Donald Trump

Trump's Impeachment Trial Will Only Make Us Hate Washington Even More

That's a bad thing, even—or especially—from a libertarian perspective.

|

Today is the day that the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump gets underway. Proceedings start around 1 p.m. in Washington (go here for places to watch) and are expected to last anywhere from a week to a month (Bill Clinton's trial in 1999 lasted five weeks). In a vote that proceeded along party lines, President Trump has been charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is widely expected to be found not guilty by the Senate, in a vote that will also proceed largely, if not completely, along party lines.

Come February, or whenever the pompously self-declared "world's greatest deliberative body" votes on the matter, we will be right back to where we started, only a little bit more in debt, a little angrier, and a little more behind schedule on nuts-and-bolts things like passing a real budget for the current fiscal year, figuring out how to pay for entitlements, and discerning whether we're technically at war with various countries.

The impeachment process thus perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with the federal government. From start to finish, the impeachment is almost purely partisan and political rather than substantive, and it accomplishes nothing other than driving down even further any form of trust or confidence in the presidency, Congress, or even the Supreme Court (Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial). To be fair, impeachment is designed to be a political, rather than legal, process. It's not about discovering the truth of what happened, or even fully explaining what happened, as you'd expect in a real trial. As Gerald Ford noted just a few years before becoming president himself after the resignation of Richard Nixon (who was faced with his own impeachment trial), an impeachable offense "is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

It's only fitting, then, that being found innocent will be an equally partisan exercise. Indeed, that seems especially fitting in an election year in which the incumbent shows some of the worst approval numbers in history and still seems to have an excellent shot at winning a second term.

I've documented over the years how far and fast trust and confidence in various parts of the federal government has fallen. In 1964, for instance, 77 percent of Americans agreed that they trusted "the government in Washington always or most of the time." As of last year, that figure stood at 17 percent. When it comes to the presidency, trust has toppled from 73 percent in 1972 to 45 percent.  For Congress, the drop is even worse, plummeting from 71 percent in 1972 to 38 percent in 2019. Trust in the Supreme Court has followed the same general trend, even if its numbers are better. In 1988, 56 percent had a high degree of trust in the Supreme Court but thirty years later, that figure clocked in at 37 percent.

It's unlikely that the purely partisan impeachment process will do anything but accelerate those trends. For libertarians, this might on its face seem a blessing, as evacuating trust and confidence in the federal government is surely a precondition for radically reducing its growth and power.

But that's not how things work. Again and again—and in countries all over the world—declines in trust of government correlate strongly with calls for more government regulation in more parts of our lives. "Individuals in low-trust countries want more government intervention even though they know the government is corrupt," explain the authors of a 2010 Quarterly Journal of Economics paper. That's certainly the case in the United States, where the size, scope, and spending of government has vastly increased over exactly the same period in which trust and confidence in the government has cratered. In 2018, I talked with one of the paper's authors, Andrei Shleifer, a Harvard economist who grew up in the Soviet Union before coming to America. Why do citizens ask a government they don't believe in to bring order? "They want regulation," he said. "They want a dictator who will bring back order."

Counterintuitively, the relative size and spending of government in the United States actually flattened or dipped during periods when trust and confidence in government picked up:

From 1994 to 2001, Pew data show upticks in the number of people who trust the government to mostly do the right thing…. Using inflation-adjusted dollars, the feds spent about $250 billion more in [Bill] Clinton's last year than in his first, a small increase compared to the spending surges seen under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Viewed as a percentage of GDP, federal spending fell significantly during that period. In 1991, it equaled 21 percent. By 2001, it equaled just 17.5 percent.

There were many reasons for minor increases in trust and confidence in government during the 1990s. The end of the Cold War, the rise of the internet, and continual economic expansion all played important roles (especially the latter). While Washington got shriller—virtually all modern forms of hyper-polarization were present or birthed in the '90s—it also became less important to more people. Clinton famously acknowledged that "the era of big government is over" even as Congress worked in a bipartisan fashion to change welfare, cut capital gains taxes, and slash defense spending. That sort of rapprochement is unimaginable in the current moment.

You can argue that Trump richly deserves to be the third president to face an impeachment trial, that we should be impeaching all the presidents all the time, or that Trump is actually the victim of a coup. You might even win those arguments. But none of that matters if you really care about restraining the size of government. Come the end of the Senate trial that starts today, Trump will almost certainly still be in office, Democrats and Republicans will hate each other even more, and trust and confidence in Washington will be even lower than it already is.

And the spending of the federal government, what Milton Friedman said was the purest measure of its power, will continue to set new records. All impeachment will have done is add more fuel to the perpetual dumpster fire that is Washington and pushed the calendar back a month or so when it comes to the fiscal reckoning that awaits us in the new decade.

NEXT: Vladimir Putin Is Not Reforming the State. He's Taking Power for Himself.

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. Does Nick Gillespie even read this publication anymore?

    1. He hasn’t since he was Editor in Chief.

    2. Trust in government and libertarian principles are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they’re actually dependent upon one another. There will never be–at least in our lifetimes–a truly “libertarian” Presidency. Instead, what we should hope for is that the libertarian/classical liberal POV can be inserted into both right-wing and left-wing discussions and perhaps some very important compromises won. Libertarians have made alliances w/ liberals and even the left on criminal justice reform. On the role of the security state, libertarians have made alliances w/ both liberals and conservatives.

      But libertarians are not going to make much influence by broadcasting themselves with a “bumper sticker” type of PR. Being against “big government,” “excess government spending,” “government regulation” . . . that’s like saying you’re against murdering puppies.

      The major federal health care and pension programs are not going away. Libertarians need to realize that Medicare Part D is not a threat to our “individual liberty.” So the question becomes, how can we achieve agreed-upon outcomes, i.e., ideally we want all Americans to be healthy, with much more adult common sense and fiscal responsibility.

      1. Trust in government and libertarian principles are not mutually exclusive.

        As far as Reason is concerned, they are. Otherwise, how do you explain their never ending calls for ignoring the law when it’s convenient for them and enforcing it against people they don’t like?

    3. #LibertariansForTrustingTheDeepState

  2. AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You’ve been literally whacking off on the daily at the prospect of impeaching Trump, and now that you know it’s going to get shoved up your ass and cost your Democrats the next presidential election and probably their house majority you want to pretend to be above the fray.

    Never change Nick, you disingenuous sad sack of shit.

    1. Yeah. Maybe I am overly cynical but I think if impeachment was doing real political damage to Trump, Nick would be a lot more enthusiastic about it.

