – “a big step to ensure the continuation of one of the Intelligence Community’s most vital tools for tracking foreign terrorists” as I called it at the time – just to have you bad-mouth the government you owe your safety to. I ought to sue you for such slander.

        1. Even under the Patriot Act, the American person’s name is masked and the fact they were there at all is destroyed after 90 days unless there is probable cause to keep it.

          So, try again Jeff you fucking retard.

          1. I didn’t use the Devin Nunes sock, but that’s funny nonetheless.

            1. Yes, you think spying on opposition journalists and politicians is funny and great when done by the other side.

              We already knew that.

    2. I can’t wait for the same shit to start happening to all the democrats putting on this charade after Trump wins in 2020. There is so much ammo provided the past three years they’re never going to be able to dig themselves out.

      The “but look what you said when democrats did it” will reign down on these clowns until 2024

      1. Do you think that matters? They dont even bothervfc to as cknowledge their hypocrosies, and neither do their lapdog media allies.

        See: Nadler on Impeachment – c. 1998 for just the latest of a zillion ecamples

  27. And they were obtained (likely via subpoena) directly from AT&T, not via some secret federal fishing expedition blessed by the FISA court.

    The parenthetical confirms that you have absolutely no idea how they were obtained. Guess what you brainless fucking cunt? Records obtained under FISA… are also obtained directly from the phone company.

    Jesus fucking Christ. You might be the only woman in existence too fucking stupid to even qualify as a sandwich maker.

    1. Hear! Hear!

    2. Either my intelligence is skyrocketing, or REASON is getting dumb as shit.

      1. I dunno if it’s stupidity, or just a 100%-infection-rate case of TDS at the Reason offices.

        “Democrats good because Orange Man Bad” seems to be Reason’s new operating slogan.

    3. the only woman in existence too fucking stupid to even qualify as a sandwich maker.

      If you spot her two slices of bread she could probably make a shit sandwich.

  28. “No one went specifically looking for Nunes’ phone records”

    Journalism is believing the people you share ideologies with.

    1. When I broke into that house, I wasn’t specifically looking for a Rolex.

    1. Malarkey!

      1. Blimey!

      2. Yowza!

    2. Before or after he butchered a Cockney accent in “Mary Poppins”?

      1. After. When he mentioned this, the producer didn’t give him the job. The only reason the producer thought Dick Van Dyke would be a bad choice to play James Bond was his bad accent. They couldn’t think of any other reasons not to cast him. Wow.

        1. Mary Tyler Moore wss hotter than sny Bond Girl. He had the Kavorka
          It would have been a riot seeing Bond and Pussy Galore in separate twin beds

          1. MTM was smoking hot. I am not sure hotter than any Bond girl, but she absolutely was in their league.

      2. Now that would have been a jolly holiday!

  29. Today on New Woke Reason: How it’s totally cool and the proper for Democrats in Congress to spy on Republican phone records if they weren’t actually looking for them.

    In next Monday’s edition of New Woke Reason: How the FBI had no choice but to monitor the Trump campaign during the election, for the good of the country.

    Coming in January: How a completely partisan vote for impeachment by the House is prima facie evidence of Donald Trump’s guilt.

    1. ENB is aiming for a Bohemian Grove invite.

      1. You do know that lots of Republicans are part of Bohemian Grove, don’t you?

        1. You misspelled “RINOs”.

          1. Every Republican President except Trump has belonged. Is he the only true Republican among them?

    2. ENB’s story here is that they just happened to obtain Nunes’ phone records because Nunes was talking to all sorts of shady furriners involved in Ukraine. Okay. So they obtained Nunes’ call to John Solomon because Solomon is Ukrainian?

      1. “So they obtained Nunes’ call to John Solomon because Solomon is Ukrainian?”

        If that is the case, then I retract my statement above.

        1. They didn’t. I was wrong about that. I misread the story. My apologies.

    3. Yeh totes weird their position here.

      1. There’s a heavy stench of inbreeding in the air.

    4. Pretty sure at least Shackford already covered next Monday’s edition at least once…
      And I’ve only been coming here since 2018

  30. “Today, I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced this morning

    It’s about time someone decided to get this train moving.

    1. “Today, I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced this morning

      “Was she asking for it?
      Was she asking nice?
      If she was asking for it
      Did she ask you twice?”

      1. “Was she asking for it?
        Was she asking nice?
        If she was asking for it
        Did you poke her twice?”

    2. A train like the FDR train from the 1944 election?
      https://youtu.be/oa1bUH8nV64?t=61
      Side note: I’ve always found the dialogue in that cartoon in its entirety disturbing.

  31. Now it’s the turn of academics to let the mask drop publicly. Man oh man that Karlan.

    1. Holy cow was that woman yesterday crazy. I don’t get all of the whining about the Baron Trump remark. The issue is how can this woman be so crazy that she thinks that the Titles and Notabilities clause is relevant here.

