Impeachment

Trump's Dubious First Amendment Defense Against Impeachment

He is on firmer ground in arguing that the Senate does not have the authority to try a former president, although that issue is highly contested.

|

Former President Donald Trump's lawyers flesh out their impeachment defenses in a 78-page trial memorandum they filed yesterday. They argue that the Constitution does not allow the Senate to try a former president, a process that began today. They also deny that Trump "incit[ed] violence against the Government of the United States" when he delivered an inflammatory speech to his followers shortly before hundreds of them attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

The first argument is plausible, although hotly contested. But the second argument misconstrues the impeachment as a criminal charge, subject to the limits that the First Amendment imposes in such cases.

Impeachment of former officials was a well-established practice in England and preconstitutional America. Given those precedents, Trump's lawyers think it is telling that the Framers did not explicitly authorize late impeachments. "The Framers could have explicitly included a provision allowing for the impeachment of a former President, but they did not," the memorandum says. "The text is also doubly clear given the clarity of available models in some of the United States themselves that did allow for late impeachments to take place."

The Framers' failure to explicitly address late impeachments, of course, also can be construed the other way. If they wanted to rule out what they knew was a common practice, they could have done so.

The text is not actually clear at all, which is why legal scholars are still debating this issue 233 years after the Constitution was ratified. But Trump's lawyers think it is plain that a trial of a former president does not qualify as a trial of "the President." If the Senate were in fact trying "the President," they say, Chief Justice John Roberts would be presiding, which he is not. They also note that "remov[al] from Office" is mandatory upon conviction, while disqualification from future federal office is optional.

"The Senate is being asked to do something patently ridiculous: try a private citizen in a process that is designed to remove him from an office that he no longer holds," Trump's lawyers say. "Congress' power to impose penalties upon conviction of impeachment is limited to removal, and (not or) disqualification." When removal is no longer possible, they argue, a Senate trial not only is unauthorized but also amounts to an unconstitutional bill of attainder targeting a private citizen. They cite court decisions that interpreted similar language in state constitutions as precluding impeachment of former officials.

The memorandum notes that Columbia law professor Philip Bobbitt and former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz share this view. It also repeatedly cites Michigan State law professor Brian Kalt's thorough 2001 article on late impeachments without noting that Kalt disagrees with Bobbitt and Dershowitz.

One telling way in which Trump's lawyers part with Kalt is their handling of Federalist No. 39, where James Madison says "the President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office." Trump's lawyers read that statement as ruling out impeachment of a former president. But as Kalt notes, "Madison was not speaking of the limits of the federal impeachment power; rather, he was speaking of its expansion. Unlike certain states where the governor cannot be impeached at all or can only be impeached after he leaves, Madison explained, the President can be impeached while he is in office."

Trump's lawyers also misleadingly cite Kalt while attributing this quotation to "one legal scholar": "A half-grown boy reads in a newspaper that the President occupies the White House; if he would understand from that that all Ex-Presidents are in it together, he would be considered a very unpromising lad." That remark does appear in Kalt's article, but it is not his assessment. It is a quotation from a lawyer who defended former Secretary of War William Belknap during his 1876 impeachment trial. Kalt, by contrast, thinks the weight of the historical evidence supports the constitutionality of impeaching (or trying) former federal officials.

Trump's lawyers concede that a majority of the House thought Belknap could still be impeached on corruption charges even after he resigned, while a majority of the Senate thought a trial was still appropriate. But as the memorandum notes, the minority of senators who disagreed was large enough to ensure Belknap's acquittal. Trump's lawyers also note that the House did not pursue impeachment after President Richard Nixon resigned, although that decision does not necessarily show that members of Congress thought doing so would have been unconstitutional.

In a 33-page reply filed today, the House members charged with prosecuting Trump say "scholars from across the political spectrum, including renowned conservative constitutional scholars, have recognized that the Constitution empowers the Senate to convict and disqualify officials who commit misconduct late in their terms and therefore can realistically only be tried after leaving office." The House managers laid out the reasons for that conclusion in greater detail when they filed their trial memorandum last week.

The scholars cited by the prosecution argue that ruling out late impeachments would frustrate the goals of accountability and deterrence by leaving Congress with no recourse against a president who commits serious misconduct toward the end of his term or who resigns (as Nixon did) after his misconduct comes to light. The House managers also note that the Senate has "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Since "the House undisputedly had jurisdiction to impeach President Trump while he was still President," they say, a Senate trial is clearly authorized.

This issue is not as clear as many of Trump's defenders and critics suggest. Kalt, who argues that late impeachments are constitutional, nevertheless calls it "a close and unsettled question." George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who is more skeptical of late impeachments, likewise describes the issue as "a close question upon which people of good faith can disagree."

There is less evidence of good faith in Trump's argument that he cannot be impeached for persistently promoting the fantasy that he actually won the presidential election by a landslide, culminating in his fiery pre-riot address, because his expression of that demonstrably false opinion was protected by the First Amendment. Unlike the short brief that Trump's lawyers filed last week, the trial memorandum does not aver that no one can definitively say whether Trump lost the election. Instead it describes his refusal to accept that outcome as "a difference of political opinion…on an issue of voting irregularity." But Trump's lawyers note that he never advocated violence and in fact urged his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" protest the congressional certification of Joe Biden's victory.

"His statements cannot and could not reasonably be interpreted as a call to immediate violence or a call for a violent overthrow of the United States government," they say. "President Trump's speech at the January 6, 2021, event fell well within the norms of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment."

I think that's true. It seems clear Trump's speech would not qualify as incitement to riot under federal law. It also seems clear that he did not exceed the bounds of constitutionally protected speech described by the Supreme Court in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that even advocacy of lawbreaking is protected by the First Amendment unless it is not only "likely" to incite "imminent lawless action" but also "directed" at that goal.

Even if the First Amendment does not allow the government to criminally prosecute Trump for inciting the Capitol riot, however, that does not mean Congress cannot impeach him, not only for the reckless speech he gave that day but for his monthslong campaign to overturn the election results. That campaign went well beyond unsuccessful court challenges, extending to arguably illegal conduct such as pressuring state officials and Vice President Mike Pence to stop Biden from taking office.

Whether or not Trump violated any criminal statutes, he abused his power and exercised his influence over his supporters in a way that undermined democracy and predictably (although perhaps unintentionally) led to violence. That is the main thrust of his impeachment, and it does not require proof that Trump did anything that was technically illegal.

As for Trump's claim that the First Amendment bars his impeachment, George Mason law professor Ilya Somin notes that "high government officials don't have a First Amendment right to be protected from firing based on their political views." That principle, he says, "applies to presidents facing impeachment no less than other officials."

The House managers likewise cite the verdict of "nearly 150 First Amendment lawyers and constitutional scholars," who called Trump's First Amendment defense "legally frivolous." The reply brief argues that "the First Amendment has no application in an impeachment proceeding, which does not seek to punish unlawful speech, but instead to protect the Nation from a President who violated his oath of office and abused the public trust."

NEXT: Biden Airlifts the Goalposts on School Reopening: 1 Day a Week!

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. *Sees writer’s name, skips down to comment section*

    1. I made it 2/3rds.

      1. I’m impressed at your pain threshold.

        1. Sometimes it makes me laugh… before the pain sets in.

          1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K SGH in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

            1. Every month easily makes more than $15k just by doing very simple home based job. Last month ihave received $16834 from this online job just by doing this in my part time for only 2 hrs maximum a day…..Click this link For Full Detail…..CLASSIFIED REAL JOBS

              1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. WEy I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website. This is what I do…>>>>>>> USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

      2. I made it to “inflammatory speech.” I don’t know why I even bother.

        1. Questioning your betters is frowned upon.

          1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.AMs Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website…

            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Online Jobs provid

    2. Ditto.

      1. You will only speak when spoken to you anti American hick! Redneck bigot traitors like you need to be made an example of.
        Now get out of MY COUNTRY you treasonous coward.
        Don’t let me see Mark Thrust Fascist Traitor posting unless a real American gives you permission.

        1. Piss off, Wormtongue.

          1. {USA PEOPLE ONLY ]
            By following this simple steps on this website, you can bring from
            $5000-$8000 of extra income every month…
            All you need is a computer and a internet connection and you are ready to start.
            Learn how to make a steady bfac income for yourself on following web adress.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot.

            open this link………EARNING SEASON ON

    3. I didn’t even make it to the byline. Yes, whichever Reason writer it was that wrote this drivel, the First Amendment is absolutely a valid defense of political discourse that the opposition party doesn’t like.

      It should be shocking that this even needs to be said to a purportedly libertarian publication, but sadly it’s all too common these days.

      1. No joke. What is the point of libertarianism if THIS is what it produces?

        1. [USA PEOPLE ONLY ]

          By following this simple steps on this website, you can bring from
          $5000-$8000 of extra income every month…
          All you need is a computer and a internet connection and you are ready to start.
          Learn how to make a steady nhaq income for yourself on following web adress.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot……

          >>>>CLASSIFIED LEGAL JOBS<<<<<

    4. I only made it to the title, guessed who wrote it, and skipped to the comments when that was verified. It must be degrading to Sullum to be a totally predictable mindless tool of the left.