      1. I think Nick Gillespie is pro Trump. The gist of the article is that impeachment is a partisan waste of time. Basically what Trump is saying.

        There are several Reason writers with TDS. Nick is not one of them.

        1. Yeah right = There are several Reason writers with TDS. Nick is not one of them.

          Ha ha ha ha ha ha…..

        2. Nick does not exhibit the level of TDS that Dalmia or Suderman do.

    2. the real questions are 1. is Mcconnell just gonna get through it as fast as possible, or is he gonna try to turn it into an investigation of Biden and Son? and 2. is SC Roberts gonna turn into his basic bitchboy self and start calling stuff just to “maintain balance”. It’s hard to win a game when the referee is stacked against you.

      1. Depends on how rogue Murkowski, et. al. want to go.

        Because Roberts is one simple majority vote away from having anything he does slapped down hard. A guy who purports to worry about the image of the Court should be concerned about that prospect.

        1. Roberts oversees the FISA Court.
          #ImpeachRoberts

    3. Has it ever occurred to this author or you commentors that impeachment is actually a necessary process to remove a president who has violated the constitution? Whether you like it or not it needs to be done. Anyone who ignores this fact and the evidence, in this case quite clear, is against the constitution. Those senators took an oath. Any that make this about politics and not evidence is an oath breaker and traitor. Period.
      How do you think that will affect trust in government?

      1. I’m sure you’ll keep trusting your totalitarian idols

      2. You have got to be kidding.

      3. Mike has a new fucking sock? Go back to quora.

      4. Impeachment certainly doesn’t make me hate anyone any more than I already did.
        It doesn’t make me hate Republicans.
        And I already hated DemonCRAPS at 11 on a scale of 10.
        All this process does is confirm that my reasoning has been sound all along.

      5. Has it ever occurred to this author or you commentors that impeachment is actually a necessary process to remove a president who has violated the constitution?

        Presidents violate the Constitution all the time, often for perfectly good reasons; there is nothing “necessary” about impeaching them over it. But that’s academic because…

        Anyone who ignores this fact and the evidence, in this case quite clear, is against the constitution.

        How do the actions outlined in the articles of impeachment violate the Constitution? Which article do they violate? How?

    4. Another well reasoned,rational comment from the insanity of a trump supporter ! Check out the results of the last time this happened….Ronald Freisler and his full record !

  3. Trump’s Impeachment Trial Will Only Make Us Hate Washington Even More

    Donald Trump, best President in US history!

    1. “Will Only Make Us Hate Washington Even More”
      I’m not sure that’s even possible.

      1. Or a bad thing.

        1. Both of these things, 110%

      2. Whether or not it’s possible, I’m not sure the argument that it’s a bad thing is a valid argument. The purported relationship between trust in government and the amount of meddling the government’s doing has the cause and effect backwards I think. It’s not a bad thing to distrust government because that causes them to do more, rather, government should do less if they want us to trust them more.

        If you’re in an unfamiliar town and looking for a likely spot for lunch, are you going to stop by Joe’s BBQ, Lawnmower Repair, Tuxedo Rental, Pet Grooming and Window Glass Replacement Shop on the premise that Joe does so many things he must do them all really well? After a couple centuries of mission creep, it’s doubtful there’s anything the government doesn’t feel qualified to meddle in and just as doubtful the government does any of them any better than half-assed. We’re right not to trust them.

        1. I agree that Nick has the causation mixed up. But I think the causation here is somewhat circular, or can be. People trust a government more that does few essential things well. But a badly managed government contributing to social problems can also cause people to demand more governmnet solutions to problems caused by government meddling in the first place. There are plenty of examples of this to see today. Subsidized housing and welfare is a really good one. The solution to the problems created there is always more money and more government programs. Never just to un-do the destructive programs that created the problems in the first place.

          1. I actually don’t think it’s a case of inverted causation so much as a confounding variable. Societies with less overall trust will have more invasive governments.

            Though I’d have to chart out social capital’s relationship with trust in government.

            1. Good point. A high level of social trust isn’t created by government. But it can easily be destroyed.

          2. A lot of people have a naive and idealized idea of government as some benevolent god-like force. It’s just a collection of total strangers who are no more competent or altruistic as the next guy.

      3. Oh it’s possible.

        But, rather than hatred what they really fear is contempt.

  4. the impeachment … accomplishes nothing other than driving down even further any form of trust or confidence in the presidency, Congress, or even the Supreme Court

    What is trust or confidence in the *electorate*, chopped liver?

  5. Not all low trust of government is the same. It is true that countries with a high mistrust of government institutions also often end up with authoritarian governments. It is not, however, mistrust of their legislatures and Presidents that causes this. What causes it is a mistrust of the bureaucracy, things like the courts and the police and the things that people interact with and directly affect their lives. Indeed, the kind of mistrust and corruption that causes people to look to a strong national leader to solve are always local in nature. I support Generalisimo Snardly because I think he is the only person who can do something about the local police fucking me or the corrupt local judge or mayor is usually how it works.

    People in nearly every country dislike politicians and legislatures in particular. Their dislike and mistrust of them is not what drives support for tyranny. This isn’t going to cause people to support a tyrant. It is at most going to cause them to vote some of these assholes out of office. And that it seems makes Nick sad.

    1. I think Nick has a point. When people don’t trust government do you hear them demanding less government? No. You hear them wanting new departments, new laws, new watchdogs, and so on because the solution to corruption is giving people the power to stop corruption. Which never works because it just ends up putting more power in the hands of the corrupt. Honestly how often are people really voted out of office? People tend to like their representatives. It’s all the other ones that suck.
      I know you’ve got your panties in a twist because Reason doesn’t suck your president’s cock, but you could at least acknowledge when they get something right.

      1. To the extent he has a point, it doesn’t apply here. People have never liked or trusted the Congress. Mistrust of Congress is not what causes people to demand more government. It is mistrust of the institutions that Congress runs that causes people to demand more laws and the people running the government to have more power.

        1. You think impeachment will cause more or less distrust in the government? As I see it it’s going to deepen the partisan divide, especially when the vote is along party lines. Seriously, dude. This reflexive animosity towards anyone who dared to speak ill of Trump is tiresome.

          1. It will definitely increase partisan divide. I don’t know what it will take to reduce the partisan divide. Life has been too good for too long in this country. People just can’t take it. What’s the point of having a big, powerful government if you can’t use it to do things to people you don’t like?