      That woman is a walking satire of the crazy bitch woke professor. The amazing thing is that even though leftist hack law professors are a dime a dozen, the House Democrats thought putting that crazy broad in front of the country was a good idea. They are either on Trump’s payroll or have completely lost their minds.

      1. Yeah, I don’t get all the faux outrage over the cunt’s quip either. Hell, it made me chuckle. I thought it was a fairly clever pun from an otherwise humorless scold. I swear I thought they were going to roll a fainting couch onto the set of Hannity last night.

        1. Well someone pushed a mattress around so why not a couch?

      2. Karlan was (I guess not anymore, but who knows) a favorite for Supreme Court in the next D admin…

        1. She is so crazy, Obama took her off the short list for being too far left. There are also a raft of stories about her on Twitter from people who claim to live around Stanford involving things her losing her shit at some 80 year old Chinese woman at a drycleaner over the cleaner’s losing a sock. If even a 1/4th of what is being said is true, the woman is completely nuts and really vicious. Thank God she isn’t on the bench.

          1. Who the heck dry cleans a sock?

            1. Good question.

            2. Tulpa??
              Hihn??
              Palin’s buttplug??

        2. Her testimony was one of the more bizarre public spectacles I have ever seen. She talked about how she was so triggered by the Trump Hotel that she had to go to the other side of the street when she walked passed it.

          That alone is seriously strange behavior. But what is even crazier is that she somehow thought mentioning it in a Congressional hearing was necessary or a good idea. Here you are a law professor and are called to testify before Congress about Impeachment. And one of the things you make a point of mentioning is how you walked to the other side of the street when you pass the President’s hotel. WTF kind of a deranged mind thinks that way?

          1. Their testimony was supposed to be about Constitutional standards for impeachment, which would seem to require a certain level of disinterest and detachment from the principals of the matter at hand. Showing a personal animus against Trump would seem to undermine the purpose of their testimony.

          2. It’s pretty hilarious how the Dems are quickly becoming a party led by the nose by bitter Wine Aunts.

            1. That her testimony came the week after Thanksgiving is oddly appropriate. The crazy aunt you spent all day Thursday trying to avoid eye contact is on TV testifying before Congress the following Wednesday.

            2. Old white women are a threat to the Republic. And, just generally unpleasant overall.

              A post-menopausal women in a position of power is an invitation for disaster. Without an emotional outlet directed toward the rearing of children, a woman’s natural compassion and nurturing instincts turn into totalitarian fantasies simmering over a fire of uncontrolled emotional impulses. The twilight years can turn into the twilight zone in the blink of an eye.

              In other words, perfect shock troops for the progressive left.

              1. Author, author!!!!!

          3. //That alone is seriously strange behavior.//

            And, were she President, impeachable behavior. Clearly.

      3. Shes their idea of SCOTUS material.
        Unable to use stretches of sidewalk due to the politics of building developers

  32. Nunes was on the phone with a lot of folks suspected of doing weird shit

    Scintillating journalism right there. Downright stellar. I’m pulling out my credit card right fucking now.

    1. I believe she is citing U.S. v. Codswallop which held that the government need only suspect someone of doing “weird shit” to obtain a warrant to spy on them. It is the weird shit exception to the 4th Amendment.

      1. Thanks for the insight. I wish I could have done an MD/JD program—I think it would have been a blast, and I would have loved to defend physicians in malpractice suits—but I was too old by the time I finally got to medical school, so I settled for becoming a surgeon instead.

        1. You are better off being a surgeon.

        2. Please please check in for medical related articles.

          reason staffers dont really check facts and it would be great to have a few people doctors around here to straighten them out.

      2. What’s even more bizarre is the idea that a journalist investigating a controversial story is somehow guilty of…something bad… because he talked to a controversial person at the center of the controversial story.

        The amount of government shenanigans Reason is willing to tolerate in order to get rid of that nasty Orange Man is mind-boggling.

        1. NUNES MAN BAD TOO

      3. LMFAO

      1. Cue 60svBat-Man tune….Paf! Wham! Burp!

    2. Fake libertarian alert, credit card and not bitcoin.

  33. I donated last year in the hopes things would turn around and you all would drop the derangement. I don’t even care for half the stuff he does but the blatant coat-tailing you do with the corporate press is SAD!

    Not this year. Maybe next year when get medicated for TDS.

    Probably not though. You need Trump Daddy. You need a bad guy to rebel against. Makes perfect sense when you all make arguments like teenage girls.

    1. Probably not though. You need Trump Daddy. You need a bad guy to rebel against.

      I’ve been thinking along those lines for a while. When Trump leaves the White House (whenever that happens) there are going to be a lot of people in proggy land whose lives will utterly collapse because they’ll have no Evil Demon to crusade against (thereby proving their great heroism).