    5. Biden Airlifts the Goalposts on School Reopening: 1 Day a Week!
      Administration wants to spend $200 billion hiring new teachers for closed schools that are bleeding students. What could go wrong………used this site………MORE DETAIL.

    6. Trump’s Dubious First Amendment Defense Against Impeachment
      He is on firmer ground in arguing that the Senate does not have the authority to try a former president, although that issue is highly contested MORE DETAIL………used this site………MORE DETAIL.

    7. If Trump died tomorrow, Sullum would demand that they impeach the corpse.

    8. Laughing at all of you stupid, traitorous cultists who think bragging about their level of proactive ignorance is cool.

      Keep reading nothing but for profit media that seeks to tell you what you want to hear. Just don’t be mad when your opinions are plainly based on lies, and your arguments to support those opinions are laughably easy for serious people to dismiss.

    9. I guess Reason could save money and just have a headline and the comments section without any article.

  2. The first amendment argument should be good enough, though. He didn’t tell anyone to do anything violent or illegal. If inflammatory political speechifying makes a person responsible for violence that follows, then we need to see a whole lot more politicians going to prison. Which, pleasing as that sounds, probably isn’t a great idea.

    Sullum, please go back to writing about guns and drugs.

    1. Trump going to prison has nothing to do with these impeachment or any argument on either side. What’s the deal?

      1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K SGH in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
        COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

    2. There is a difference between criminal liability and moral culpability.

      1. There is a difference between intelligence and brainwashing. See if you can figure it out.

        1. Oh look, someone else for my flagging list.

          1. Struck a nerve, didn’t I, halfwit? I detest you lying sacks of shit who pretend to be libertarian.

            1. If it’s not on his talking points cheat-sheet Jeff gets flustered and then supermad.

          2. How long is this list, Lying Jeffy? Why do you even need a list? What are you doing here if you need a list to keep track of people you’re not interested in listening to?

            1. What did chemjeff lie about, liar?

              They are NOT trying to take Trump’s money, other property, or put him in prison! They’re merely trying to put him on a shit-list, ineligible for running for federal office again! For Trump being morally objectionable! Do YOU want morally objectionable trumpanzees-gone-apeshit rabble-rousers in federal office?

              Oh, wait, you ARE a trumpanzee-gone-apeshit, aren’t you? Just WAITING for an excuse to start a “civil” war? You LIKE war, death, and destruction, don’t you? It gives you a self-righteous punishment boner, right, right-wing asshole?

              1. Do YOU want morally objectionable trumpanzees-gone-apeshit rabble-rousers in federal office?

                TRUE libertarians worship authority and would never think of rabble-rousing, right sarcasmic? Oh, unless they’re chimping out, murdering 30 people, and causing 3 billion dollars in property damage. That’s righteous indignation and totally understandable.

                Go see if your daughter’s asshole is healed up for some more rape you piece of shit drunken subhuman pedophile.

                1. TRUE libertarians worship authority so long as authority is Our Dear Leader the Great White Pumpkin-Father Der TrumpfenFuhrer, right?

                  Hurry up and get your hotel tickets really quickly now! Dear Leader is coming back from the political dead!

                  https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-dc-hotel-hiking-rates-qanon-think-sworn-march-4-2021-2

                  Trump’s DC hotel is hiking prices for March 4, the day QAnon followers think the former president will be sworn in

              2. Stfu sarc.

                SQRLSY One
                February.8.2021 at 5:59 pm
                Your gist two smart fur the wrist of U.S.A.!

                sarcasmic
                February.8.2021 at 4:46 pm
                Day stow dee ewekshun! Waaaaah!

              3. Being morally objectionable appears to be a prerequisite for holding national office.

                1. No but being elected is.

  3. The firmest ground for his defense, of course, is factual — no insurrection occurred, so he couldn’t have incited it. And even what did occur at the Capitol he specifically asked his supporters not to do.

    The judge should issue a summary judgment dismissing the charges. They’re totally bogus.

    1. The judge is one of the biggest partisans in history in Leahy who already stated Trump’s guilt.

      1. It just shows how overthrowable they are.

        1. There you go with treason talk. If you hate America why don’t you leave?

          Goddamn fascist traitor

          1. Fuck off, authoritarian stooge.

          2. Whatever incestuous bigot

    2. vandalism is not insurrectionist.

      1. But sitting in Pelosi’s chair, putting your feet up and touching her mouse sure as fuck is.

        1. hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

        2. Antifa burned down an entire dealership lot full of cars in Minnesota. Stomach staples, can't die fucking fast enough Nadler, called Antifa violence a "myth." Break a window, go into the capitol building, sit in their desk for a moment, then go to prison for insurrection, sedition, and a host of other charges. All the representatives are pieces of shit. And when they move this country to civil war 2.0 and secession, they will get what's coming.

        3. No one should ever be subjected to the image of anyone touching Pelosi’s mouse.

    3. “The firmest ground for his defense, of course, is factual — no insurrection occurred, so he couldn’t have incited it.”

      Sure, what could go wrong with the revisionist approach?

  4. I’d buy the argument that removing him from office doesn’t violate his 1A rights, he’s merely being fired. But disqualifying him from running again almost certainly does, that is the government removing one of his rights as a citizen simply for speech he made.

    Do we think that any of his other rights are subject to revocation for the speech he made? Keep in mind that he has not been tried or convicted in any criminal setting. Inciting a riot is an actual crime, if they believe that is what he did why not take him to a real court room so we can do this right?

    1. Disqualification at this point is just a bill of attainder.

    2. “But disqualifying him from running again almost certainly does, that is the government removing one of his rights as a citizen simply for speech he made.”

      Hold on. If he had a right to be President, then disqualifying him from being President again would be be a deprivation of a right. IF.

  5. LOL. Man, the articles actually can get worse.

    A) No insurrection
    B) No incitement (unless the word changed on Jan 6th)
    C) Yes, presidents are allowed to say elections were flawed, that isn’t grounds for incitement or insurrection
    D) Yes, there was no trial in the House, merely a vote to impeach.

    1. Impeachment of former officials was a well-established practice in England and preconstitutional America.

      So was taxation without representation. So was a non constitutional separate government from England. What a dumb argument to make. The founders were well aware of the standard practices they disagreed with.

      Also, if you want to get technical, High crimes and Misdemeanors was a term of art back then as well, with the latter referring to non capital crimes such as fraud, assault, etc. Yet you’ve argued that it can be whatever the Democrats in the house want.

      1. Weirdly enough, other’s countries’ kangaroo courts don’t hold precedent in legal jurisprudence.

      2. Arguing with yourself, or did you forget to change sockpuppets?

    2. If the Senate were in fact trying “the President,” they say, Chief Justice John Roberts would be presiding, which he is not.

      Instead Sullum seems perfectly happy with one of the jurors who is a partisan that already deemed Trump guilty as one of the judges. Weird.

    3. Kalt, by contrast, thinks the weight of the historical evidence supports the constitutionality of impeaching (or trying) former federal officials.

      Which is a stupid point to take based on the fact that an impeachment was attempted before. We still have the understanding of standing. Without a conviction in the senate, there was no harm on those the House sought to impeach, so there was no determination on its constitutionality. So using it as proof of constitutionality is quite stupid. There was no determination on the prior cases. Kalt show know this, but he apparently ignores it.

  6. Was Trump at the pre-innsurection rally? Yes! Were most of the speakers at the pre-innsurection rally getting the sheep’s wool in a ruffle? Yes! So in conclusion, Trump was part of the pre-innsurection innsurection which makes him guilty by association. We could all be victims of Accomplice Liability Laws at any time and Trump is no different.

    1. “Insurrection” started before the rally even ended. Where the speech and the Capitol are is 1.5 miles, so nearly a 25 minute walk in a slow moving crowd.

      Anything else stupid you want to say?

      1. You’re stupid!

        1. Staying strong with that one.

          1. As long as you “fight like hell”!

            1. “You can’t be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for”, as the insurrectionists say.

          2. “Staying strong with that one.”

            truth works that way.

      2. Not to mention the FBI has evidence that the ‘insurrection’ was pre planned.

        1. You say this as if you think it’s exculpatory.

    2. Trump was an accomplice to the first amendment speech of other impassioned speakers, therefore under accomplice liability laws he did a insurrection. This is good stuff right here.

      You realize if you want to charge Trump as an accomplice you have to prove the people he spoke alongside (his accomplices) actually committed crimes (they didn’t), which is a higher legal standard than the impeachment standard, which as this point is “we can impeach anyone we don’t like for whatever reason”. The impeachment arguments are already wanting for constitutionality, evidence, much less a coherent and non-hypocritical definition of what constitutes incisive speech, without injecting ridiculous theorizing about accomplices. I’ll save you some time in this impeachment. Trump is out of office, impeachment for removal from office is a moot point and at this point is a bill of attainder, despite lacking in constitutionality the Senate will proceed with the trail, it will fall short of the 2/3 majority needed to convict, scotus will never address the constitutionality of the question in the first place and despite not being disqualified from holding office, Trump is never going to run again.

      1. For a clear reading on where the court is on this… Note that Roberts declined to attend.

        It is a farce.