            1. I am okay with a partisan divide. Do you really want this country uniting and starting to do things? I don’t.

              1. The ideal me wants to push back. But the realist me has to agree. Bipartisanship almost always leads to garbage. Take for instance the budget…when we had a strong partisan divide, spending cuts were enacted. The moment bipartisanship reared its head, all those spending cuts disappeared and debt got worse.

                1. Wasn’t TARP the epitome of bipartisanship?

                  1. Bush is the perfect example. The left hated him but while he was president bipartisanship gave us Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and TARP.

              2. I’d much rather see people stop putting all of their hopes into politics. I wouldn’t want to replace it with bipartisanship, but a much more apolitical society. Worry about what you can do and how you interact with other people, not what the federal government does.

                At this point, I’m so fed up and cynical, I think that the best thing might just be to stop having elections and disband congress. Just let the bureaucracy roll along. It’s a terrible system, but at least shit would stop changing and people could figure out how to deal with it and get on with their lives.

                I’ve been asking a lot lately why we need a full time legislature. Surely at some point you have enough laws and can send everyone home. If there’s a war or a funding crisis, then you can have an emergency session. But for the most part they just need to stop fucking with shit. You aren’t going to fine tune government until everything is great. You need government for a few very specific things. Other than that, it’s just an obstacle that people need to learn to work around.

                1. Why can’t we send em all home?

                  Well, one of the senators here in WA state apparently has 14 policy aides. And she is so self important that she would likely tell you that she needs twice that amount. And this doesn’t even take into account all of their assistants and other office staff.

                  You don’t really want all these people to lose their jobs, do you?

                  Haha

                2. In Quebec we say ‘the bureaucrats run the province’.

                  You can probably shut government down telling politicians to stay home and nothing will happen because of the deep state.

                  1. Which, on the whole, I suspect would be better than having the deep state and politicians fucking around with things at the edges all the time.

              3. I agree that politicians working “across the aisle” has terrible results more often than not. But I wasn’t talking about politicians. Neither was Nick.

                I thought the article was spot on. You are just pissy because it implied something bad about your political lord and savior, and that just will not do.

          2. “”This reflexive animosity towards anyone who dared to speak ill of Trump is tiresome.””

            Can it be anymore tiresome than the animosity towards anyone who dare speak well of Trump?

            1. Can it be anymore tiresome than the animosity towards anyone who dare speak well of Trump?

              If it existed I suppose it would.

              1. It certainly exists out in the world. But I agree, I see very little of it here.

          3. Nothing in my posts said anything about Trump. I am talking about trust in government and specifically trust in Congress versus trusts in institutions. What I said is about the general point and has nothing to do with Trump in particular.

            What is tiresome is your obsession with Trump and desire to make every subject about him and take every point that you don’t like no matter how general or theoretical about the unqualified defense of Trump.

            It is tiresome as fuck. Get Trump out of your head. I am sorry he has affected you so badly. I really am. But he is just a fucking politician. He isn’t that important. Don’t let him make you into some kind of weirdo obsessive.

            1. Some people REALLY need to be lead.

            2. Funny. The only obsessive people I see here are Trump supporters like you who have kittens whenever Reason says something that isn’t supportive of your guy.

              1. LOL. You keep telling yourself that. Sitting in a dark, quiet room and gently rocking yourself might help too.

              2. You are the one who brought him up not me. Moreover, my point says impeachment isn’t as bad as Nick claims. So how does that help Trump? It doesn’t. You only think it does because the man lives inside your head.

              3. The irony of this comment after you just said…

                Can it be anymore tiresome than the animosity towards anyone who dare speak well of Trump?

                If it existed I suppose it would.

                ***

                You consistently call anyone you disagree with a trumpista.

          4. Its like 75% of the commentary here at this point. Anything said in any way criticizing Trump is met with “reason is lefty garbage! TDS!” both when that is actually accurate, and when reason is correct.

            They are too far gone to realize they are just the other side, blindly following what their BS political faith tells them to. If there is a TDS on the left for anything criticizing trump, it is perfectly balanced with the clowns on here screaming “TDS” and defending a low watt fool at all costs because “other side bad”.

            They dont have the sense or intelligence to realize it or do something to better inform themselves. They cant hold 2 ideas in their head at once (I dunno, something like dems are terrible and trump ALSO does bad things). Its all or none.

            Lemmings marching

            1. When you have nothing to say beyond whining “orange man bad. Trump supporters whine”, you’ll get treated like the worthless waste of space you are, jumbo

            2. I mean, the lack of self awareness of jumbos comment is profound.
              Like a little lemming, over the cliff into idiocy and self-loathing goes he

        2. Isn’t it mistrust of (or annoyance with) their neighbors that makes people want more laws? As in–look at that asshole, there ought to be a law against that.

          1. Sometimes, but mostly at the state level. And that’s it’s own problem. I think the enormous and ongoing growth of the Federal government has different causes.

          2. Heaven forfend that we distrust our neighbors! Diversity is our strength.

            1. You certainly won’t get smaller government without more social trust.

              1. Social trust through identity politics!

                Yeah, that’ll work out just fine.

                1. Huh?
                  Identity politics definitely won’t get you social trust.

        3. A lot of “people” are just fine with Congress when it’s their own team in charge.

          1. I’ve noticed the very same thing. Personally, I’d like to send them all home, set them up with Skype for business, and have them in session for a month. Eliminate all lifetime benefits. Part of the problem here is that we have career politicians whose interest in getting re-elected is greater than their interest in serving their constituents.

      2. “When people don’t trust government do you hear them demanding less government?”

        By your reasoning libertarianism is impossible.

        1. When was the last time libertarians marched in D.C. demanding minimal government?

          1. I didn’t say you were right or wrong. It’s just interesting to read on a libertarian website.

            The last time libertarians marched was yesterday in Richmond

        2. I think that is correct, actually. I believe that true libertarianism is impossible as humans literally cannot handle it. That said, libertarians are needed to pushback and at least slow the inevitable government takeover that always occurs.

          1. “true libertarianism is impossible as humans literally cannot handle it.”

            Eventually people will favor freedom to safety

            1. Libertarianism is based on principles, namely the non aggression principle. Taxation of any kind requires violating the NAP, or you have the free rider problem. Anarcho capitalism is the completely uncompromised version of this. Libertarianism, while principled, is a compromise from the get go.

              I do not think humans can handle any compromise on principles without eventually getting back to where we are today. If you violate the NAP to pay for national defense, it is only a matter of time before you violate the NAP to force vaccines, or prevent discrimination in housing, or what have you.