      1. Eh, the same things were said about when Bushitler left office. “What will those Bush haters do now???”

        1. Indeed and here you are.

        2. You came here and started losing your mind about Trump.

        3. “…Bushitler…”

          Lefty ‘tards spend half their lives coming up with ‘clever’ nick-names that would embarrass a 1-st grade kid.
          Fuck off, you pathetic excuse for a human.

        4. Be honest …. How many pussyhats do you own? And, more importantly, does your elderly girlfriend actually let you wear them?

  34. “Schiff never set out to obtain records of Nunes’ phone activity.”

    BUT HE STILL PRINTED IT IN THE REPORT.

  35. “Solomon authored several op-eds suggesting that when Joe Biden was vice president, he tried to get Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired in order to protect his son, Hunter Biden.”

    HE FUCKING BRAGGED ABOUT ON.

    ON CAMERA.

    Yeah, if you want more of this absurd nonsense, donate to the hypocrites who adore the market and ignore that their insolvency without donations IS the market reaction to what they provide.

    1. Everybody knows, for a fact, without any doubt, since it has been established beyond contention, and also proven, that Shokin himself was, in fact, the corrupt prosecutor burning all the files evidencing Burisma’s corrupt dealings and that Joe Biden had Shokin fired because his interests were, at all times, as we all know, to actually *intensify* the investigations into Burisma.

      -chemjeff radical imbecilicus

      1. 1. Shokin was regarded as a corrupt prosecutor by not just the US, but by the World Bank, by EU, by anti-corruption groups within Ukraine itself. Were they ALL out to protect Biden’s son? Hmm?

        2. Biden may have been lying about, or at least highly exaggerating, the degree to which his “demand” had on getting Shokin fired. Biden’s trip was in December 2015 but Shokin wasn’t fired until March 2016. It certainly wasn’t “within 6 hours” that he claimed in the video.

        3. The investigation into Burisma was, at the time of Shokin’s firing, dormant. So if Joe Biden did all this in order to protect his son, then by demanding Shokin be fired, he actually put his son in greater jeopardy.

        Here is a nice timeline for you to peruse.

        https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

        1. Do you understand the concept of a self-own?

        2. “2. Biden may have been lying about, or at least highly exaggerating, the degree to which his “demand” had on getting Shokin fired.”

          And Santa Claus is making lists, you scumbag.

  36. This whole shit show will result in nothing but the taxpayers getting screwed again.

  37. “1. Shokin was regarded as a corrupt prosecutor by not just the US, but by the World Bank, by EU, by anti-corruption groups within Ukraine itself. Were they ALL out to protect Biden’s son? Hmm?”

    World Bank and EU didn’t care. They went along because the USA was obsessed over it.

    Just cannot figure out how “corrupt prosecutor who won’t investigate Burisma” managed to raid his property and seize assets in the investigation a month before he was fired was worse than the next prosecutor who absolved the head of Burisma on everything.

    “Biden may have been lying about, or at least highly exaggerating, the degree to which his “demand” had on getting Shokin fired. Biden’s trip was in December 2015 but Shokin wasn’t fired until March 2016. It certainly wasn’t “within 6 hours” that he claimed in the video.”

    He called the Ukrainian President repeatedly in the days before Shokin was sacked.

    I love that Biden saying he did something, to you, is not proof he did it.

    “3. The investigation into Burisma was, at the time of Shokin’s firing, dormant. So if Joe Biden did all this in order to protect his son, then by demanding Shokin be fired, he actually put his son in greater jeopardy.”

    His home was raided in 2/16. Not sure how this is “dormant”.

    A lobbyist emailed the State Dept and mentioned that there two high-level US citizens on the Burisma board, Hunter Biden being one of them.

    1. “World Bank and EU didn’t care. They went along because the USA was obsessed over it.”

      So, if the World Bank’s and EU’s public statements don’t reflect their true views, but were influenced by U.S. pressure, do we apply that same standard to assessing Zelensky’s saying publicly that there was no quid pro quo?

      1. “So, if the World Bank’s and EU’s public statements don’t reflect their true views, but were influenced by U.S. pressure, do we apply that same standard to assessing Zelensky’s saying publicly that there was no quid pro quo?”

        Reason, the Dems, and the media are already doing that. Have you missed it?

        1. “So, if the World Bank’s and EU’s public statements don’t reflect their true views, but were influenced by U.S. pressure, do we apply that same standard to assessing Zelensky’s saying publicly that there was no quid pro quo?”

          (lol) The “pressure” — by Trump — is why he said that. Educate yourself. Ukraine faces a serious military threat, from Russia. Are you really so ignorant that Russia’s military ahd seized and occupied part of Ukraine? When Zelensky mentioned the weapons he needed, did you miss that?