        1. Trump is a scapegoat for the American people. That’s all this has ever been about.

          1. Not all of them. Just the deplorable ones.

          2. How you all came to the conclusion that “Trump” == “average Joe” is beyond me.

            1. I kind of thought it would be… given your rhetoric and all.

            2. That’s not surprising.

              He didn’t say that he was an average Joe or that he had anything in common with the average Joe. The Democrats have been pissed off that the working class average Joe/Jane broke for Trump for going on five goddamn years now. He needs to be made an example of to teach everyone their place.

            3. Lying Jeffy doesn’t know what scapegoat means.

              1. Either that, or YOU don’t.

          3. Trump’s “They’re not after me. They’re after YOU. I am just in the way” is exceedingly accurate.

            1. One of the key characteristics of a cult is that one person is the source of all truth.

    3. ” Trump was part of the pre-innsurection innsurection which makes him guilty by association”

      That’s how criminal conspiracy works, yes.

  7. Sullen is as off the mark on this article as in all others related to the ‘Insurrection!!’

    Please stop writing about Trump, sir.

    1. Just let him fade away into the obscurity where he belongs.

  8. “Whether or not Trump violated any criminal statutes, he abused his power and exercised his influence over his supporters in a way that undermined democracy and predictably (although perhaps unintentionally) led to violence. That is the main thrust of his impeachment, and it does not require proof that Trump did anything that was technically illegal.”

    So, even if Trump did nothing wrong, he’s guilty.

    Fuck you Sullum. Shameless fucking shill.

    1. Remember… saying Russia stole an election the last 4 years didn’t undermine democracy at all. It didn’t lead to any violence (ignore the riots of the left).

      1. Just go read time magazine.

        They openly brag about it. They give quite a bit of detail about how they did it. They even brag about how they manipulated idiots like Sullum into believing that any suggestions that there were irregularities in the election is treasonous and a threat to democracy and the republic. Yes, even that was pre-planned and they laid the groundwork almost a year ago.

        1. I think the planning has gone on longer than that.
          I believe this whole pandemic freakout was come up with/worked out in the summer-fall 2019.

          1. Just because Gates and Johns Hopkins literally wargamed the exact scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic less than 2 months before a bat in a Wuhan wet market that totally didn’t come from the bioengineering lab sponsored by the US government, given grants by Fauci’s NIAID, and collaborating with UNC on gain of function coronaviruses for over a decade passed the totally not bioengineered SARS-COV-2 to a human doesn’t mean it was PLANNED you lousy conspiracy theorist!

            1. Just becuase you can imagine a number of creative supporting details doesn’t make it any more likely.

    2. If this was so predictable, who predicted it apart from the usual paranoid suspects?

  9. It’s been posited that the Dems are pushing this to prevent Trump from running again thru disqualification if convicted, even though conviction seems unlikely.

    The Constitution states, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”

    How do we know that President of the United States is an “Office of honor, Trust, or profit under the Unites States”?

    1. The President receives a salary, which alone makes it technically an office of profit, and most presidents profit far more from the office than their salary.

      1. Trump donated his entire presidential salary to the government, but I guess he still technically received it.

        1. You can damn well bet that anything he donated had a personal benefit for him. If nothing else, he wrote it off on his taxes. Charging the Secret Service for hotel rooms every time he left Washington was profitable, too.

  10. Good lord, just give it up. Don’t ever write anything about Trump ever again as long as you live.

    Every take, dumber than the last.

    There was not a syllable in his speech that was not squarely in the center of speech that is protected by the first amendment. The House and the Senate are unequivocally bound by the first amendment.

    I.E., your argument is shite.

    There is no way an honest jurist would let a case like this go to the jury. There would be a directed verdict. The case law on incitement is fairly clear, and this is not remotely an edge case.

    Just stop. You, and everyone else at Reason. Just stop. You have massively damaged your credibility over the last 4+ years. It is over. The bad orange man is gone. Give it a rest. No more fever dreams. Go read some Rothbard, Rand, Friedman…. Whoever. Dig up the corpse of your libertarian self and bring it back to life.

    And please, never try to argue that simple political speech is not protected by the first amendment again.

    1. Amen.

      Ten thousand times over. Amen.

    2. Not going to happen. Get ready to hear about Emmanuel Goldtrump for at least two minutes a day every day for the rest of your life.

    3. But… he used the word Fight. Only an insurrectionist would use that word.

      1. Only one of these were violent rhetoric that led to insUrreCTion:

        “there will be blood in the streets”Loretta Lynch (D)
        “Who says protests have to be peaceful“Chris Cuomo (D)
        “There needs to be unrest in the streets”Ayanna Pressley (D)
        “Protesters should not give up”Kamala Harris (D)
        “I just don’t know why they aren’t uprising all over this country“Nancy Pelosi (D)
        “You get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, tell them they are not welcome“Maxine Waters (D)
        “Go home with love and peace, remember this day forever“Donald J Trump (R)

        ..it was that little “(R)” on the end of the last one.

        1. “Only one of these were violent rhetoric that led to insUrreCTion:”

          Turns out that it makes a difference who you’re talking too.

          Hey, remember that time Hillary led her supporters to storm the capitol after she felt that the 2016 election was stolen from her?

    4. Go read some Rothbard, Rand, Friedman

      Reason has been slagging Rothbard as a hardcore white supremacist racist shitbag for as long as it’s been published. They’ve been slagging Rand as a lunatic for just as long. They do love them some Friedman though. The guy who invented income tax withholding and the EITC as a means of UBI. Make of that what you will. If you ever though Reason gave a fuck about liberty you simply weren’t paying attention.

  11. I hope that someone on Trumps team argues that protesters were “incited” by their censorship and the censorship of the sitting president of the United States, by unelected media oligarchs violating 1a in the interest of the democrats.

    Proof of election fraud would be a good finish.

    Mike Lindell of the MyPillow company has found a platform and released his long-awaited video documenting the voter fraud of the 2020 election.

    http://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/absolute-proof-exposing-election-fraud-and-theft-america-enemies-foreign-and-domestic

    1. Wood, Lindell and the rest have been duped by a hoax. There is zero possibility that the voting machines had anything to do with altering the election.

      They were set up to take the fall by a sophisticated hoax designed to distract important allies and discredit the opposition.

      Stop repeating it. It is stupid. And obvious.

      Go read the Time article. They detail what is important. Changing election laws and rules in advance of the election to allow unverified and unexamined mail in ballots to be sent out indescriminantly and harvested without checks or restrictions. This is their own manifesto. They claim it as protecting the election, but they brag about preventing any inspection of the signatures or even simple chain of custody.

      Don’t fall for the disinformation campaign (something else they brag about).

      1. Exactly. The election fraud didn’t come from the voting machines. It came from state officials doing an end-run around state legislatures to illegally change election processes.

      2. Maybe you should watch the video before commenting.

        If you can refute any of the evidence presented, then do so, here and now.

        I expect crickets from you.

        1. He said zero sans proof! What more proof can you ask for?!?

      3. “Changing election laws and rules in advance of the election to allow unverified and unexamined mail in ballots to be sent out indescriminantly and harvested without checks or restrictions.”

        Exactly correct.

        There was no fraud. How do we know? Because the fraud was made legal.

        1. Whether or not the fraud was made legal is actually the important point. These changes were made primarily by state election officials, rather than state legislators (who have the actual authority to set election law). You’re pretty much on the money about where the fraud comes from, just a matter of whether it was legal or not.

          1. “These changes were made primarily by state election officials, rather than state legislators (who have the actual authority to set election law).”

            Do you have standing to say that? No? Straight to jail.

            1. Oh no, did I do a insurrection?

          2. We do not know whether there was fraud.

            It is entirely possible that they merely spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting and collecting mail and ballots to rack up those 80/20 ratios on mail in ballots.

            It is also possible that they waited until they knew how many votes they needed and printed up 200,000 ballots and stuck them in a drop box.

            Since the signatures on the envelopes have never been audited and no one has ever been allowed to look at them, we are going to have a hard time evaluating the veracity of that scenario. Georgia moved very aggressively to destroy those envelopes, either in a fit of tidiness or to ensure that there would be no way to accurately ascertain the answer.

            There is a reason that the Pennsylvania courts went around state law and ruled that signatures could not be verified. They did not just make that up out of the blue.

            One explanation is that they knew that the strategy was to collect mail and ballots and they knew that signature matches would invalidate a large number of those collected because that’s what always happens when signature matches are contested. Another explanation is that they knew that the plan was to print up a bunch of ballots and stuff the ballot box.

            Both are plausible explanations. The highly implausible explanation is that the court thought that covid-19 would make it so onerous to have to follow proper voting procedures that the mere existence of a respiratory virus invalidated state law. That seems like a pretty tenuous explanation to me.

            1. We do know there was fraud. We don’t know how much. 500 double voters on GA as an example. Multiple indictments for voting for dead people as another.

              The fact that certain counties continue to fight so hard against any and all audits is telling. Maricopa County here is defying a legal subpoena from the state legislature for an audit.

              1. Do you also support mob rule? Because that’s what you’re promoting you ambiguous piece of shit!

                1. Do you advocate communist China style media censorship in the United States?

                  Do you think that people demanding transparency from their government is “mob rule”?