            2. That sounds like wishful thinking to me. I hate to say it, but, while not impossible, I think libertarian government is highly improbable. Particularly through any sort of democratic, electoral process. People get elected promising to do things.

              1. In the end, unfortunately, human nature can’t handle the responsibility that is libertarianism.

            3. Maybe, but that only comes after most freedom is taken away and a revolution is necessary. Until then, the government will always get bigger and the people will always demand more without having to take responsibility for it.

            4. Where’s your evidence in history to support that?

    2. Disagree. Low trust is almost always universal. It’s not that one trusts a legislature but mistrusts a bureaucrat. It’s that one mistrusts legislature – and the major employer in town – and doing business with a stranger – etc. Rule of law requires trust. The notion that a low-trust govt will/can/should simply fade away and everything will be peachy again is ludicrous.

      A low-trust govt requires both reform and competence to fix. The more significant the reform needed, the more likely it is that the reformer will be both an authoritarian and a demagogue. But it is silly to oppose that proto-dictator by either minimizing govtl competence or minimizing the perception of reform needed. A proto-dictator is never the first reformer on the scene. They arise only after failed/denied reform by the incompetent.

      Fix the trust problem – and you still need the damn competence. But at least at that point the reform can focus on reducing the arbitrary footprint of govt as the higher trust allows for formal rules which do not aim at the wants and needs of particular people. They are intended to be merely instrumental in the pursuit of people’s various individual ends. And they are, or ought to be, intended for such long periods that it is impossible to know whether they will assist particular people more than others

  6. Dear God this is hilarious.

    Reason, which for the past three months has ceaselessly beaten the drum for impeachment , and derided any arguments that it might not be a good idea on the long run, now wakes up and realizes that their Frankenstein monster is wreaking havoc on the villagers?

    As my senior DI SSG Holmes used to tenderly say to me, “No shit Sherlock. No mutherfuckin’ shit.”

  7. We could say that Trump is a thin skinned narcissist who wildly overreacts to criticism and the Democrats are hellbent on punishing him for wrecking Hilary’s coronation and Obama’s apotheosis by narrowly achieving victory conditions in the 2016 election.

    1. Sounds like a good thing to say.

  8. What an odd flip flip. There have been dozens of regulars saying the exact same thing from the get-go, while Reason has been pumping out “impeach more often” and “impeachment is a good thing” for years.

    I’ve come to terms with this impeachment process as a good thing for the same reasons posted above. The veil is dropping. No one trusts the government. No one trusts the media. That’s a great thing for free minds and free markets.

    It’s also why I was hoping Reason would have been calling bullshit from the jump, but the rage clicks drawn from Orange Man Bad journalism-ing was too tempting for the editors.

    1. “It’s also why I was hoping Reason would have been calling bullshit from the jump, but the rage clicks drawn from Orange Man Bad journalism-ing was too tempting for the editors”

      That’s mighty generous of you.
      I have my doubts.
      Like the FBI’s “errors”, Reason’s “rage clicks” only go in one direction

      1. I no longer pretend the objective of any media outlet is to objectively inform

        1. That’s not what I was implying.
          I think saying their objective is to generate “rage clicks” is being very generous, overlooking what appears to be ideological servility and true belief in the progressive perspective

          1. It’s hard to find anyone who isn’t fully part of the progressive project. I think there is really something to the inner party/outer party way of looking at politics. And I don’t think most libertarians even escape being part of the outer party.

            1. There’s a difference between what you’re saying, which is a valid point, and viewing the world through Marxist identity-class conflict – which is where Reason decidedly comes from

              1. Not sure I agree with your assessment, but that’s OK.

        2. Advocacy journalism since the 1960s.
          No fact, just non factual “poetic truth” rhetoric to promote causes.

    2. The apparatchik coup and the impeachment fustercluck that is the plotters’ last hope is what’s fueling mistrust of the government.

      We’re seeing how we’re really governed.

  9. Amazingly, #TrumpUkraine surpassed #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history. As the only responsible and patriotic major party in American politics, the Democrats had no choice but to #Impeach.

    Pelosi knows exactly what she’s doing.

  10. “You can argue that Trump richly deserves to be the third president to face an impeachment trial, that we should be impeaching all the presidents all the time, or that Trump is actually the victim of a coup.”

    I can argue all three.

    Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but so has every president at least since Wilson, so the fact that Trump is only the third to be impeached means he’s the victim of a political coup, not justice.

    1. This is it. From the beginning it was clear that Trump was only guilty of doing the normal day-to-day type of corruption that most national politicians are guilty of. Just like Hunter Biden making millions in the Ukraine because of his last name was just the normal day-to-day type of corruption that most national politicians are guilty of. And don’t even get me started on the Clintons and Bushes.

      Trump’s real crime was doing that normal day-to-day corruption while being the most hated man in the world.

      1. From the beginning it was clear that Trump was only guilty of doing the normal day-to-day type of corruption that most national politicians are guilty of.

        I have to disagree there – Trump’s problem is that he wasn’t knowledgeable enough and sneaky enough and hypocritical enough to follow the normal political protocol in conducting his day-to-day corruption. It is known that there are customs and manners and etiquette that must be followed in the normal course of political corruption so that there is this plausible deniability that there’s any sort of wrongdoing going on. We all know it’s going on, but it’s all kinds of gauche to fail to pretend it’s not. It’s like when you’re having tea with the Queen and she lets out a thunderous fart, anyone with a bit of manners immediately apologizes and begs Her Majesty’s pardon for his indiscretion and blames a recent medical procedure for being responsible for his intestinal distress. One simply does not in any way, shape, or form acknowledge the Queen has just farted.

        How is it that broke-ass career politicians retire as multi-millionaires after a lifetime as a humble public servant like the Clintons or the Obamas? We all know damn well it’s because they’re big fucking crooks, but they do their crooked shit in the privacy of the back rooms where everybody who’s anybody understands the subtle difference between a nod and a wink and anybody who doesn’t can’t prove it. It’s just rude to suggest there’s anything wrong with winking and nodding. Trump isn’t a member of the club, he doesn’t do winking and nodding. How rude! Crude, vulgar, uncouth and ill-bred even. Not one of us.

        1. It’s true. Old Money has been replaced by the political class. Trump could have been one of them if he had wanted to, but he doesn’t care enough to put in the effort. And his massive ego simply doesn’t fit into most back rooms.

      2. Elections are the bedrock of our political system. Trump repeatedly trying to cheat at elections through foreign interference is very different than what past presidents have done.