          Are you also unaware that other officials, here and Ukraine, have given first hand testimony, under oath, that Ukraine was aware of the quid pro quo, and confused by what it was … until Trump told him his demands, in a transcript redacted by Trump?

          Reason, the Dems, and the media are already doing that. Have you missed it?

          I haven’t missed how heavily you’ve been brainwashed, by ;lies and by censored news.

    2. “1. Shokin was regarded as a corrupt prosecutor by not just the US, but by the World Bank, by EU, by anti-corruption groups within Ukraine itself. Were they ALL out to protect Biden’s son? Hmm?”

      World Bank and EU didn’t care. They went along because the USA was obsessed over it.

      They were first, precious snowflake. Then convinced the US.

  38. “the phone records were requested and reviewed by the bipartisan House Intelligence Committee, not some rogue gang of surveillance-happy Democrats.”

    So, the phone records were requested and reviewed by a rogue gang of surveillence-happy bipartisan House Intelligence Committee members? Not sure that the contrast you attempt make in the original sentence is as stark as you seem to think…

    1. Nunes is one of the members of the bipartisan House Intelligence Committee that you just characterized as “surveillance-happy”?

  39. Can’t wait for the Senate to declare Trump not guilty, so the Democrats can complain about them just doing so for political purposes.

    1. Ummmmmm
      ANOTHER MASSIVE SETBACK FOR TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE
      REPORTED BY EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET .,… BUT SUPPRESSED AT FAUX NEWS — (FOR OVER 24 HOURS, SO FAR) … Fox published LIES about the Durham Report, by legal analyst Gregg Jarret on Martha McCullun … roughly 20 hours after the content was reported by all REAL major news outlets,

      YUGE pies now dripping off the faces of
      Bill Barr,
      Kevin Nunes,
      Jim Jordan,
      Sean Hannity (who promised a bombshell – smirk),
      Laura Ingraham,
      Tucker Carlson,
      Judge Jeanine,
      Donald J Trump

      Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup

      The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence …

      1. It is now nearly two days, that Fox has suppressed the news of the Barr-appointed Durham report, finding no evidence of impropriety in the FBI investigation oi the 2016 Trump campaign,. This is the most likely reason for Trump and the GOP to totally change their defense tactics..

  40. WOW! Rand Paul no longer gets a free pass at Reason. About time. Like his father, Rand has one foot in each camp, libertarian and the alt-right spiritually founded by Ron.

    But it’s impossible to be both, since the alt-right is the furthest opposite from libertarias, on the right. Like Ron, Rand sucks up tothe Christian Taliban, seeking a modern version of the (un)Holy Inquisition, church and state united, that so many of our colonists came here to escape, and WHY the founders insisted on Separation.

    Rand’s political hypocrisy was most blatant in his last Presidential campaign. He got a standing ovation at Berkeley, on civil liberties. Then fucked it all away, less than a week later, pandering to the very wackiest, most authoritarian extreme of the Christian Right. He called for nationwide tent revivals! … to protest the severe threat of … MARRIAGE EQUALITY! Libertarian? My ass.

    This also shows the sheer wackiness of Ron Paul’s “liberty coalition.” Upon reflection, is it not kinda crazy to assume Berkeley liberals in coalition with the Christian Right? Social liberals and social conservatives? HELLO? Should we also imagine Bernie Sanders in a coalition with the Tea Party … on taxes and spending? (lol)

    Like Ron, Rand babbles about phony federalism (KKK-style states rights) except when they (Ron and Rand ) sponsor bills to DENY state autonomy — abortion and marriage equality. Rand’s “personhood” bill, is correct, a fetus should have full rights at conception … but so does the mother! HELLO? LIfe and Liberty are both fundamental rights, this both absolute, and co-equal constitutionally, by the very definition of unalienable.

    This equality of absolute rights explodes the brains on both the far left and far right. But, safe to assume that Jefferson and the Founders knew what they were doing. Life and liberty are equal, along with many others, but only constitutionally, as rights

    Is it all that difficult to imagine an oppressive government, ranking the priorities of fundamental rights .. to justify forcing their own favorite right to be supreme ..as we see in the authoritarian extremes, left and right, on issues like abortion and gun rights (the most obvious abuses)?

    Apparently, it is quite difficult, for anti-liberty authoritarians, both left and right, Which is why God invented libertarians..

    1. Who allowed a libertarian here?

  41. Ok Nunes wasn’t supoened and his number just got “caught’ up..sort of like when an American is accidentally listened to for a FISA search warrant of a foreign national…

    What is this investigation about anyway? A president who is investigating if a foreign entity has something on a major presidential candidate…protecting agains foreign threats…oh that was Trump in 2016…?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.