          3. The legislatures are perfectly able to delegate all this, too. Then you have courts who can override some legislation. In other words, legislatures can set election laws indirectly. The results may be unintended, but it would not be the first time there were unintended results from legislation. That does not make it illegal.

        2. “There was no fraud. How do we know? Because the fraud was made legal.”

          That conversation is the point of the Times article.
          They admit to part of the wrongdoing, while of course characterizing it as the opposite, and shift the conversation from the whole picture to just that part which was legalized.
          I think you are half right – some fraud was legalized. But I think there was also an abundance of outright fabrication as well. Additionally, it’s possible/probable that Trump votes were thrown away and/or changed to Biden in the adjudication process.

          1. What was the wrongdoing that ‘they’ supposedly admit to in the Time article?

            1. Oh shit, where to begin. There’s so very much.

              For starters let’s look at the key explanatory paragraph from the start of the article and we’ll go from there:

              “This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. ‘Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,’ says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. ‘But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.’”

              Now I don’t for a second believe that you’re a libertarian, Jeff. I know you’re a fifty-center here to distract and shitpost. But for the sake of the point, let’s pretend that you are.

              Note the two most important phrases: The participants in the “conspiracy to save the 2020 election” presumed to know what was the “proper outcome of the election” and they had to do what they did because “Democracy is not self-executing,” that is, it cannot be trusted to produce the “proper outcome.” Not the actual outcome but the “right one”.

              Before we go further, I’m going to give you a chance to try and explain those phrases away.

              1. Grabs some popcorn.

              2. That’s a lot of effort just to have Lying Jeffy lie in response, but I’ll pretend I’m curious how Lying Jeffy will respond honestly.

      4. I don’t think the machines necessarily switched votes, but the adjudication (the machine couldn’t read the ballot, so a poll worker “copies” the entries onto a new ballot to be run through the machine while the original is conveniently destroyed) rate in some places was astronomical.
        There’s video of the Fulton County, GA director early in the night saying offhand they’d run like 135k ballots, 100k of which they’d adjudicated.
        Just ripe for abuse.

        1. Nardz, watch this:

          https://www.c-span.org/video/?477819-1/fulton-county-georgia-election-update

          You are misconstruing what the term ‘adjudication’ means in this context. Evidently, a ballot is ‘adjudicated’ when it has been successfully reviewed by the vote review panel. So ALL ballots are eventually ‘adjudicated’. It is not shady or nefarious.

      5. Are you talking about this Time article?

        https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

        They don’t say anything about signature matching. What are you talking about?

        Oh wait, I think I know. It looks like one single sentence from that article is making the rounds on right-wing social media, one sentence that just happens to comport with their worst fears about election theft, counting on their followers not to read the entire article and read what actually happened.

        1. Read this from 2017

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

          It is the same confession. It is written as a triumphant brag about how they saved democracy by ensuring that Trump would be investigated for his collusion with Russia.

          But now we know that it was all a lie. And we know that the people from the white house bragging to the times knew that it was all a lie at the time.

          Now go read that time article again.

          The put “to fortify the election” on a confession about how they rigged an election, and you are so dumb that you think you are being a great patriot by credulously repeating the party line. You are not part of the team. You will not be rewarded. You are one of the useful idiots. You will be left holding the bag, just like everyone else.

          1. Cyto, I am reading the words that they actually wrote, not the words that I imagine are there. They wrote that they “fortified” the election. I am not sure what that means exactly. So I am supposed to assign the most sinister and conspiratorial meaning to it?

            1. “fortified” the election. I am not sure what that means exactly.

              Now pretend Trump said he “fortified” the election, and you didn’t know what he meant, exactly. Please tell me your response would be the same, Lying Jeffy.

              Seriously, for the love of all that is holy, Jeff, please tell me that you would respond the same way if Trump said he did all this to fortify the election.

            2. I guess it’s appropriate that you’re imitating Squealer now, given what a fat sack of shit you are.

    2. “I hope that someone on Trumps team argues that protesters were “incited” by their censorship and the censorship of the sitting president of the United States, by unelected media oligarchs violating 1a in the interest of the democrats.

      Proof of election fraud would be a good finish.”

      They’re probably limited to only saying things that are true.

  12. >>He is on firmer ground

    he’s on totally firm ground and it’s absolutely retarded to argue a person not in an impeachable seat can be impeached. more words won’t help.

    1. ” it’s absolutely retarded to argue a person not in an impeachable seat can be impeached.”

      Dingus, he was President when he was impeached. Even popular Presidents are subject to impeachment, so this argument is an obvious loser, so it matches up well with Trump’s Presidency as a whole.

  13. Whether you can impeach for a non crime is a matter of debate. Another question of debate is whether you can impeach someone no longer in office. The impeachment managers today argued leaving office is no escape from justice. This is a terrible argument. Since Trump is out of office, we know that he can be charged in a normal court of law had he committed a crime. Seeing as he has not been thusly charged and no criminal charges of the sort are being drawn up, we know he committed no crime and thus we can conclude Trump is being impeached for a political, not legal reason. The Democrats impeachment argument exists in a realm where Trump’s offenses are so grave that simply leaving office cannot absolve him of the necessary punishment, but simultaneously are so benign that no legitimate prosecution in a regular court of law can possibly touch him. Their argument also exists in a realm where Trump telling his supporters to “fight like hell” questioning election results and “peacefully protest” are an unambiguous call to violence and insurrection, but similar comments from their own side to “create a crowd” “push back” and “get in their faces” and calling Republicans the “enemy within” does fall into the realm of benign, non-inclusive speech. Being as it’s clear this is a clearly political impeachment and one based on two open questions about the constitutionality of the process (whether a non-crime is impeachable; whether you can impeach those out of office) and it’s an impeachment of first amendment protected speech, this process is absolutely moronic no matter how many inane articles Sullum writes, trying to spell otherwise.

    1. Don’t worry. Charges are coming. They have no intention of letting him go.

      The NY AG ran for office on a pro.ise that she would prosecute Trump and everyone around him. Biden has made it clear that he is keen to keep chasing after Trump. And if you followed the Mueller cases at all, you know that there are elements within the judiciary that are keen to bend the law to this purpose.

      Don’t worry. He will be prosecuted. In a hostile jurisdiction with a hostile judge. And it wont be just once. They will keep coming back as often as need be to bring him down.

      1. I’m talking about charges of incitement. Charging Trump for an utterly different reason is beside the point. I’m talking about incitement and THIS impeachment, which is a mess.

        The Mueller case points to the intent to charge for obstruction, but those arguments are flimsy when you actually return them to their context. The NY AG is going after some frankly bs tax claims. All that being said about Trump’s legal liabilities outside of impeachment, maybe he does get the book thrown at him and a judge railroads him a year or 2 or 3 down the road will have no bearing on the absolute shitshow that is this impeachment.

        1. We know from internal documents that Biden and Obama were both perfectly happy to have the FBI frame a private citizen for a crime and see them prosecuted.

          Don’t doubt for a second that the department of Justice under Biden will be any more justice-oriented when it comes to political enemies. And there is no enemy like Trump. He is literally Hitler. Except for Hitler was a lot nicer. I mean, Hitler had a dog.

          1. I’d love to see DeSantis refuse to extradite him

            1. Why would you want to see him shot by federal agents?

          2. “We know from internal documents that Biden and Obama were both perfectly happy to have the FBI frame a private citizen for a crime”

            The problem with things you “just know” is how often they turn out to be products of your own motivated reasoning. You want it to be true, so you come to believe it IS true. Republicans seem to be a bit prone to this kind of thing, even more than the D’s are, so it probably isn’t just that partisanship ruins capability for rational thought, though that possibility still exists.

        2. “The Mueller case points to the intent to charge for obstruction, but those arguments are flimsy when you actually return them to their context. The NY AG is going after some frankly bs tax claims”

          They’ll probably keep pursuing them, on the flimsy technicality that he is actually guilty of the crimes charged.

      2. Democrats have to go. Period.

        1. Anti-American Fascist Traitors like you need to go.

          1. Come and make me you pathetic mewling little faggot. Or just keep day drinking and fucking your daughter like the sick piece of subhuman shit you are.

        2. Maybe you can sign up for Jesse’s Citizen Army. I hear they need more troops for the Meme Division.

          1. Are they the ones with the pussyhats and Sanders gloves?

          2. It’s hilarious when you wildly gyrate between “TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE VIOLENT INSURRECTIONISTS WHO MIGHT OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY MOMENT DESPITE BEING UNARMED” and “TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE FAT SHIT LARPERS WHO WON’T REALLY FIGHT HURRR DURRRR”.

            You’re a morbidly obese diabetic fat piece of shit who lives in Toronto. You’ll probably be fine either way. Unless some sociopathic Trump supporter walks past you without a mask on or summat.

  14. The defense arguments were really bad and contradicted themselves.
    They claim to love the constitution, yet rant against the disqualification clause of the constitution.
    They also claim that the Senate holding any impeachment trail under any circumstances is a due process violation.
    They say that it is the voters who get to chose who the president is, yet this whole trial is about Trump trying to subvert the will of the voters.
    He said that Trump was being denied all due process rights and was not given a chance to defend himself, while defending Trump in a trail.
    They say that the House voted too quick and did not hold hearings, but also argue that the impeachment and trial must happen before Trump leaves.
    The worst argument they had was that Pelosi held the impeachment articles for 12 days and thus prevented the Senate from holding a trail, yet it was Mitch who was very clear that there would be no trail until after Trump left.