          1. Stop laughing!!! Al Gore playing “DNC payoff money bagman” for the Chinese while visiting a Buddhist monastery *DID NOT* constitute foreign interference in our elections!

        1. Richard Daley and LBJ are laughing at you from hell.

        2. Remember. Jeff thinks he isnt a leftist even while using non informed leftist talking points.

  11. Simple minds like mine will wonder if the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ means actual crimes, like those found in statutes.
    If it means things that aren’t on the books anywhere as a crime, then the words mean nothing. We get that a lot from Progressive legal scholars and this appears to be a move by those in the House to a further redefinition of the Constitution.
    I get it. Trump is a jerk. If he commits a real crime, then nail him for it.

    1. The terms have meaning. The document could have just granted the power without any qualifier. It didn’t do that. High crimes means just that, actual crimes. Misdemeanors is something like a President just refusing to go to work or doing things that while not crimes represent him defaulting on the duties of the office.

      The bottom line is that those terms don’t mean “whatever Congress decides they mean”. Yes, it is true that Congress has the raw power to ignore the modifiers and there isn’t any remedy for them doing so other than voting them out of office. The power to do something and the lack of a remedy for doing it does not, however, make it a legal action. Not every illegal action has a remedy.

      1. But if he put his political gain above the best interest of the US, wouldn’t that be a misdemeanor, under your definition? (Not that the House framed it that way, of course.)

        1. Absolutely, but that’s tricky to prove. Name a president that didn’t put his (or her) political gain above the best interest of the US?

          1. Even if it were true, how is that a crime? At most it makes the person a bad President. Vote them out of office. That is why we have elections.

            1. It could be viewed as a misdemeanor. Basically, and ethics violation.

              You see, here’s the thing. If there isn’t a crime, but only a misdemeanor, ie, an ethics violation– especially a dodgy one, then the representatives wishing to impeach risk the ire of a nation that doesn’t agree with said ethics violation.

          2. Carter perhaps? And he didn’t get a second term.

        2. What if he believes his political gain is in the best interest of the US?

          /Judge

          1. What politician doesn’t believe that his political gain is in the best interest of the United States? It’s the whole reason he’s a politician – the United States would be much better off with me running the place than those other guys running it. If you don’t believe that with all your heart and soul, why are you running for office?

          2. Exactly. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton would have been impeached merely for running.

        3. No. Why would it be a “crime”. What statute would it violate? Moreover, if you do consider it a crime, how would it be possible for any President to do their job? Everything a President does could potentially benefit them politically. If this is a crime, everything the President does is potentially a crime. That is clearly not what the clause means.

          Moreover, it would effectively give Joe Biden immunity from federal prosecution or investigation. Any investigation of Biden is going to benefit Trump. Your standard would make it illegal for the President to investigate anyone in the other party.

          1. I consider it a violation of the oath of office, but of course every president has violated that oath by my reckoning.

            No, I’m just referring to your definition of misdemeanor: “Misdemeanors is something like a President just refusing to go to work or doing things that while not crimes represent him defaulting on the duties of the office. ”

            To me, putting personal political gain above doing the business of the USA is the same as “defaulting on the duties of the office”. So under your definition it would be a misdemeanor and therefore impeachable. I’m trying to reconcile your statements. Don’t get me wrong here. I think this impeachment is a dumb political ploy carried out by an aloof ruling class.

            1. How is it a violation of the oath of office? Moreover, how would you determine that without making a completely subjective value judgement. Who are you to say that investigating Joe Biden looting the Ukraine as VP isn’t in the best interests of the country? Basically, anytime a President does something someone doesn’t like, it would be a violation of their oath of office by your standard.

              You are advocating for a completely subjective standard that amounts to “I don’t like the guy and therefore he violated his oath”.

              1. Then your definition of misdemeanor is completely subjective and the term is meaningless in this context. No president can ever be guilty of a misdemeanor because whether he is doing is job is subjective.

                1. It is not subjective at all. It means the person just quits and won’t do anything.

                  1. Sounds good to me. My ideal president maybe actually works a few hours a day. The rest of the time is spent playing golf or something and hobnobbing with the other dignitaries and celebrities.

                    But the Reagan years are sadly over.

                    1. What actually is required of a president? Not much, really. There are lots of things he can do, but very little he must do.
                      I’d like to see someone run on
                      ‘I won’t do anything that isn’t constitutionally required of the president”.

          2. Change it so presidents get only one term and at the end they get a bullet in the head. Problem solved. We’ll see who’s really willing to put the country’s interests before their own.

        4. >>But if he put his political gain above the best interest of the US

          includes everybody.

        1. I don’t even have to read that to know how much bullshit it is.

          Clinton was guilty, the whole friggin country knew he was guilty. All the Senators at the time knew he was guilty. Standards of proof, if they really exist in an impeachment, would have removed Clinton from office.

          1. Yup. We are about to see a similar thing, I’m sure. Except this time there won’t be any documents or witnesses or even the House findings allowed. A true kangaroo court.

            1. “”A true kangaroo court.””

              When it comes to government, only a fool would think otherwise.

              “”Except this time there won’t be any documents or witnesses or even the House findings allowed.””

              Has there been a vote on the rules yet?

              1. Still going back and forth I believe. The proposed rules I last saw from McConnell were no witnesses, no documents, and only 2 days for the whole shebang.

                1. Then you don’t know what it will be yet.

                2. “”only 2 days for the whole shebang.””

                  So.

                  If there case is so solid it shouldn’t take very long to make. Perhaps it would have been easier if they would have came up with articles of impeachment that was so generalized.

                  The house seemed fine with running late into the night with their part of the impeachment process. They should be just fine running late night for this part.

                  1. Oops,
                    Their case

                    1. I cannot imagine how they’re going to fill the time.
                      If today is any indication, they’ll just have pedophile Schiff and some fat lady up there yammering “orange man bad” over and over and over until everybody who catches a glimpse does from boredom

                    2. *dies from boredom

                      F you, autocorrect

                3. how often do we have a prosecutor/grand jury (here Pelosi & House) pass an indictment (here articles of impeachment) to a trial judge and jury (here Roberts & Senate) with the demand that the judge & jury do an investigation to produce witnesses and evidence to back the indictment?

      2. I hear what you are saying, John, but at the end of the day, congress is who decides what counts as a “real” crime. The constitution doesn’t give them much guidance on what should or shouldn’t be criminal, and outside of some things named in the bill of rights, they can pretty much make anything a crime where they have jurisdiction. So I kind of feel like if congress votes to impeach for whatever reason, that means they have decided that the action in question is in fact a high crime (or misdemeanor). The constitution gives them that power.