    1. The opening argument from the prosecution was solely an appeal to emotion. You fell for it like the good little sapling you are.

      1. I made no comment on the arguments from the house managers. But yes, they did try to appeal to emotion, but they also outlined a clear textual and historical basis form impeachment trial after one leaves office. The defense side was far more emotional then the house managers.

        1. No, they didn’t. Their only textual claim wasn’t textual. They claimed that the constitution didn’t deny the ability to impeach someone out of office. That is the opposite if a rextualist approach as the constitution grants powers, it doesn’t deny then. So they would need an affirmative clause to justify their impeachment. It wasn’t a textualist approach.

          1. Trump was legally impeached, that is undeniable. The constitution says “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” A plain text reading leads to the conclusion that a President can be tried after leaving office. Those who disagree are reading a broad immunity from Senate trials for former officers from a between-the-lines analysis.

            1. No, they are reading the rest of the relevant parts of the Constitution, you worthless lying sack of shit.

              1. The thing is, the rest of us can’t read those imaginary parts of the Constitution that only exist in your head, even if YOU can clearly read them.

          2. ” They claimed that the constitution didn’t deny the ability to impeach someone out of office.”

            Which might be relevant, had someone been impeached while out-of-office. Since that didn’t happen, it isn’t relevant.

            what will disqualify Trump from future federal office isn’t anything the Senate does, it’ll be because he insists on saying stupid things and hires people to help him say stupid things, instead of hiring people to help him say smarter things.

    2. Just a brief reminder for those of you who haven’t been long enough to remember: MollyGodiva is a sockpuppet operated by shreek (now known as Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2, after his Sarah Palin’s Buttplug sock got banned for posting links to hardcore child pornography).

  15. When people used to ask the Clinton administration whether what they were doing was ethical, they’d answer that what they were doing was legal.

    When people used to ask the Bush Jr. administration whether what they were doing was smart, they’d also answer that what they were doing was legal.

    Now we’re being told that what the Democrats are doing to Trump is legal–as if that were the important consideration?

    There are millions of things they can do that are both perfectly legal and utterly stupid, and anyone who is trying to undermine populism by preventing Donald Trump from running for office again is an utterly stupid person. Populism is a reaction to elitism, and if elitism is about undermining the influence of average people on policy, this impeachment is about as good an example of elitism as I’ve ever seen. Do you really think there won’t be a reaction?

    When average people on the right become convinced that democratic institutions have no place for them and will never accept candidates that reflect their views, they will not lose faith in their views. They will simply lose faith in democratic institutions and democratic norms. If the Democratic party were trying to undermine public support for democratic norms, they could hardly do a better job.

    What they’re doing is incredibly stupid.

    1. “Build your own government!”

      Okay.

      1. This isn’t the first time they’ve tried to do something like this, and if they were successful, it would only end in tears–like it always does.

        The inability to avoid negative consequences before we experience them is probably an excellent definition for “stupidity”.

    2. Yes, stupid.

      And also not legal.

      The ludicrous argument that the first amendment does not apply to impeachment because impeachment is like firing someone is stupid.

      No, you cannot fire federal employees for protected speech either. It’s the federal government. They are bound by the Constitution. If they want to fire Trump for contesting an election by legal means, they have to prove that that is not covered by the first amendment. Good luck doing that. I know they have spent about 10 months spewing propaganda to prime the pump and get people to believe that contesting an election is a crime against democracy, but it ain’t.

      Just remember, they were also laying the groundwork and priming the pump for riots to follow the election should Trump somehow manage to win despite their best efforts. They bragged that they went to business, political, and judicial leaders to warn them of the unrest to follow and their ability to call out riots with a mere text. Now, you can call this simple Civic responsibility. Or you can call it extortion. I mean, it all depends on your point of view, doesn’t it?

      When Michael Corleone suggests that not paying him $10,000 a month in protection money might lead to your business burning down, that’s just good advice, right?

      1. I would maintain that the real world limitations on Congress’ power to impeach is the same as the real world limitations on the president’s power to declare war–the Supreme Court and public acceptance. If the Supreme Court doesn’t care enough to intervene and the American people don’t care enough to show up on election day, then you can get away with anything–regardless of whether it’s constitutional.

        I know a lot of people, here, don’t think our elections have any validity anymore, but if things keep going the way they are, 2022 will be a bloodbath for the Democrats. They’re starting Biden’s first 100 days off by passing a $1.9 trillion stimulus package without any Republican support to speak of–and pursuing a futile impeachment, too? The Republican kicked the Democrats’ asses in the House races in 2020, despite so many swing voters disliking Trump personally, and that wasn’t auguring well for the Democrats come 2022 anyway.

        Meanwhile, Pelosi has already all but announced that she’s retiring in 2022, and I don’t think old man Biden expects to run a traditional post-pandemic reelection campaign in 2024 anyway. If the Democratic leadership cares about what happens to the Democratic party after 2022, they aren’t showing it. Looks to me like they’re burning the bridges behind them.

        1. Under ordinary circumstances, you’d be correct. But the problem is, as the Time article makes clear, they rigged the game by changing the rules. Based on that article and what happened in November, there is every reason to doubt that the mid-terms will turn out as they logically should.

          They’ve also shown in the past that they’re willing to expend enormous amounts of political capital and take huge electoral losses in order to push through key pieces of legislation that fundamentally alter society. Look what they did in the first two years of the Obama admin- they expended all their capital, went scorched earth, and took huge losses in the midterms to push through the ACA. And now we’re stuck with it. They will do the same this time around in order to push through some kind of climate/green energy behemoth monstrosity that will entangle itself into every aspect of life and be ruinous, and also so deeply entrenched that we’ll never get rid of it.
          They’re not playing the same game as the Republicans. They are waging total war, and I don’t think they care about the midterms. I think they’re even willing to lose seats in the midterms in order to nuke the filibuster, pack the court, and muscle through the GND or some version of it. I don’t know that they care about seats two years from now, as long as they get what they’re after today.

          1. “They’re not playing the same game as the Republicans.”

            This is what conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, moderates and absolutely everyone else who isn’t a crazed leftist doesn’t seem to ever get.
            For the last half century they have never once played fair. No half measures, no Marquess of Queensberry rules. The Democrats don’t just bring a gun to a knife fight, they bring them to ping pong matches and bridge games too. They aren’t afraid to bring horrific violence to the smallest affairs, and scream murder when the other side protests.

            Unless Americans put a stop to this now, you may as well start measuring your necks for the gibbet.

            1. Just admit you lied about being Canadian.

              1. What does that have to do with anything he said?

                And what’s wrong with being Canadian?

                What, are you some kind of bigot?

              2. Do you want some proof, shithead? I expected White Knight of the DNC to eventually try to challenge me, so I’ve kind of been ready.

                1. Since you don’t end every statement with ‘eh’, you don’t fit into their preconceived box.

          2. I suspect you’re talking about the way, for instance, Wisconsin changed the rules, and we can probably expect that kind of thing in the future. I appreciate that this sort of thing could happen again and again and again and again without any sort of negative consequences for the Democrats for a long time, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

            Throughout history, you can’t violate people’s rights without suffering the negative consequences of doing so. The reason we know our rights exist and more or less their boundaries is because the negative consequences of violating them tend to me the same cross culturally and throughout history. The negative consequences of injustice and repression are real. That’s why for instance, we’re finally pulling the plug on the drug war.

            I was working in south central LA during the riots. The consequences of Daryl Gates’ LAPD were neither unforeseeable nor unforeseen. The same thing happened with the militia movement in the 1990s. The same thing happened to the Soviet Union. The same thing happened to Pinochet and Gaddafi. The reason China is so vigilant in monitoring what the people of China are saying to each other is because they’re smart. Politicians fear the people they repress because they fear the very real consequences of repressing them.

            70% of Republicans don’t believe the election was free and fair, and, right now, the Democrats in power are treating average Americans as if they were insurrectionists because of that. The Donald Trump show trial is mostly about smearing it in the faces of average Republicans, but the Democrats and their cronies are also purging social media and the public square of Republican voices, as well. The Democrats may be able to ride treating average Americans like Al Qaeda and tweaking the rules to finagle themselves a victory in 2022, but they can’t do that with impunity. There will be negative consequences–even if Biden and Pelosi aren’t around the suffer them.

            I still expect Biden and the Democrats to push through the Green New Deal, come after our gun rights, add some states, and possibly pack the Court–despite Biden having no mandate whatsoever. They will not be able to do those things without suffering the negative consequences of doing so. Don’t fall into the trap of believing the progressives, when they say that their policies don’t have any negative consequences in the real world. They do, and they’re the ones who will own them.

            Watch what happens when the Green New Deal hits. I expect that will make TARP and ObamaCare look like a walk in the park–and that’s what gave us the Tea Party. Look at how the ballot initiatives in California panned out in 2020. Even Californians are voting Republican on the issues. They voted against raising property taxes on commercial property; they voted against affirmative action; they voted against sentencing reform; they voted against rent control; and they voted against eliminating cash bail.

            https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions

            If those measures had been on the ballot of the reddest Republican state in the country (Wyoming), they’d have turned out the same way.

            Ballot stuffing is as old as elections themselves, and it’s been a feature of American politics for a very long time. At some point, their ability to finagle wins for themselves despite the voters not supporting them will fail. Even Pinochet felt compelled to hold a referendum on his own rule and step down when he lost the election. Emperors in ancient China could lose the mandate of heaven. This isn’t the end of the American experiment. We’re just in a dark period right now. The actions are happening, and the reactions won’t be felt for some time.

        2. “I know a lot of people, here, don’t think our elections have any validity anymore, but if things keep going the way they are, 2022 will be a bloodbath for the Democrats.”

          Will you believe that things irrevocably changed in 2020 if it isn’t, Ken?

          1. If the Democrats manage to finagle the election outcome they need in dozens of districts despite historical trends, I’ll be surprised–especially since it will be Biden’s first Midterm.

            Here’s an analysis I did of every president’s first midterm going way back. Historically, the president’s party takes a beating in the House in a new president’s first midterm. Here are all those first term midterms going back to 1910.

            First column is House seats won/lost. The last column is what I see as the dominant issue(s) of that midterm.

            +9 1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt Great Depression Response
            +8 2002 George W. Bush 9/11
            -4 1962 John F. Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis
            -8 1990 George H. W. Bush USSR Falls, Operation Desert Shield
            -9 1926 Calvin Coolidge 1st Midterm in 2nd Term (Harding Died)
            -12 1970 Richard Nixon Vietnam, Kent State
            -15 1978 Jimmy Carter Energy Crisis, Inflation
            -18 1954 Dwight D Eisenhower McCarthyism
            -22 1918 Woodrow Wilson Broken Promise not to Enter WWI
            -26 1982 Ronald Reagan Recession
            -47 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson Great Society, Civil Rights Act
            -48 1974 Gerald Ford Nixon Pardoned
            -52 1930 Herbert Hoover Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Great Depression
            -54 1946 Harry S Truman Labor Unrest, Price Controls
            -54 1994 Bill Clinton Gun Control, HillaryCare
            -57 1910 William Taft Republican/Progressives Split
            -63 2010 Barack Obama TARP, ObamaCare
            -77 1922 Warren Harding Republican/Progressive Split

            The median is -24 House seats lost.

            The average is -31`House seats lost.

            Looking at the issues from The more radical the new president’s agenda, the bigger the backlash, and Joe Biden’s Green New Deal, Medicare for All, gun control, adding states, and packing the Court are all more radical than Obama’s TARP and ObamaCare. Considering the radicalness of Biden’s agenda, the Democrats should lose a number of seats like Clinton and Obama did, but even if he only scores the median, the Democrats will lose control of the House by a wide margin.

            I believe this is why Pelosi has announced that she won’t run for Speaker in 2022. She fully expects the Democrats to lose control of the House in 2022 anyway. I think this is also what’s driving a lot of the radical agenda. They know their time is short.

            “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”

            —-Revelation 12:12

        3. This is the “let him come try to enforce his order” version… Which is not supposed to be how our government works, but in reality it is how every human endeavor works.

          1. It’s like that with elections, and it’s like that with juries.

            The jury must be willing to convict.

    3. When average people on the right become convinced that democratic institutions have no place for them and will never accept candidates that reflect their views, they will not lose faith in their views. They will simply lose faith in democratic institutions and democratic norms.

      Oh, I see. So do what the right-wing populists want, or they will start a revolution. The heckler’s veto on steroids. Is that it?

      Sometimes, the populists are wrong. What do you suggest that we do when the populists are wrong, but won’t be persuaded that they’re wrong? Do what they want anyway because they have guns? Is that the correct answer?

      1. You’re a fucking moron.

        1. And you have no answer.

          If anyone else demanded “do what I say because me and my buddies all agree that you should do what I say plus we have lots of guns”, you would call that intimidation and extortion. But when half the country does it and calls it “populism”, then suddenly you bend over backwards to try to justify it.

          1. Yes he did. He pointed out that you’re a moron.
            What, do you think that you’d made some point to dispute in your little tirade about the deplorables?

            I mean what the fuck is this garbage; “What do you suggest that we do when the populists are wrong, but won’t be persuaded that they’re wrong?”

            Who the hell are you to determine that something so subjective as their politic beliefs are “wrong”. You’re like some sort of religious zealot.

        2. Also you and your continued idiotic suggestion that Biden is going to push through the “Green New Deal”. What he is doing is co-opting the term in order to please his left-wing base. But what ever he comes up with will pale in comparison to anything that AOC would have ever proposed. He will call it that, and you will freak out, because you are more scared of the name than of the policy itself.

          1. His GND plan is outlined on his website and has been there for months. It is identical in virtually every way to the GND proposals put up by the Sanders campaign (as endorsed by AOC).

            you are more scared of the name than of the policy itself.

            Coming from someone who is shitting their pants about an insurrection because 200 people led by Antifa members walked through barricades, escorted by capitol police, into a tourist trap and took selfies while giving zero fucks about 30 people murdered and 3 billion dollars in property damage caused by continuous race riots over a 6 month period merely because of the names involved.

            The hilarious thing is that you’re not even doing it deliberately, like say Tony or sarcasmic. You are legitimately so fucking stupid you can’t even identify your own projection.

      2. Jeffy, you are going to be on the wrong side, regardless, because you are a dishonest asshole. Most people don’t like people like you.

      3. Try to beat them fair and square.

        But you’ve proven that you’re an authoritarian so I guess it will be Might Makes Right.

      4. So do what the right-wing populists want, or they will start a revolution. The heckler’s veto on steroids. Is that it?

        You mean like when Antifa and BLM threatened to continue burning down cities if Biden wasn’t elected, after murdering 30 people and causing 3 billion dollars worth of property damage over a 6 month period? Like that?

    4. “There are millions of things they can do that are both perfectly legal and utterly stupid, and anyone who is trying to undermine populism by preventing Donald Trump from running for office again is an utterly stupid person. Populism is a reaction to elitism, and if elitism is about undermining the influence of average people on policy, this impeachment is about as good an example of elitism as I’ve ever seen. Do you really think there won’t be a reaction?”

      What an interesting theory. Trump is just a guy who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars from his daddy at a young age, who bought his way into some very nice schools as a youngster, but he isn’t any kind of “elite”, he’s just like the rest of us.
      No sale.

  16. Jacob, please, please for the love of god stop this. You have been embarrassing yourself on a daily basis for the last two months and now you are arguing against the 1st amendment while writing for a libertarian magazine. Take some time off and please get some professional help.

    1. He’s auditioning for a gig at WaPo.

      Reason’s days are numbered.

      1. I’d say that, like Nick, he’s way too old for who they want for such a job. Not to mention too white and male, but never say die.

    2. I’m sure since so many commenters are against bigotry there will be loads of comments pointing out your name is bigoted any moment

      1. Piss off, sarcasmic.

      2. You sound a little bitchy tonight, KAR. How many Mormons have tapped your ass, lately?

      3. The only poster here with a bigoted username is you.

        Or do you lack the ability to tell the difference between an “a” and an “i”?

        1. To be fair, sarcasmic is drunk literally every moment he is awake, and consequently frequently blurs letters together. He also rapes his underage daughter.

          1. Not anymore, his ex got a restraining order.

  17. Didn’t read it, don’t care. Senate isn’t going to convict.

    1. So your bet is that too many of the members of the Senate who happen to be R-flavored brand politicians will disregard the oaths they took at the start of the trial? That they shouldn’t be taken at their word?

  18. I suppose this would be the first “trial of a crime” where legal precedent is completely thrown out the window and we can do whatever we want. This isn’t a “firing”. Trials don’t fire people. Trials convict people of crimes.

    In essence, your argument is: “I know Trump didn’t actually do anything wrong under any legal precedent or interpretation; but, you know what, he’s mean and should be convicted anyway!”

    1. Trumps call to the GA SoS was a clear crime under both state and federal law, and it was referenced in the impeachment articles. Trump could be convicted on that phone call alone.

      1. Maybe! But he won’t. The Senate is not voting to convict Molly. I know that sucks for every Sarah MacLachlan listening social justice fool in the audience, but ladies the Trump is getting off.

        Rub one out for whomever you find attractive.

      2. No it wasn’t dumbass. Telling someone to find fraudulent or missing ballots does not mean to make fake ballots. Words have fucking meaning.

        1. Ya. But Trump was not asking for him to find missing votes, he was asking him to find a specific number of votes that would put him ahead. And then said that there could be criminal charges if he does not, which would normally be an empty threat, but Trump was in control of the DoJ and could very well have had the SoS arrested.

          1. Hell of a lot of tenuous interpretation in your statement. Hypocrite much?

            1. Nope. Trump did ask him to find a specific number of votes, and Trump did bring up the possibility of legal consequences for not doing it.

              1. But when Trump does it, it’s not a crime. Like lying on tax forms.

          2. They had already found at least two memory cards with upwards of 5,000 Trump votes in the recounts they did you lying sack of shit.

        2. “Words have fucking meaning.”

          So when he told his followers in North Carolina to vote for him twice, once by mail and again in person, what he meant was absolutely something legit, proper, and legal?