        1. I totally expect Congress to be as good at defining “high crimes and misdemeanors” as they are with “infringed” and “shall make no law”.

        2. They can decide that but that doesn’t make it a correct decision. What if they impeached Trump and removed him from office for being a New York Giants fan? By your standard that would be okay because they get to decide what is a crime.

          I don’t think so. It wouldn’t be okay. Congress has an obligation to interpret the Constitution in good faith and in a reasonable way.

          1. “” Congress has an obligation to interpret the Constitution in good faith and in a reasonable way.””

            And if they don’t? Since impeachment belongs to Congress, I doubt SCOTUS would get in that fight.

            Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you. But since impeachment is largely a political process, politics is what it will be.

            Considering what the first impeachment was about, it seems anything can be game.

            1. They may have such an obligation ethically. But probably not legally.

          2. I make no claims about what’s OK or correct (whatever that may be). I don’t think most of what congress does is OK or correct. And I think it would be some terrible nonsense to remove Trump in this case.
            All I’m arguing is that it is legal.

          3. “” Congress has an obligation to interpret the Constitution in good faith and in a reasonable way.””
            Interstate commerce would like to have a word with you.

          4. Considering the year the NY Giants had…. 🙂

  12. may be the first time *ever* seen Gerry Ford cited.

    1. Was thinking the same. Guy didn’t get much attention beyond Chevy Chase making him out to be a klutz, when actually he’d been a star athlete.

      1. the Buck Henry SNL from 1976 was on the other nite there’s a good Chase-as-Ford scene w/him

  13. While I believe the data supporting the correlation between degrees of trust and aggregate levels of government, I question the causation. That is, which came first?

    Hypothesis A (argued by the article): Low levels of trust lead to increases in the size of government.
    Implied causation: Because the populace wants stability.

    Hypothesis B: Increases in the size of government lead to low levels of trust.
    My guesses about causation: Because as government expands, the populace has more opportunities to interact with it. Even if the experiences are on aggregate neutral, the human bias to remember negative experiences more strongly than positive will lead to negative aggregate perceptions.

    Assuming hypothesis A, the remediation requires us to put aside human nature and magically start trusting government in advance of their actually doing anything to earn the trust. If hypothesis B is correct, we can start the process by doing something tangible – reducing the size of government.

    It is possible that both hypotheses are correct and work together to create a vicious circle. Either way, I choose to believe hypothesis B (pending evidence to the contrary) because it offers better hope of actually fixing the problem.

    1. I think you hit the nail on the head. I would also point out that the more government expands, the more it gets involved in things outside of core government functions like law enforcement and running the courts and national defense which it does well and into things which it doesn’t do well. The bigger government you have, the less effective it is and the less people trust it.

    2. You’re correct, Rossami.
      Further, as government expands it assumes responsibility for more. Things which previously may not have been blamed on government, such as climate change or obesity, are now seen as a failure of government because government has assumed new roles.
      Probably no better example than education

    3. I think that there is a bit of both at play. But in the American case, I think you are right and it is mostly B.
      Another way B plays out is that as government programs replace voluntary social institutions, relationships that should be relationships of trust become something else.

  14. But that’s not how things work. Again and again—and in countries all over the world—declines in trust of government correlate strongly with calls for more government regulation in more parts of our lives.

    So trust in the government is a good thing now?

    I don’t get it. If people don’t trust the government then they call for more government, if people trust the government, then they call for more government.

    So what’s the point? Why not burn it all down now then if tyranny is the inevitable endpoint?

    1. Maybe burning it down is even worse than tyranny?

  15. You say, “Trust in the Supreme Court has followed the same general trend, even if its numbers are better.” And then proceed to give numbers that are lower than those for Congress.

  16. http://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1219620664505593856

    We now have a second paid staffer on the Bernie campaign praising gulags. If people like this are powerful enough in one party for their candidate to have a real shot at the nomination, maybe partisanship and a divided nation are a good thing. Just exactly what does Nick think we can compromise with this guy on? Send us to the camps last? Let us be the trustees for the other Zekes?

    1. The camps will have free healthcare and $15 Now!

      1. “”The camps will have free healthcare and $15 Now!”‘

        Yeah but you will have to give back $7.50 for the privilege of being in the camp.

    2. I don’t think it’s people like that giving Bernie a shot at the nomination. People like that have been into him all along. It’s the fact that somehow people who aren’t hard core socialists are somehow swayed by him now that is giving him a chance. I don’t know what to make of that.

      1. Normies are swayed by him now for the same reason they like Trump. He seems genuine and outside the political mainstream (seems!). Normal people who pay attention to politics are just fed up.

      2. His core supporters and the ones who would get into power should he ever win the Presidency are exactly like that. The fact that he is supported by mostly useful idiots doesn’t make him any less dangerous.

        1. Oh, sure. I’m horrified that he is getting as close as he is. He’s been a real, no-fooling socialist his whole life. We know what he really thinks.
          But crazies are always out there. Why are more or less normal people supporting him? I think some guy gets it largely right above.

          1. I assume many Democrats supported him in 2016 simply because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. Now he may get support for simply not being Elizabeth 1/1024 Warren or Joe Burisma Biden. That is, he appears to not be corrupt.

            1. I said “appears”. Look into how the Sanders family siphoned off campaign contributions and ended up millionaires. It’s quite interesting.

        2. I think 30-40 Team R congressmen would agree with you. We have already had a demonstration of what Bernie Bros are capable of.

  17. My hypothesis: If people come to distrust the government and believe it’s arbitrary and corrupt, then they might be perfectly rational in supporting more government.

    Why? Because if the government is bound to screw people with arbitrary power, you may as well make sure it screws other people on your behalf rather than screw you on other people’s behalf.

    1. A risky strategy, to be sure, but if you’ve given up on good government, the thing to do is try to get a bad government that’s on your side or the side of some group you belong to.

      1. At least pretend to not act surprised when the other team gets access to the levers of power. Pretend… is all I ask.

  18. Why do citizens ask a government they don’t believe in to bring order? “They want regulation,” he said. “They want a dictator who will bring back order.”
    Shleifer’s response does not answer the question. It answers the question only if periods of distrust accompany periods of disorder. For example, the Great Recession brought disorder, and people had no confidence current government could do anything about it. That could bring a situation where a different, _stronger_ government might be able to protect people from loss of home, loss of job, loss of a sense of purpose.