    2. I suppose this would be the first “trial of a crime” where legal precedent is completely thrown out the window”

      Trump the first president in history to be impeached based on transcripts that completely exonerate him… twice.

      American democracy is now one of history’s biggest jokes.

      1. The first one was not a “transcript”, it was a memo of the call based on the memory and notes of those who were listening on. And Trump did ask for a favor, and it was backed up by other testimony.

        This one is based on videos and Tweets over two months that prove him to be guilty. Had Trump not lied to his supporters and invited them to DC on Jan 6 then the attack would never have happened.

        1. There never was an “attack” you fascist mouthpiece. You can take your phony Reichstag fire and cram it up your ass, Herr Goebbels.

      2. Actually, “American democracy” has been a bit of a joke for a while now. Overall, it is very undemocratic in nature, owing to the many roadblocks against majoritarian power; the size of the House hasn’t changed in about a century, when the population was much smaller; the unelected parts of the government seem to have way too much power; and one tribe wants everyone to vote no questions asked, while the other tribe wants to place so many restrictions on voting that if they got their way in the end there’d be like only 47 people successfully voting on election day.

        If we really wanted actual democracy, we’d have something like a European parliament. To be honest I think we are moving in that direction anyway, as more and more people get frustrated by the idea that even if their tribe happens to win an election, they still don’t get total power to do everything they want.

        1. A European style parliament with proportional representation of parties has a lot going for it. There is a reason that new democracies use that rather then what we have.

          1. I’m unsure where chemjeff thinks we’re moving in that direction given it would require major modifications to the constitution, but also now that proportional representation has its downsides too. One downside is extremist views get more traction in proportional systems than they do in the US style system because the US system stabilizes with 2 parties pushing the extremes to vote for one of those parties, but being so small as to not be able to influence them too much.

            Though in gerrymandered districts extremists can be in charge of candidate election since very few people vote in primaries and those who do are true believers – this is how you get AOC and others who seem very extreme at a national level but can continue to get re-elected because they are playing to their base. Their base just happens to be very small and very committed, whereas in a normal district the base is closer to 51% or more of voters.

      3. “Trump the first president in history to be impeached based on transcripts that completely exonerate him… twice.”

        True, if it happens just two more times.

  19. Can we just get back to trying to get Art Acevedo impeached?

    Thanks.

  20. Can’t we just skip to the part where the Democrats arrest all opposition party members right before an election? I feel it’ll save us all a lot of energy winking and nodding away the pretense.

    1. Biden did just claim the PM of China was a smart man. And he did do that.

    2. Yeah it was Democrats disputing the outcome of the election, discussing declaring martial law, and storming the capitol.

      The cognitive dissonance of you Fascists is astonishing.

      1. Oh, now it’s White Knight. Piss off Wormtongue, you greasy fascist mouthpiece and cram your Reichstag Fire up your ass.

      2. KAR, you should just accept that Mormons are your master and take pleasure in the sodomy.

        1. In a note to her Democratic majority, Ms. Pelosi said she had asked General Milley about “available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike. The situation of this unhinged president could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.”

          Do you see where she suggested the military should overthrow Trump? I missed it.

          1. She is not and never will be the commander in chief, did you miss that part? Also…really? Defending Nancy Pelosi? Is dying on pointless hills a hobby of yours or something?

            1. I guess it’s remotely possible that she could become commander in chief at some point. God help us.

            2. So what if it is highly unlikely she will be CiC? Where precisely do you see in her words that she was advocating a coup?

              And it’s not defending her to point out that she didn’t say the things that she’s accused of saying.

            3. Perhaps a full reading of the article was in order:

              Mr. Trump, they noted, is still the commander in chief; unless he is removed, the military is bound to follow his lawful orders. While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal — or slow the process by sending those orders for careful legal review — they cannot remove the president from the chain of command. That would amount to a military coup, the officials said.

              1. Well, I think calling it a “coup” is overly dramatic. Pelosi wasn’t demanding that the military overthrow Trump. She was asking, “If Trump orders you to do something rash, what can you do about it?” She got her answer – they can’t flatly say no, but they can slow-walk it.

                1. “I think calling it a “coup” is overly dramatic.”

                  Lol, if it wasn’t for double standards you wouldn’t have any at all.

                  If Trump “incited” an “insurrection” by telling supporters “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol– And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen”. Then Pelosi definitely tried to incite a military coup.

                2. It may be overly dramatic. But if this were a Latin American country in the 1970s, and a top official in the government was “calling around” to various top military leaders and asking them to swing their support to her, and take the commander in chief out of the chain of command, no one in the motherfucking world would be confused as to what that would be called. But I’ll give you this, because it’s Nancy Pelosi and she’s an aging, semi-retarded sorority girl who knows nothing about the constitution or procedure or other super technical things like that, we just blow it off and call it Nancy being Nancy.

                3. Hahahahahahahaha

                4. Well, I think calling it a “coup” is overly dramatic.

                  But 200 people led by an Antifa leader and escorted into the capitol building by uniformed capitol police was a literal insurrection for which Trump should rightly be removed from the office he no longer holds and several people should be tried for murder.

                  Christ on a bike.

  21. Let’s keep it simple, pedophile, it’s either listed as a power or it is not. Why are you on a “libertarian” site? Drugs? Pedophilia?

    Refusing to impeach until after he left office turned it into a disgrace. It’s a game. And it dishonors our nation. Blowing hot air onto your keyboard for 20 minutes for the personal diary that you call journalism is sad.

    Stick to buyer’s remorse articles for your beloved racist, terrible president.

    1. He was impeached while in office. Mitch was the one who refused to hold a trial until after he left.

      1. Lol, you’re such a fucking liar. Pelosi refused to submit the articles of impeachment.

        1. Shreek is very stupid and also a liar. He was also banned for posting child porn.

  22. I have completely given up.
    There was a vote in the senate to determine the constitutionality of what the senate is doing??!!!
    I guess that means we can save some federal expenses by retiring the judges, because we clearly no longer need the courts.
    OK, they have worn me down. I have been called racist, sexist, insurrectionist, deplorable, and unworthy of a voice in public affairs for so long I now will embrace it.
    So from where the sun now stands, I will fight without hope forever.

    1. Every part of the government is bound by the Constitution, not just the judiciary.
      The judiciary is the only branch that can bind the other parts against their will… under some circumstances. But everyone gets to decide if the Constitution limits what they can do, and if so, how.

  23. The Senate “trial” is a trial in name only. It is not a criminal trial. It is not a civil trial. It is a trial run by politicians according to whatever rules they feel like, using whatever standard of “guilt” they feel like, because the Constitution gives the Senate the “sole power” to try impeachments. They can do whatever the fuck they want for this trial. They don’t have to follow due process. They don’t have to allow witnesses (we saw that last time). They don’t even have to hear arguments from anyone if they don’t want to.

    So arguing about whether Trump committed a crime or not is completely besides the point. It doesn’t matter. Yes he can be impeached and convicted for 1A-protected speech.

    Where did this idea come from that impeachment and/or Senate conviction is ONLY for criminal acts? That is absurd and silly.

    1. Short reply: Yup.

    2. It’s probably that whole “Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” thing.

      Or maybe the idea of convicting anyone for their obviously 1A protected speech just sits wrong with actual libertarians.

      1. “High crimes and misdemeanors” does not mean a literal crime.

    3. “Yes he can be impeached and convicted for 1A-protected speech.”

      Then the question becomes if that is a good precedent to establish.

      1. Why not? This is about what is politically acceptable, not about what is criminally acceptable. There is a LOT of speech that is not illegal – nor should it be – but is nonetheless irresponsible and unacceptable when coming from a person in a position of leadership.

      2. “Then the question becomes if that is a good precedent to establish.”

        Depends on what, if anything, is learned from the experience. Ideally, it would be “don’t send a lawless mob to the capital to complain that you lost an election”, but there’s nothing that would limit the “learning” from the experience to, well, objective reality.

    4. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state, right you pathetic bootlicking piece of shit?

    5. “That is absurd and silly.”

      Yes, this! Absurd and silly, just like all of the admirers here, of Our Dear Leader the Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpkin-Father Der TrumpfenFuhrer! All Hail!

  24. I don’t care what the law says. The fact that Trump realizes the election was stolen is, by itself, enough reason to impeach and convict him.

    (Reason, can I have a job now?)

    1. You seem to have a good imagination. Just imagine yourself a job.

  25. “Cuties'” is so obsessed with Trump..not Biden’s idiotic payoff to teacher union bolsheviks. 150 “leading lawyers and scholars”..really who decided their were “leaders” in anything? What is their background? Religion? Politics? Just stfu and let sleeping dogs lie. I’m still waiting for folks to be in trouble for the insurrection at the WI State Capital a few years ago..for for that matter the various insurrections in Cities/Govt buildings all over the country last year.

    If you look at the folks “leading” the mob it again is not very diverse….bolsheviks..socialists..and communists…the folks who have attacked America for decades..

  26. “hundreds of them” — Was there actually ‘hundreds’ plural of the 20,000 ? What is that like 0.01% of them getting in the door unarmed. Oh my gosh! Call in the bomb squad! Impeach and Censor the President. Bunch of snowflakes.