  19. Who is the drunk kid in the picture?

    1. I thought someone was photobombing but I think that’s Barron. Kid’s apparently had a serious growth spurt

  20. The problem here is that Gillespie seems to be confusing correlation and causation. A much more plausible course of causality would be precisely the reverse – a reduced size and scope of government inspires confidence in said government.

  21. So what is this thing called “obstruction of congress”. The phrase seems to be made up just for this one occasion. Since the constitution explicitly gives the President the power to veto legislation wanted by up to 65% of the legislators, I find it hard to think of some MORE obstructive.
    As for “abuse of power” that is always going to be subjective.
    (Biden does realize impeachment is not limited to sitting officials, right?)

    1. Pretty sure it’s gone this way:
      11/9/16: The hag loses, the Ds decide to impeach Trump as a result.
      11/9/16 – 12/X/19: Fishing expedition finds nothing impeachable.
      12/X+1/19: Make up brand new new ‘offenses’ to put at least something of a fig leaf on the naked D power-grab. Hope the PR effort is good enough for at least the D losers.

    2. One of the charges against Andrew Johnson was that of “on numerous occasions, made ‘with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces … against Congress, the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled and within bearing’ “; which sounds an awful lot like “he talked shit about us”.

      Keep in mind the whole reason Johnson was impeached was for insisting that, as President, he could fire a member of his cabinet, namely, Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, against the wishes of Congress, a charge which wouldn’t fly for two seconds these days.

      If you know anything about Edwin Stanton, you know why the Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Theory gets a lot of traction – Johnson was determined to follow Lincoln’s suggested policies with regards to The Recent Unpleasantness and Stanton saw an opportunity to fuck some people up the ass and was determined to take it.

      1. So there is precedent for this one. At least they were honest that they wanted Johnson out for being a poopyhead.

        1. There is precedent Zeb but it is not very good. The impeachment of Johnson is rightly looked upon as a sham and one of the low points of American history. The entire thing was outrageous.

          1. The historical record of Johnson’s impeachment is somewhat more nuanced than you imply. Part of the problem here was Johnson slowing down (or stopping, in several cases) Reconstruction.

            The Congress, in their usual fashion, went over the top.

      2. Also not convicted by the Senate.

        1. There’s another point to make. If the House is supposed to be like the Grand Jury in a criminal case… well you know what they say about grand juries.

          1. Trump is certainly a ham, and I’m guessing he has made sandwiches with some of those supermodels he grabbed, so, yes.

  22. “Trump’s Impeachment Trial Will Only Make Us Hate Washington Even More”

    You sat around while your corporate press buddies created this mess. Enjoy the show!

    1. You say that like he was in a position to stop it.

      1. He was and still is in a position to opposite this media malfeasance, which gives libertarians a better chance in the future. This remains the leading libertarian publication after all.

  23. What Nick has missed is that distrust in government leads to trust in an individual. The individual is our guy or gal and we will allow them to do whatever they want. This includes enlarging the government or doing things we would normally not allow. We see that now with President Trump and we see it on the horizon with some Democratic candidates. We don’t need star power in the Whitehouse we need a dull capable administrator. But good luck on getting someone like that elected.

  24. “ and discerning whether we’re technically at war with various countries.”

    But not Reason, which will continue to lie at every chance to proclaim that accurate criticism of Iran constitutes “an act of war”, while simultaneously insisting that Iran’s attacks against civilian airliners and shipping freights are anything from “an accidental crash that’s totally America’s fault” to, “an obvious false flag conducted by America to start a war that never seems to actually happen”.

    1. If Iran exercises it’s right to self-defense and suicide bombs Mike Pompey would that be an act of war?

      1. What self-defence? All they do – and did for decades now – is provoke by proxy.

      2. “Knew you not Pompei?”

  25. Stormygate, watergate, pizzagate, monicagate, Iran-contragate. Those were at least entertaining. You had spooks and spies, fake secret societies, sex, porn stars. Those were scandals worth watching and reading about.

    But this whatever it is, this is just dull. A boring pointless script played by no talent wrinkly washed up actors. You just want to find the remote and change the channel to anything.

    1. I felt the same about all the bullshit the GOP came up with regarding Obama (I.e. the IRS is coming for all of us! Lois Lerner! ARRRGGGHHH!!!). Boring

      At least with Clinton we got into stuff Dear Leader’s chief counsel thought important— like how thick was the cigar Clinton shoved up Lewinsky’s cooter. Much more entertaining!

      1. The IRS paid millions in damages and issued an apology for going after right wing groups. There isn’t a single thing you say that isn’t a lie. Your lying is so pervasive that it can fairly be called demonic.

        1. “Your lying is so pervasive that it can fairly be called demonic.”

          Stupidity and immaturity will suffice. Pretty sure shitstain here is 30-something going on 14.

      2. “…I felt the same about all the bullshit the GOP came up with regarding Obama (I.e. the IRS is coming for all of us! Lois Lerner! ARRRGGGHHH!!!). Boring…”

        Why do lefty ignoramuses lie so transparently? Are they hoping the ‘big lie’ will work? Are they stupid enough to believe their bullshit?

    2. “But this whatever it is, this is just dull.”

      Your problem is that you don’t hate Washington enough.

      1. I used up all my hate points on Chicago style pizza, Nickelback, and the New England Patriots.

        1. Hey, I’m liking this guy here^.

  26. God, when did this comment section become such a GOP pity party? Honestly, i’m Beginning to feel bad for you codgers.

  27. “…that seems especially fitting in an election year in which the incumbent shows some of the worst approval numbers in history and still seems to have an excellent shot at winning a second term.”

    Never change, Reason. Your faith in polls is matched only by your skepticism of government.

    Get back to me when Trump wins more EVs thje secnd time around than the malevolently incompetent negro who ‘won’ re-election with fewer EVs, something no President has ever done. Yet they country loved him, right? The polls said so.

  28. If it’s allowed, testimony given by Parnas and Bolton at Trump’s impeachment might make the U.S. hate Trump more.

    1. Maybe Stormy Daniels can testify.

  29. This is how fascism gained traction. The government failed, so the populace turned to someone they thought could fill the void.

  30. A healthy hatred for the State is what separates a good libertarian from beltway (useless) libertarians.
    “The State is an institution run by gangs of murderers, plunderers and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners, propagandists, sycophants, crooks, liars, clowns, charlatans, dupes and useful idiots- an institution that dirties and taints everything it touches.”- Hans-Hermann Hoppe

  31. You have idiots like Nick that somehow think investigating the very smelly Hunter Biden/Quid Pro Joe scenario is impeachable/ unconstitutional but somehow can’t seem to write anything about the blatant FISA abuse.