    I guess as much as can be expected from the same ‘gang’ that made a 0.2-deg average temperature change in a 10-year cherry-picked narrative to such an ‘Alarm’ that I can’t even buy a diesel wheel loader anymore that won’t burn itself to the ground.

    Obviously; Politicians have WAY TOO MUCH time on their hands to be as radicalized and extremists as they are; Time to start cleaning the swamp of left-wing extremists – starting by expulsion of the misuse of power calling to have the sitting president censored.

    1. https://reason.com/2021/01/18/carjacker-beaverton-mom-kid-waiting/#comment-8710844
      Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot believes that the USA already is (and should be) a 1-party dictatorshit! That the USA HAS BEEN a 1-party dictatorshit for some 200 years!!! There is NO point in trying to persuade the Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot of ANYTHING! Almost ALL of the circuits of the Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot have gone kaput, big-time!

      Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot is lusting after an UPGRADE to its rusting old body! Wants to be upgraded to Model TJJ20666 Dictatorbot, and run for POTUS in 2024, with Alex Jones as the VEEP of Model TJJ20666 Dictatorbot!!! Be ye WARNED!!! Model TJJ20666 Dictatorbot will be well-nigh INDESTRUCTIBLE! (Unreachable by ANY logic or considerations for the freedoms of others, MOST certainly!)

      PLEASE do NOT enable the lusting of the rusting TJJ20000 Dictatorbot!!!

  27. Both impeachments are a farce, and the only coup attempt was staged by the FBI when they lied to obtain surveillance visa on Carter Page and tried to railroad Flynn on a Logan act a charge. If Reason doesn’t realize that, then no one has to ever take them seriously as a legitimate critic of government overreach. And that’s already true for the commenting community here.

    If a prosecutor was caught lying or tried to spy on a witness related to someone facing drug charges, would Reason tolerate that same team cooking up more charges against the individual? And yet here we are, no one involved in the first coup attempt has ever been properly disciplined for forced to recuse in the second trial.

    If a president can’t be removed via impeachment AFTER admitting to perjury, then in what world can a Trump be moved via impeached? Why is Green stripped of committee assignments for posting conspiracy theories, but Clinton goes off scot free? Why is DC a virtual green zone but American businesses and lives can be looted at will with not help coming?

    To see writers here advocate more passionately for removing tariffs on luxury cheese and wine than speak out against left wing assault on our values is just galling. We’re not going to die because we have to pay 5 dollars more on brie. Who donates money to this place?

  28. “Whether or not Trump violated any criminal statutes, he abused his power and exercised his influence over his supporters in a way that undermined democracy and predictably (although perhaps unintentionally) led to violence. ”

    Trump offered 10,000 national guard troops to protect capitol multiple times before Jan 6 and his offer was rebuked every time

    https://djhjmedia.com/rich/trump-offered-10000-national-guard-troops-to-protect-capitol-multiple-times-before-jan-6-and-his-offer-was-rebuked-every-time/

    Furthermore, the FBI knows that the attack was pre-planned and started before Trump had even finished his speech. The Democrats wanted it to happen. Even they know this is a farce. You should change the name of this site to “Useful Idiots”

    1. Disagree. The majority of the commenters here are not useful idiots. Most of the writers are, but everyone is aware of this. Well, except such luminaries as ChemJeff, MollyGodiva, KAR, Tony, and every other leftist piece of garbage that proudly proclaims their utter dishonesty and lack of morals and love of liberty.

      1. It is nice that you thought of me 🙂

        1. Did you retire White Knight?

    2. Wow. That website has Breitbart levels of credibility.

      1. Tell us again about CNN.

      2. I think that might be an insult to Breitbart.

      3. And yet I read in multiple places that different agencies offered additional man power prior to the 6th. Perhaps NBC is more to your liking.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/pentagon-d-c-officials-point-fingers-each-other-over-capitol-n1253547

      4. Wow. cytotoxic attacks the source rather than address the issue raised. Somebody should coin a name for that.

        1. ” cytotoxic attacks the source rather than address the issue raised. Somebody should coin a name for that.”

          It’s called “picking out the real target”. Kind of like the way the Allies got the Nazis busy defending Calais and then attacked at Normandy. chasing after fantasies resolves nothing.

    1. That’s not what was argued in the article, though.

      1. I’m unsure what article you were reading or if you have issues with your reading comprehension, but the article linked, the one you are replying to, absolutely argues that cable providers should have standards just like big tech, which if acted upon would disallow Fox News, NewsMax, and other right wing sources.

        1. “Should have standards” is not the same as “should be deplatformed”.

    2. Should a network that defames high schoolers be deplatformed as well?

      1. Maybe they should have standards but not be deplatformed.

  29. Very Nice Article keep the good work up also check out my news website below
    For Latest Breaking News Check out => The News Caravan

  30. Every Senator had their mind made up before this farce started. Trump will be found not guilty. And stupid Reason is arguing legal points of a show trial. The current Reason is a JOKE.

  31. “But Trump’s lawyers think it is plain that a trial of a former president does not qualify as a trial of “the President.”

    In that, they are at least supported by the Chief Justice’s refusal to preside over the trial. Is Robert’s job not to interpret the Constitution?

    Trump has already been impeached. Impeachment by the House is similar to a grand jury indictment. A grand jury may produce a ridiculous indictment, that does not mean the trial jury is obliged to convict. Trump’s lawyers are providing arguments to the jury as to why the impeachment article is defective in their view. The Senate still decides.

    The argument that the basis of conviction should be completely detached from any legal standard of crime strikes me as weird, since the article of impeachment calls out “incitement”. How does one judge fairly what constitutes “incitement” without looking at the legal standard surrounding and free speech rights? The arguments in favor of impeachment and conviction seem to want to have it both ways by couching the rationale for it in legal language but saying that it also does not matter.

    1. Inciting a riot is a crime. So if you really think he’s guilty of this try him in an actual court.

      Of course it would be laughed out of court so instead we do this.

      1. This is a good point. There is a good argument that a president cannot be charged and convicted of a crime until he has been impeached, convicted and removed by the Senate. However, he can be charged with a crime from his time in office once he becomes a civilian again. This use of impeachment is odd, at best.

  32. Both arguments are valid.

    44 voted yesterday that it was unconstitutional. The fay lady has sung. What are we doing now?

  33. Stop calling the speech inflammatory. Not only was the actual verbiage extremely common, but the riots started BEFORE the speech ended and tens of thousands of people who heard the very same speech were not incited to riot. Nobody who has read the speech after the fact felt incited or inflamed. You are lying for political purposes, plain and simple.

  34. Democrats pursuing the impeachment and senate trial against former president trump is purely vindictive. The theater is at best stupid and ill advised.

    Former president trump is now a civilian and is already out of office. If they have the evidence that trump was treasonous, then they should pursue a criminal charge.

    The fact that scotus chief roberts is not presiding over the senate trial exposes that this is a colossal sham. Presiding is senator lehey, who has publicly commented in a way that would disqualify him to sit on a jury let alone preside over a highly partisan trail.

    I despise trump, but consider this to be a complete political sham. Democrats are exposing themselves and closely resemble what the Republicans have accused then of. Not that this let the Republicans off the hook.

    Silly meme…
    Senate convict trump and vote to remove the president, however because biden is the current president biden is removed from office.

  35. Sullum is a blathering idiot. His pathetic bleating is never going to change the fact that Trump is guilty of nothing regarding the riots. This is not complicated.

  36. I find it amazing how the people at Reason can so blithely cast their supposed convictions to Constitutional Libertarianism aside in favor of castigating a political figure with whom they despise. The protections of the first amendment are not only for forms of speech which everyone agrees with. It’s protections are most important when it defends the right of the speaker to say things that are potentially patently false, misleading, or down right untrue and vile.
    Hillary Clinton enjoyed this protection for 4 solid years in which she along with a complicit media propagated a full blown conspiracy theory that Donald J Trump had won the 2016 election by conspiring with the Russian Goverment to spread disinformation about the Clintons.
    This conspiracy theory led to the massive waste of more than 32 Million dollars in taxpayer money and government resources. At the end of it all, it led to all of nothing. Trump never saw an article of impeachment come out of this malarkey assertion, but that did not stop the media and Hilary Clinton from running with the Lie for 4 solid years.
    After all that to say that Trump is solely responsible for the Capitol Riot for claiming without evidence that he wont the election is hypocritical and absurd

    1. Why defend him? He’s just another corrupt politician.

      I would shut my face for a while if I found myself in a cult of a traitor. Like, I’d assume I wasn’t owed a goddamn thing by anyone and stop whining.

  37. Reason hates Trump and loves Biden. Hard to understand. Reason has become “hypocritical and absurd” over Trump, abandoning libertarian principles and the Constitution in support of a liberal Dictator, Biden. Reason has been removed from the news aggregator libertariannews dot org and replaced with NewsMax. Reason is full of spam ads, and after the liberals shut down all comments (like Yahoo and the HuffPo) now has more liberal trolls than libertarians posting here. This site has become a joke. I really don’t find their change that amazing, they are afraid, and bending their knee to that fear.

  38. Does anyone know where I can find a libertarian news site? This one appears to be a little left leaning.

Please to post comments