    Or VA’s attack on 2A.

    It would be arguable that ignoring the Hunter/Joe corruption show is unconstitutional.

    1. Nick wants Reason to be more mainstream and to appeal to a broader audience. I think he made that clear when he was on Unregistered Live with Dave Smith and hosted by T. Russell.

      At least that’s what I got out of it.

  32. What’s Gillespie’s alternative? Should congress just ignore when elected officials transgress boundaries and stack things in their favor? How does that help people gain trust in the government? Now that we know what Trump was up to we know that sometimes, when government officials announce investigations it is window dressing created, 1) as a political favor, and 2) designed to cast an appearance of corruption where little to none may exist. This is what Trump did with Ukraine.

    So Gillespie, are we better off not knowing how disinformation works? Is trust in our institutions based on ignorance?

    1. 2) designed to cast an appearance of corruption where little to none may exist.

      Yeah because Joe Biden’s crack head son having an $80,000 a month job working for the Ukrainian mafia run gas company was totally on the up and up.

      Jesus fucking Christ, where do you people come from?

      1. This is today’s ‘libertarian’ for you. Little to distinguish from democrats except ostensibly gun rights. But their VP candidate last go round took care of that. They’re just pissed that a 3rd useless team isn’t allowed to play at the same time.

    2. Oh please.

    3. “designed to cast an appearance of corruption”

      I think Joe took care of that when he bragged to a roomful of people that he was definitely corrupt

    4. “…2) designed to cast an appearance of corruption where little to none may exist…:

      Why do lefty ignoramuses lie so transparently? Are they hoping the ‘big lie’ will work? Are they stupid enough to believe their bullshit?

    5. Should congress just ignore when elected officials transgress boundaries and stack things in their favor?

      They have done so with every president before Trump.

  33. Quote: “Trump’s Impeachment Trial Will Only Make Us Hate Washington Even More”

    For myself I find that not only improbable, but actually impossible.

  34. Nick, look at the upside: Congress cant inflict any more laws on us while they follow the Schiff, Pelosi, and the rest of this crew of misfits down the rabbit hole………

  35. The only thing that should be impeached is the entire DC Swamp. Until that happens, the current government is worthless to the average citizen.

    1. The real traitors are those guys who took down flight 93 before it removed some swamp critters.

  36. The leather jacket clad chimpanzee is wrong by the way about the trial being completely partisan. It’s going to be a bipartisan exoneration, with one to three democratic party senators voting to acquit.

    If anyone thinks I’m wrong, I’m begging them to just go ahead and bookmark this thread right now and save it into their browser favorites. I will laugh at their asses later on when it’s all said and done.

    1. Actually if you saw my ass right now you would be laughing already…

      “I’ll tell ya. I’m not a sexy guy. I went to a hooker. I dropped my pants. She dropped her price.“

      Bada boom

        1. They don’t make em like Rodney anymore. Forgot to credit the quote. You can catch some of his stuff on you tube from the Johnny Carson show. Carson is practically on the floor laughing.

  37. There would actually be nothing bad about hating washington “even more.”
    that is not a place to like, nor any of the politicians, and the more people learn to hate them, the less support they get.
    Hating can be a good thing.

  38. accomplishes nothing other than driving down even further any form of trust or confidence in the presidency, Congress, or even the Supreme Court

    Good! The most libertarian president ever, apparently! Thanks for endorsing him! He managed to get done what Reason has failed to do in decades: instill distrust in government in the American people!

  39. Its only 3/4 or a little more of Washington that really sucks. The title really should be…

    Trump’s Impeachment Trial Will Only Make Us Hate DEMOCRATS and RINOS Even More..

    I haven’t lost any trust in President Trump, nor Rand Paul, nor Ted Cruz nor any of the little sliver of the ‘limited’ government representatives..

    1. So it’s only the 75% of the critters who befoul the names of the others?
      You might be too generous.

  40. I love percentages, per capita, averages, opinion polls, and all of the efforts used to avoid real numbers.
    There are about 330 million Americans. About 130 million voted in the 2016 presidential election. All 330 million are subject to various and numerous governments within the US. They are all represented, voters, voting, or not.
    So, quite clearly, less than half of America voted, and half of those who voted elected the president. 65/330. So 265 million Americans did not vote for our president.
    Personally, I think every politician, every office, should require a majority of the last census for the represented district to win office.
    Want to be president? You need 165 million and one votes.
    Ridiculous? Have you seen the candidates? The office holders?
    More power, fewer voters. A dream come true.

  41. the really bad thing is Nick’s hair dye

  42. I just don’t get it. The economy in the U.S. is stronger than it has been in over a decade. It’s a relief for everyone waking up in the morning and not worrying about the price of gas to get to a job, enough money to take someone out on a date, and find a job if you need one. Trump stood next to Hiilary Clinton and did not smear her with the fact Bill Clinton was impeached for the contradictory statements made about his affairs in the “white house.” This president deserves the respect of the democrats and should be allowed to run this country and foreign affairs as best he can.
    http://www.lareporters.com

  43. There is way too much shit not to impeach. I don’t care how “great” the economy is doing, and it’s Trump’s government that’s giving us a lot of those numbers. And I don’t care if removing Trump will “undo” the 2016 election. It won’t and anyway you people were fine with undoing the 1996 election.

    There is no way a Democrat president could have done a small fraction of what Trump has done and not be impeached. We know that because Clinton was impeached for two trivial offenses that had no effect on United States domestic or foreign policy. Clinton wasn’t sending out his personal attorney to work with foreign leaders for his own benefit. He didn’t have his Attorney General and Secretary of State working for him instead of America.

    Clinton’s impeachment was based totally on second hand testimony and very flimsy circumstanial evidence. Circumstanial evidence like he had a meeting with Betty Currie and then the next day Betty Currie did something about the dress. I didn’t make that up as a hypothetical. That was actually one of the arguments they used.

    If a Democrat president had an I’d like you to do us a favor though phone call there would be impeachment or at least a full Congressional investigation. There wouldn’t even have to be any mention at all of any political rival. If Trump was a Democrat had just asked for an investigation of a specific company without mentioning any names you know what would happen? The connection between that company and one of his political rivals would be breaking news and we’d be told that of course he was doing that to hurt his political rival. They’d be asking why else would he bring up that specific company.

Please to post comments